Inevitable
John Howard wants a "debate" on nuclear power. He believes that while the majority of the populace is against it he sees nuclear power as inevitable and thinks Australia should have it any way.
Given the rise of homosexual equal rights and the growing support it has in main stream society I think it's safe to say that gay marriages are inevitable as well. Sooner or later conservative governments will be out of power and the radicals in and then, well, it only takes one term of government and bam, gay marriages.
He's resistiance is laughable. "Society isn't ready for it." Gays want it, some straights support it. Most people don't care if gays get married. The only ones actually opposed to it are the conservative/religious right.
Marriage, as John Howard has said is a religious institution of man and woman. Religious? which religion. Christians get married, Jews get married, Musliums get married, hell even scientologists get married. Actually come to think of it even atheists get married, so long as they're man and woman.
If atheists can get married, and you don't need a holoy person any more as we have legal celebrants who need not have religious ties, then it's not a religious union. (Okay atheism is a religious stance, but not a religion.)
So marriage is now just a institution between man and woman. Hmm, smacks of discrimination there. John Howard's lastest quote "he wants to get rid of any areas of genuine discrimination against homosexuals."
Grow a brain cell Howard
Given the rise of homosexual equal rights and the growing support it has in main stream society I think it's safe to say that gay marriages are inevitable as well. Sooner or later conservative governments will be out of power and the radicals in and then, well, it only takes one term of government and bam, gay marriages.
He's resistiance is laughable. "Society isn't ready for it." Gays want it, some straights support it. Most people don't care if gays get married. The only ones actually opposed to it are the conservative/religious right.
Marriage, as John Howard has said is a religious institution of man and woman. Religious? which religion. Christians get married, Jews get married, Musliums get married, hell even scientologists get married. Actually come to think of it even atheists get married, so long as they're man and woman.
If atheists can get married, and you don't need a holoy person any more as we have legal celebrants who need not have religious ties, then it's not a religious union. (Okay atheism is a religious stance, but not a religion.)
So marriage is now just a institution between man and woman. Hmm, smacks of discrimination there. John Howard's lastest quote "he wants to get rid of any areas of genuine discrimination against homosexuals."
Grow a brain cell Howard
posted by Renegade79 at 9:39 am
29 Comments:
I can understand being opposed to discrimination while still opposing gay marriage. The reasoning is simple: someone being gay doesn't give someone who's not the right to bash up the gay person.
But simultaneously, someone being gay doesn't necessarily give them the right to raise children and re-invent the fabric of society. The implications of permitting gay marriage are huge when you start to get into the nuts and bolts of it.
If I'd been raised by gay parents I know I'd be messed up. And I think most heterosexual Australians would agree with me, not to mention those sociologists and psychologists who recognise the uniqueness of men and women and the need of children to develop under the influence of both of them.
But at the same time, I can see your point, Nat. Marriage, though Judeo-Christian in its origins, is not a particularly religious thing in today's society. So John Howard has no strong defence for his stance because he's trying to apply a Christian understanding of marriage to society, without actually defending a Christian worldview.
So you're probably right about gay marriage in Australia being inevitable.
Obviously I don't think that's a good thing but I won't go there this time ...
The question on child rearing is a different, but much more interesting debate. I see your point on that issue, but if I don't support one form of discrimination then I can't support another.
However Marriage does not equal child rearing. While children are considered ot be the natural result of a marriage, they are optional as many hetrosexual couples marry and never produce children. We have a growing number of single parents in todays soceity, a large percent a result of accident or divorce true, but many choose to be single parents (whether because they want a child or for the money the government gives them, you decide).
Marriage is merely two people (or more depending on the religion) who vowed to be with each other until yadda yadda yadda. Society honours these commitments with giving these partners certain legal rights. It is discrimination not to afford these rights to people who happen to be of the same sex.
"give them the right to raise children and re-invent the fabric of society."
The fabric of society is being constantly reinvented, and legislation has little to do with it. The "traditional" family as we know it (and you idolise it) is only a product of the last major reinvention of societies fabric - in the post world war era.
"If I'd been raised by gay parents I know I'd be messed up."
Really? So can I have a peak into this crystal ball that allows you to see into alternate realities? Are you saying that you are so sure that the people raising you would have done a bad job?
"uniqueness of men and women and the need of children to develop under the influence of both of them."
Well, I feel insulted that being raised by my mum, aunt and grandmother, without a male in my immediate family, means that what? I am messed up? An aberration to our societal values? UnAustralian?
For my two cents, the government should stay out of regulating social interactions beyond criminal punishment, and even then treating everybody as equal before the law. Regardless of race, gender or any other factor.
Look at that again: Regardless of gender.
I know I do not want, and have no ethical right to enforce my world-view on others. Maybe you should live and let live.
Everybody should be able to get married to whomever they love. And not be given an arbitary name like "civil union", even if this entails exactly the same rights as marrage. That is still "different treatment", i.e. discrimination.
If you look at it from another angle, you see that marrages are happening in all but name and legal status. So, in fact, gay people are living with less inherint rights that straight people in similar circumstances. Proposing that this 'alright mate' is giving birth to the new form of descrimination. Descrimination by pretty words like 'civil union' and sticking our heads in the sand.
But thats alright, they are only gay people, after all. Not like they are proper people after all. Not like if we let the minority be oppressed that we will not end up oppressed ourselves one day.
And remember to keep children away from them, lest they catch gay germs.
I'll weigh in here too.
Who says that two parents, one male one female, can rise a child any better than two parents of the same sex. I've heard of plenty of cases where children from different sex marriages have been abused (mentally and physically) by one or both parents.
To say that one group of people is better at something than another is spurious. Status as anything, be it a parent or a worker in a certain field, cannot be judged by anything except skill at the task.
You might as well say that because i'm a redhead i'm better at lighting fires than someone who is brunette. The reasoning is the same in my opinion.
Okay, was trying to avoid this debate, appear netural out of respect for a friend but looks like my hand has been forced.
Should homosexuals be allowed to rear children? Yes, they are, after all, human like the rest of us.
Would being raised by same sex parents mess a child up? Okay many sociologists and psychologists do agree that people need a male and female role model. Problem is that in order to collect this data you have to wait for the subject to become a teen or adult. The data is already out of date and out of step with society.
Flash back 23 years ago. When I started schooling nuclear families were all the rage. Nearly everyone had one and those who didn't wanted one. Our father's works, our mother's reared us. Within a few years it all changed. Mother's went back to work, parents began to seperate and divorce. And despite abortion being made legal, the number of single mothers were growing.
Fast forward a decade and I'm in high school. Nuclear families were now the abnormality, I was the odd one out.
Now do my friends who were not raised in the traditional nuclear family messed up? Well, truth be told they do have their emotional issues. But guess what, so do I!
Now when you say that if you had been raised by homosexuals that you'd be messed up I will not automatically asume that you refer to the old line that you would be gay that so many people spout. That line is bullshit!
Homosexuals are raised by, wait for it, hetrosexuals. You see, with the exception of surrogates (which is very rare even today mainly for three reasons: 1)gays find it hard to hve sex with the opposite gender 2) Australia has a very limited number of sperm banks because 3)the legislation is unclear on actual legal rights of surrogates [I think it's actually illegal here]) homosexuals don't have children. Homosexuality is not a heredity!
The only way for a homosexual couple to have a child is by adoption. 20 years ago it was very hard for hetrosexual couples to adopt, let allow single hetrosexuals (especially males) and homosexuals didn't even have a look in. Today it is still hard, hetrosexual couples get a look in first before the singles and homosexuals are still being barred.
Now for the uniqueness of men and women, well it's crap. Women now do man specfic jobs, police, firefighters, security and men do woman jobs, nursing, teaching, babysitting. Some of my female friends are better fighters then all of male friends combined and then some. In fact a couple of times I've broken my rule and gone on nights out with a few of female co-workers only to witness them get into brawls. Real brawls. Not the fcae slapping hand bag hitting stuff of movies, I'm talking about punching that would scare Muhommand Ali. The first time I tried to stop my female co-worker from attacking someone and had a dislocated shoulder to show for it (she tossed me like a rag doll out of her way. BTW, dislocated shoulder hurts like shit!)
Gender roles have been completely rewritten in today's societies. We now have stay at home fathers.
As for the children's well being, well, Lindsay has already mention child abuse so I won't rehash that agrument but I agree.
So should homosexuals be allowed to rear children? Sure, why not. They can't fuck up as bad as we have. And truth be told the agrument about the possible mental trauma is speculative anyway as there are not enough real cases to gather data on.
Thanks for your respect Nat, but I'm quite happy to hear what you really think. Disagreeing constructively is a good thing!
A few interesting points raised by you all. Most poignantly it was pointed out that kids raised in nuclear families are often messed up, so who's to say that gays can't do a better job? And that's a fair point. Heck, my childhood in a nuclear family was messed up enough! So I guess I can concede on that point. (Though it is still my belief that in an ideal world, healthy nuclear families work better than the alternatives.)
And Nat, you were right not to assume that I was saying homosexuality is inherited. I wasn't saying that at all. I simply value my worldview and know that I wouldn't have it if I'd been raised by gay parents.
The whole question of whether the government has a right to legislate against gay marriage is an interesting one. It boils down to morality and how you define it. llengib, you seem keen to to allow the government jurisdiction over "criminal punishment" but not over anything else. But unfortunately at the moment it would be "criminal" for gay people to marry, because the law defines for us what is criminal and what is not.
Is the law of the land right at every point? Of course not. But who could make it right? Whoever you trust to make laws will do what they consider to be best, based on their morals. But if every Australian has their own morals, then how is it possible for all of us to be satisfied with the law?
It isn't.
Which is why we need an external reference point for our morals, i.e. someone perfect to write the rules. John Howard, at least to some extent, believes in God and therefore upholds what the Bible says when it addresses homosexuality. So obviously he's going to oppose gay marriage.
Is that wrong? I don't know. If we can arbitrarily remove laws based on the evolving moral consensus of society then I think we're in serious danger. Because we can't be trusted to make right choices. Nazi Germany had a 'moral consensus' about Jews, which the 'fundamentalist right' could do nothing about.
What we need is some foolproof way of working out what is right and what is wrong.
Sorry if none of that made sense. I was writing fast.
:-)
"Though it is still my belief that in an ideal world, healthy nuclear families work better than the alternatives."
That is your belief. It is my belief that nobody can know this, because it is based on an artificial construction - an ideal world - which tends to change according to whom creates this ideal world. In an ideal world envisioned by a gay person, gay families work better.
"It boils down to morality and how you define it. llengib, you seem keen to to allow the government jurisdiction over "criminal punishment" but not over anything else. But unfortunately at the moment it would be "criminal" for gay people to marry, because the law defines for us what is criminal and what is not."
Apologies for not defining that point enough, I was getting worried about the size of my previous post. By "criminal" I meant to specify that murder, rape, theft, anything that causes direct and measurable harm to other people. It was defiantly not an invitation to make ad-hoc sweeping morality judgments on a minority on behalf of a majority. Sure I admit there is a grey area, but I favour freedom and liberty over control and tyranny (however benevolent).
"But if every Australian has their own morals, then how is it possible for all of us to be satisfied with the law?"
By not legislating everything. Cultural matters should be the domain of individuals and non-government groups to create and foster (but not impose). People who want to impose their views on others are intrinsically frightened that other people consider their ideas to be bad ideas, and that could NEVER happen, right?
Taking a card out of the right-wing conservative movement: If you want to force your religion on people, you are as bad as the people that flew planes into some buildings a few years ago.
"Which is why we need an external reference point for our morals"
So if we are told that murdering christians is a 'moral' thing to do, because an external cleric told us to, then we should do it?
I believe people need to take some personal responsibility!!!
"i.e. someone perfect to write the rules"
Erm, perhaps a body of representatives, duly elected by the people, is preferable to a 'perfect person'?
"John Howard, at least to some extent, believes in God and therefore upholds what the Bible says when it addresses homosexuality"
So that entitles him to enforce his belief system upon others? What makes John Howard better than John Doe on the street when it comes to this? Because he mobilised the right and centrist portions of the population on economic issues, he has a "mandate" to carpet bomb civil rights? (I hate the word 'mandate', by the by)
"So obviously he's going to oppose gay marriage"
No. Technically he could allow freedom of choice, in a, you know, democracy, which we aparently live.
"If we can arbitrarily remove laws based on the evolving moral consensus of society then I think we're in serious danger."
If we arbitrarily give segments of our population 'different' rights based on religious/moral divides, then we disenfranchise portions of our population. They have no vested interest in "Australia" as it now stands. Look at slavery. Look at South Africa. Look at early christianity! Look at all the examples through history.
I am not saying Australia is near revolt, I am saying it is wrong to do this, from my morals, but also because so many people though history have suffered and died because if thinking that justifies discrimination.
"Because we can't be trusted to make right choices."
Shit. And we trust the government to make the right choice for everybody? I think you need to move to a country that dosent have 'Democracy 101' installed.
"Nazi Germany had a 'moral consensus' about Jews, which the 'fundamentalist right' could do nothing about."
A people at the top had a moral consensus to gas Jews. Most people did not know, or did not know the true extent of it. This is what happens when we trust in governments and dont place checks and balances on them. Even John Howard, God bless his soul! (:-P)
"What we need is some foolproof way of working out what is right and what is wrong."
And back to the ideal world argument. To end on a quote from Winston:
"Democracy is the worst form of government, apart from all the others, of course"
This links to a recent development regarding this topic:
Liberals want registration instead of civil union laws
I will refrain form commenting at the moment.
Well I tried not to be antagonistic, but apparently I failed. Sorry ... I'll try again.
A few responses.
Re: my belief that nuclear families work better than gay families: I said it was my belief. This belief is based on my worldview, which is based on what I understand as a Christian. I don't expect those with a different worldview to agree with me, and I'm not interested in forcing my worldview on anyone else. Really! (I wonder why engaging in a dialogue of this sort always ends up with the Christians being told off for forcing their religion on the non-Christians? We're as entitled to our views as they are to theirs!)
Re: defining "criminal". You favour this definition:
"Anything that causes direct and measurable harm to other people."
This sounds o.k., but it's not really a definition, because it's still open to debate. For example, if I were to be a journalist who exposed the misdemeanours of some reputable public figure, that public figure would probably consider himself measurably harmed by me. And chances are he'd want to pursue criminal charges for defamation or libel or whatever it is.
But if my exposé of this reputable public figure protected people from trusting him, I would have done them a favour.
So what we define as 'harm' will vary from person to person and from perspective to perspective. To use a more extreme example, a rapist probably won't consider himself to have done harm to his victim, because his criteria for defining harm is stuffed up. (Either that or he just didn't care.)
In short, I think we need a better definition of "criminal".
My definition, for what it's worth, is, "anything that offends God". Which, I think, works (if you believe in God :-D) ... because God, if he exists, must be perfect, otherwise he wouldn't be God. So he must know what is "criminal" and what is not.
Which makes him a good external reference point. (No, I wasn't talking about a cleric who advises murder!)
Re: your talk about democracy, I think we actually agree. The thing is, WE elected John Howard so, like it or not, WE collectively chose an anti-gay-marriage-prime-minister. The man can only be expected to uphold what he believes! And if he believes that gay marriage would harm our society, who's to say he's wrong? Someone from a different perspective? Why is another perspective inherently right? Because it's more permissive? Hmmm...
I am not being atangonistic, and not intending to come accross as that in my vigourous defence of MY viewpoint...
I will make another in depth reply when I get home from work, until then I look forward to more discussion.
What in the name of all that is good and decent are you using the Macquaire Dictionary for?!?!?!?!
The Oxford English Dictionary says a similar thing about marriage but also classifies it as "a similar long-term relationship between partners of the same sex".
There you go then.
I'm loving all of these well-thought-out views! Looking forward to continuing this when I get back to Newcastle tonight (in Sydney today).
Ok. Well it seems there has been alot of writing since my last post, so I will endeavour to make up lost ground.
I do not believe the dictionary problem is on topic, both dictionaries say basically the same thing.
The definitions seem to allow for a gay definition of marrage after they state the traditional definition.
luke said: "I don't expect those with a different worldview to agree with me, and I'm not interested in forcing my worldview on anyone else. Really! (I wonder why engaging in a dialogue of this sort always ends up with the Christians being told off for forcing their religion on the non-Christians? We're as entitled to our views as they are to theirs!)"
I though that you were endorsing John Howards worldview, where by his religious beliefs mean he should write moral laws disallowing gay marrage. To me, that is the very definition of religious views (in this case christian) legislativly enforcing his beliefs (christianity) upon gay people (christian or otherwise). So you should probably clarify your side and say if John should write those laws because he believes them, even when others he writes laws against dont, or if christians should not enforce their belief upon others.
luke said: "My definition, for what it's worth, is, "anything that offends God". Which, I think, works (if you believe in God :-D) ... because God, if he exists, must be perfect, otherwise he wouldn't be God. So he must know what is "criminal" and what is not. Which makes him a good external reference point. (No, I wasn't talking about a cleric who advises murder!)"
In this case you would have to argue Athiests & non-religious people (16-20% world population) are above any law, assuming you dont want to enforce your religion upon them. I will also say, although I hope this wont sidetrack the debate, that God may or may not be prefect. Do you have evidence either way? Of course not. But even if we take you above quote as true, then since God dosent seem able to clearly communicate who and what is 'criminal' we have to make our own judgements. Thus any external reference point has human origins and perceptions (not counting on chinese whispers effects of passing the information along) and we are back to square zero, even if god is perfect.
And my point about the cleric is entirely valid for the poor young sod who goes and blows himslef up. So we must have external reference points, but some are good and bad, without knowing. This ends up being a circular arguement. Better to take religion out of it and treat everybody equal (even if they happen not to be christians, like 66% of the world).
luke said: "Re: your talk about democracy, I think we actually agree. The thing is, WE elected John Howard so, like it or not, WE collectively chose an anti-gay-marriage-prime-minister. The man can only be expected to uphold what he believes! And if he believes that gay marriage would harm our society, who's to say he's wrong? Someone from a different perspective? Why is another perspective inherently right? Because it's more permissive? Hmmm..."
Why is John's perspective inherintly right? I would say that a gay person is, actually, going to call him wrong.Sure I agree he is democratically elected. Being democratically elected he has a moral responsibility to govern all citizens, not just the straight ones. It should be implied, therefore, that he should allow as much freedom as possibly for people to conduct their affairs. John has no reason to activly prevent a social union between two people in marrage. Is it his prime ministerial duty to stand up at a wedding and say "I object" to a gay ceremony?
Democracies also have a tradition of freedom of association and freedom of speech? Should John quash these rights because blasphemy is wrong and people are speaking it?
You say we agree about Democracy. I would like that. But you have an idea of an Iranian style government (only christian) is somehow a proper democracy.
You can be democratically elected and work against democracy. Hitler will thank the voters for his rise. It doesnt mean that once elected, John has a magical moral mandate to do anything, including destroy the secular state.
bryn quotes the dictionary: "The legal union of a man with a woman for life; the state or condition of being married; the legal relation of spouses to each other; wedlock; the legal or religious ceremony that sanctifies or formalises the decision of a man and a woman to live as husband and wife; any intimate union"
It dosent say if it is right or wrong, but the definition includes 'man and women' simply because that is the current legal reality. reg quotes: "a similar long-term relationship between partners of the same sex" from the Oxford version. This is the definition without legalities.
Enough on the dictionaries, as I said I wouldnt get into them.
bryn said: "It also defines it as either religious OR legal process"
It is also interesting to note that the legal process of marrage can occur under common law or under licence registration. see http://www.livoc.com/magnets/marriage.php for a very interesting (and long) article on marrage, of which I have regebbably only skimmed.
I would also like the thank Bryn for expanding on my 'different treatment' with examples and detail. Also very thoughtful contribution on gay parents being able to plan better and such (given, say, the catholic churchs stance on birth control - off topic i know).
bryn said: "But instead of griping about our conservative prime minister there is something we can do, which is discuss these issues and come ballot time, put someone else in his place."
I will have to disagree here. I think that yes, we do need to show our opinion at the ballot box, but we also need to agitate now and speak up, if only to have our opinion on the public record. Sometimes you dont need an election to change policy.
bryn said: "Is to afford all individuals equal rights, regardless of their faith. They have the right to freedom of speech, the right to believe whatever they want to believe, the right to democratically elect their parliament and the right to live without fear of persecution or discrimination. They should also live in a country where the legal system believes in weight of evidence for conviction, the right to a fair trial by a selection of their peers, free legal aide if needed and of course the presumption of innocent until proven guilty."
I just had to quote that. It needed saying twice. Couldn't agree more.
Ok, I hope I have covered even a fraction of the discussion since my last post, this is starting to get huge.
luke said: "I'm loving all of these well-thought-out views! Looking forward to continuing this when I get back to Newcastle tonight (in Sydney today)."
Here here! I am enjoying this, especially since it hasnt degraded into a childish mud throwing contest.
Wow, I go out for a few hours and look what happens.
Okay, where to begin?
Democracy. "WE elected John Howard so, like it or not, WE collectively chose an anti-gay-marriage-prime-minister." Not wanting to get into a detail working of our democractic process, the government is not elected based on the one with the most votes but the one who holds the most seats. It is possiable for the majority (more than 50%) of people to vote aganist the winning government but are unevenly distributed throughout the seats.
That said, Howard did win the election. But what about the state/terrority governments? The people of the ACT voted for Chief Minister Stanhope and his government. They are in favour of gay marriages (lets put the name civil union aside for the moment). Therefore they collectively choose a pro-gay government to represent them. Since individual state/terrority laws do not have to be recognise in any other state/terrority nor on a federal level then what right does John Howard have to over turn them? Howard simply could have stood his ground and refuse to recognise the marriages on a federal level. Instead he went out of his way to over it, wasted time and resources to do so. He did it because he doesn't believe in gay marriage. Despite this being a democracy he is forcing his belief on people who don't share it.
Morality, now that's a interesting point. We all have different beliefs based on our up bringing/life experiences. And that's cool. But the purpose of a democracy is take people of differenting beliefs and forming a set of common laws that we can all abide by.
If the majority of people believe in the one belief system that should not give them the right to impose laws, based on their beliefs, on the minority and vice versa.
Now I don't believe that anyone is being antagonistic. We all obviosuly passionate about our beliefs in regards to this issue and that's cool too. I'm looking forward to the next round of well thought out arguments.
Where to start? I think I'll try and extract the main points of Bryn, llengib and Nat and see what happens ...
But first I think I need to backpedal a little. In light of how un-religious marriage now is in our society, I've started to think that John Howard should allow gay marriage. If he's happy enough for two heterosexual people who don't even believe in marriage as he sees it to be married, then he should be happy enough to allow gay marriage.
That said, he should also be free to defend the view that homosexuality is wrong, but I'm warming to the idea that legislating on such a basis is not consistent with our postmodern society.
There! I said it!
Now, onto Bryn. Dictionary bits: meh. Definitions are overrated. They get re-written as words evolve. Gays raising children bits: I've already agreed with you, I think. But it was a helpful elaboration. Thanks!
About homosexuality being natural for animals: I believe you. Our male dog had a male visitor for a couple of weeks recently and he was, shall we say, a little too friendly! But some animals also consider it natural to eat their partners after having sex. And most meat-eating animals are more than happy to murder for food. Hmmm ...
About the apparent irrelevance of the Bible: like any ancient text, the Bible is as relevant as you allow it to be; eg. the writings of Socrates and Plato are still useful to some people. Obviously I believe the Bible is different (i.e. inspired by God); not that I expect you to believe that, all I'm saying is that there's more to the Bible than evidence of a rudimentary judicial system. :-)
About the civil/criminal thing: fair enough, I was using the term criminal a little loosely to describe something legally offensive. Sorry.
Your response to my definition of 'criminal' as 'anything that offends God' was a helpful one, and deserves a reply more thorough than I have space for here. But I'll say a couple of things:
* 'Christians' have a lot to answer for when it comes to waging war in the name of God (the Crusades being the most obvious example, tho there are doubtless many more). So do many from other religions who claim to kill under orders from God. What else can I say? History speaks for itself. So do current events.
* I agree that 'Christian' is a pretty generic term these days. Non-churchgoers whose parents were Catholic often call themselves Christian. I'll explain what I believe a Christian is in a moment, but you have a fair point.
* We do have a problem with trying to figure out which religion has the right view of God, given God doesn't appear visibly or audibly to us. Taking the best bits out of every religion isn't the answer (the Baha'i's try to do that), because it leaves us to decide which bits are 'keepers' and which bits aren't, which is equivalent to 'choose-your-own-God'. But saying that God doesn't exist because we can't figure out what he's like isn't necessarily the answer either. (If he is there, we can't make him disappear in a "puff of logic".)
Which is where the claim of Christianity is different to every other religion: we believe that God came to earth in human form (namely Jesus Christ) so that we could know who he is and how to communicate with him. Which is a pretty big claim to make, and I'm not going to defend it here. But if it is true, then it answers a lot of questions pretty quickly.
Also, any person who truly follows the teachings of Jesus will not be able to defend the use of military force in his name, nor forcing Christianity on others, nor being unloving in general.
(That's not to say Christians are perfect, by the way. Ask my wife. She knows how unloving I can be in my darker moments!)
Sorry if that went too far off-topic, but it was a great point from Bryn and I couldn't let it go unanswered!
About the perfection of God: I'll think about that one and post about it another day.
I think I've run out of space to respond to much more. One more:
llengib: "In this case you would have to argue Athiests & non-religious people (16-20% world population) are above any law"
Actually that's exactly what I would argue. I would argue that those who don't submit to God can only be submitting to their own rules, making them their own god. The fact that most atheists agree on the 'big evils' like murder, rape, paedophilia etc. is convenient but on less 'obvious' things they make up their own rules.
But that's probably taking this discussion in circles again ... woops!
There's more I'd like to say but you already have more than enough to read. Sorry Nat, I'll get to your reply sometime!
Hey all, more good points!
I want to say one, no two, things before I go to sleep... so this will be a short one.
1. Luke, I would like your opinion on a part of my previous post, and I quote myself:
"I though that you were endorsing John Howards worldview, where by his religious beliefs mean he should write moral laws disallowing gay marrage. To me, that is the very definition of religious views (in this case christian) legislativly enforcing his beliefs (christianity) upon gay people (christian or otherwise). So you should probably clarify your side and say if John should write those laws because he believes them, even when others he writes laws against dont, or if christians should not enforce their belief upon others."
2. Athiests you say consider themselves above the law. Well you could also see it in a different perspective. Good athiests choose to do good because it IS good. Religious people sometimes do actions for only the avoidance of hell or the hope of heaven, not because the action is good in and of itself. I ask you which person has the "purest" motivation and intent?
*It is almost 2am, so I am not checking my comment over again, spelling errors stay and points missed will have to be addressed later.
I would of liked to wait for Luke's reply to my previous post been wading back out there but after yesterday's post blow out and seeing as I'm about to go to bed I want to make a few points.
This is not the first time I've heard the argument that atheists have no true moral core since they don't submit to a divine being. In fact at school one of our teachers said that Atheists deliberatly choose not to worship god so we can do what ever the hell we want.
This is not true. I became a Athetist because I don't believe in god. As simple as that. Also moral cores come from what we learn from soceity and our parents. My parents taught me that all human beings are equal and we should tolerate people's different beliefs. Of course my parents, specifically my mother doesn't exactly do as she preached. I told my parents about this little forum yesterday and the very interesting debate we're having. When my mother heard that it was about gay marriage her very first words, spoken with much venom, "Homosexuals are an abomination!" Then she didn't want to hear anymore. I'm glad to see people of my generation are more mature than my mother.
I would say that my moral core developed the same way as Luke's did only now I don't base it on on the rulings of a supreme deity but on how I as a person would like to be treated.
Is the bible irrelevant? As an Atheist I will admit that my first impulse is say yes. However Luke as a valid point that people still find relevance in the workings of Plato and stuff so people can still find relevance in the bible.
That said, however, I would like to point out taht the bible today is actually the abridge verison of a much larger book. During the Holy Roman Empire the bibles were hand written by monks for use in churches and stuff. The monks trimmed the bible down to contain what they believed to be the relevant information. In the 13th century even smaller books were produced for personal use (the first Gideons maybe?). Then with the advent of the printing press the big ones were produced. Not the whole bible but the ones hand written by the monks.
Second of all, most christians choose what parts of the bible they want to find relevant. I'm not saying this to be disrepectful and I do not believe that this is a conscience decision. It is mostly made out of ignorance of the entire book and trying to work Jesus's messages of peace and tolerance with God's earlier heavy handed laws.
Does the bible say that homosexuality is wrong? It can be interepted that way (at this point I would like to refer people to http://www.religioustolerance.org) The passage which has the strongest case for god's dislike to homosexuals is in Leviticus.
However the bible can also be interepted as endorsing slavery (also in Leviticus and again in Deuteronomy), rape (Leviticus and Deuteronomy), genocide ( Deuteronomy), polygyny (King David), Racisim (Leviticus). In fact there are several relationships in the bible that may be interepted as same sex relationships - Daniel and Ashpenaz, David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi
I will also point out that Leviticus has some things to say about prostitutes. First there's the stoning of them and all that. But they would never find the forgivness nor enter the kingdom of god. But when, as you put it Luke, god come to Earth as mortal who was one of the people he hanged out with? What did Mary Madaline(sp?) do before she become a christ groupie? If Jesus had converted her and forgave her for her past life then god has over turned one of his early edicts (which he can do. They're his edicts after all). If he can do it once then he can over turn all of them, whenever he feels like it.
Okay, too tried to continue anymore. I know a lot of the bible stuff may have been taken out of context. But to be fair when christians (in general) quote the bible for their case aganist homosexuality they do the same thing. Besides, can't be bothered right at this very moment to read the thing cover from cover.
Look forward to reading more upon my waking.
Thanks to Nat for posting the link I told him about as his. The actual relevant link is:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm
Which discusses homosexuality in the bible.
I would also like to develop the 'God turning over his own edicts' line. Earlier luke referenced god being a perfect being, is god perfectly fickle? The immutable laws commanded by god seem subject to change.
The bible may indeed be relevant, but no more than any other collection of marality tales found in our 'fiction' section of our bookstore. If the bible was printed today the critics would pan it, it wouldnt sell and the lawyers would insist on a disclaimer saying 'characteres, events and places described here are fictional and any resemblane to real things are coincidental'.
Aside from the monks fiddling with which parts to include in the 'official' version, you also have to contend with chinese whispers of oral tradition and the fact that it has been translated so many times that many passages can take on completely different meanings depending on which translation you are reading. The early church also disendorsed many gospels, most probably due to political convenience.
"The official canon of the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) was finalized by church leaders during the 4th century CE. Under God's inspiration, they separated the canonical books from the many heretical works which were then in circulation. For example, they chose exactly four Gospels from among the over 40 that were in use within the early Christian movement as God inspired, inerrant and infallible. They rejected the rest."
"The early Christian church was divided into many differing traditions: (e.g. Jewish, Pauline, and Gnostic Christianity). The books of the Bible were chosen in the fourth century CE from among about 50 gospels, hundreds of epistles, many infancy stories, many books of revelation etc. They were mainly chosen on the basis of their conformity with orthodox Christian beliefs as they existed at the time. Another consideration was whether the book was written by an Apostle or by someone closely associated with an Apostle. The church leaders who selected books for the official canon were often mistaken in their understanding of exactly who had written the books. Non-conforming books were suppressed, and sometimes lost forever. Yet they contained much valuable material about the primitive Christian movement. Some of the books purportedly written by Paul were written by unknown authors many decades after Paul's death."
I am sure I am probably rehashing what everybody knows at this point, but I want to bring it back to our main topic - the bible is supposed to be the moral compass with which our great leader steers the ship of state. If our leader can use obscure and heavily edited/mistranslated passages, such as against homosexuals and marrage, then it is within his perview to sanction genocides, slavery, massinfantacide, murder for curosity and murder for doing the right thing.
In fact, digging up an earlier discussion, it really shouldn't be suitable for children to read.
So by now you are saying "come on, you are exaggerating". Well I am,. but there is a point to be made here. I am plainly terrified of theoracy governments - there is nothing they cannot get 'god' to sanction.
Seperation of church and state has been one of the pivitol social advances of hunamkind. Watch it being erroded in the USA, watch it creeping up in Australia - I refer to Abbot and Hillsong especially, but also Costello and Howard. The Nationals wouldn't mind 'rule by god'. The Gov General Peter Hollingworth was a Bishop.
Our current GG Michael Jeffery is quotes as saying:
"On the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras, for example, Jeffery said: "Baser instincts are titillated in the television displays of events like the Mardi Gras, where the colour and spectacle of fancy dress camouflages a public display of simulated homosexual activity and the degradation of traditional religions in the name of humour."
He also said: "A British study found a direct statistical link between single parenthood and virtually every type of major crime, including mugging, violence against strangers, car theft and burglary. And the same is true... in Western Australia.""
He was appointed by our bible guided John Howard.
These people are our heads of state!!! I see now that the ACT was wildly optimistic in its civil union laws.
Finally a question I am putting out there: If a same sex couple has one partner have a sex xhange, could they then get married? What are the legal implications?
Just want to clarify a couple points before I go to work:
Yes my link was shown to me by Linds. Thanks Linds, sorry I forgot to mention it previously but I was tired and forgot, didn't mean for it to appear as my own.
Second when I mention that god over turned his own edict I was not just implying god was imperfect (though it cna read that way). It can also read that the god of the bible lays down his rules in accordance with ssociety of the time. First he tells Adam and Eve to go forth and multiply - since there is only two of them and he wants lots of humans. Leviticus was written after he hands Moses the ten commandments when the Hebrews are wandering the desert. He wants the Hebrews to astablish their own nation - so he also wants them to create a stable soceity. Later in the time of Jesus this has been done so he over turns some of his harsher rules.
Therefore in the thousands of years since the writting of the bible society has undergone several major shake ups and yet nothing new has been added to the bible. It is possible that god would change some of his earlier rules to reflect modern society but it has been left to mdern christians to determine what rules god wants them to follow.
Okay got to go, see you all later.
To bring the tone down for a moment, i was only making a joke with the oxford v macquaire thing. Probably, given the tone of this blog debate, the humour was lost and that is more my fault than anyone elses.
I do however believe in the superiority of the oxford over other dictionaries. That's just my opinion.
Just a brief one to apologise for not posting over the weekend ... things have been hectic. I will respond to Lindsay's questions and Nat's comments and various other bits when I get a bit more time.
Meanwhile, I have to say I agree with Adrian re: the Oxford dictionary. Not that I own one at the present time!
I only have time and energy to make a couple of points, but I'm hoping to be able to throw some light on why I believe the Bible has credibility in the near future, since this seems to be the hot topic...
Lindsay, in response to your question about John Howard legislating according to his worldview, I think I partially answered your question when I conceded that he should allow gay marriage, but perhaps I didn't go as far as you would have liked. My reasoning was that JH allows non-Christian heterosexual marriage to proceed, so ruling against non-Christian homosexual marriage is inconsistent, given his opposition to gay marriage is fundamentally 'Christian'. How can he defend a Christian view of homosexual marriage when he's not even trying to defend a Christian view of heterosexual marriage?
What I didn't say is that church and state should be separate, which, I think, is what you would have liked me to say. In truth, I'm still wrestling with what to think about this issue. It might seem to be a no-brainer to say that in 2006, church and state should be separate, but here are my problems with that (and I repeat that I'm still working on this, so please help me out):
1.) Australia's constitution, if I remember correctly (and I'm yet to read over it again, so I could be way off here :-S), at least refers to God (as Christians understand him) and suggests that Australia's leaders are responsible for Australia under God. So to say that church and state should be separate *may* actually contravene the constitution. Food for thought ...
2.) Is it really possible to separate church and state? I think this comes down to constructs like relativism, postmodernism, pluralism etc. which try to allow conflicting idealogies to co-exist by refusing to allow 'absolute truth' to be defined. But effectively these constructs represent a worldview, or a 'religious' standpoint, albeit one which endeavours to leave God undefined. I think Lindsay's saying that if we were to have a truly 'postmodern' government (i.e. one that is as permissive as possible without allowing people to harm each other), we would automatically minimise discrimination.
My problem with this line of thinking is that it still imposes a worldview on Australians ... yes, it's a worldview that would probably keep most Australians happy, but it would also marginalise those of us who believe that truth *can* be found and should be defended. So ultimately it still results in discrimination (eg. Christians are already often considered 'intolerant' because we draw the logical conclusion that if what we believe is right, everything else must be wrong ... of course some Christians are pretty uncaring in the way they express that belief but in general we're keen to do the right thing by everybody regardless of whether they agree with us or not).
Does that make sense? I guess you'll let me know if it doesn't.
3.) Let's ignore (2) and assume that we've found some way to totally de-religionify government. How then will we establish our framework for legislation? Lindsay suggests that doing good because it is good will work. But we still have the problem of where our decision about what is 'good' actually comes from. Because inevitably we will all disagree on what is 'good'. eg. in our culture, we would mostly believe that girls being married off by their parents at the age of 12-14 to much older men is bad. But in some cultures that is the norm and is considered totally fine. Do these other cultures need to be educated by us? And if so, why?
You might say that this is an issue where cultural groups within Australia should make up their own mind. But others will argue that allowing a girl that young to be married equals child abuse. What to do?
I hope I'm making some sense as I waddle through this. If nothing else maybe there's something we can bounce around above.
I'll write more when I'm more awake and suffering less from watching the Socceroos live ...
A couple of quick points:-
The Australian Constitution was written when Australian was nothing more than a glorifed colony. As a result it states (not sure of the extact wording and too tired to look it up, but will endeavour to do so upon waking) that Australia's laws are subject to approval from the British parliment.
In fact, all laws that recognise Australia was an idepedent nation are all British laws. The first one was the statute of Westminsiter which allow dominions (which Australia achieved in the 20's) to have equal legislative power of the british parilment. However at that time the states were still subject to british oversight until 1986 when WA threaten to withdraw from federation and become a seperate dominion. The Brits enacted the Australia Act which gave the states equal legislative powers.
Our free nation is actually subject to foreign laws.
Second point. Judical law has changed. Once you were required to swear on a bible, before god to tell the truth. Now the bible is optional. You can choose not to swear on it (several christians I know have done this as they believe the bible says some stuff about swearing on it) or swear before the deity of your choice. Also the citizenship pledge has been changed, over 50 years, to "reflect the evolution of Australia from British colony to independent multicultural nation." This includes stuff about being a subject of the Queen but also that the pledgee does not have to acknowledge god.
Three: "in our culture, we would mostly believe that girls being married off by their parents at the age of 12-14 to much older men is bad" Our culture actually did this, and not too long ago. Roughly 200 years ago. Supported in fact by the bible (at least the supporters of this act used the bible, so did slavers actually). Our culture evolved beyond this. Now you make a good point that some cultures still practise this, and should we impose this on them. My entire point is equal rights. 14 year old girls do not have the mental capacity to know what entering into a marriage is really about and therefore would not have equal rights with their partners. I believe we should have laws to protect children from abuse.
Okay tired now, will continue later.
luke said: "Lindsay, in response to your question about John Howard legislating according to his worldview, I think I partially answered your question when I conceded that he should allow gay marriage, but perhaps I didn't go as far as you would have liked. My reasoning was that JH allows non-Christian heterosexual marriage to proceed, so ruling against non-Christian homosexual marriage is inconsistent, given his opposition to gay marriage is fundamentally 'Christian'. How can he defend a Christian view of homosexual marriage when he's not even trying to defend a Christian view of heterosexual marriage?"
Not quite. You do raise an interesting point about JH's inconsistency, but my main question was your own seeming inconsistency. That being that JH had the right to make a decision on gay marriage while on the other hand you saying that christians get blamed for imposing their view on other people. THAT is my main question.
In answer to luke's first point in his last post:
nat said: "Our free nation is actually subject to foreign laws". I think that while all that nat said about the constitution and legal history, you cannot deny the constitution is a valid document for our government, and luke's point has to be addressed from such a standpoint. Remember if we were subject to British definitions, then technically the queen rules under god and is head of a christian church and only has the 'Magna Carta of 1215 and the Act of Settlement of 1701' as an ad-hoc constitution.
I will concede lukes point and say that I cannot talk my way out of the fact the constitution alludes to god, the exact quote being: "Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established". Now also remember that when John Howard had the referendum, there was also a rewrite of the preamble in there along the lines of: "With hope in God, the Commonwealth of Australia is constituted as a democracy with a federal system of government to serve the common good." etc etc.
Both (even if one failed) refer to god, however do not place any legislative, judicial or executive role for his/her/its-almightiness. We only want his blessing or hope in him. It doesn't even say we should rule with regards to him, just establish our federation with his blessing only.
There are only two instances where the word 'god' is used. The first being in the preamble, the second being in the oath "I, A.B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law. SO HELP ME GOD!". Again it does not imply a moral imperative to do gods will, just that god will help the member stay loyal to the queen. Again no reference to any of the three branches of government.
The separation of church and state is perfectly constitutional. Nowhere in the constitution does it prohibit the speaking of any words, let alone the fact that god is used only twice and both times not in the 'rules' part of the document.
That said we do not have a 'right to free speech' guaranteed in the constitution. The ONLY two rights are the right to trial by jury and religious freedom, prohibiting "making any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion." (this applies only to the commonwealth, NOT states).
So after reading what is in the text of the functional, rules part of the constitution, you could argue while god was indeed in the thoughts of the creators of the document, religion most certainly was not.
Is it really possible to separate church and state? Yes.
luke said: "I think this comes down to constructs like relativism, postmodernism, pluralism etc. which try to allow conflicting idealogies to co-exist by refusing to allow 'absolute truth' to be defined." whereas Christian constructs refuse to allow a non-absolute trusth to exist. I know which one leads to a more harmonious society, when more than one truth exists in the minds of many people (regardless of if one actually exists and what it might be).
luke said: "But effectively these constructs represent a worldview, or a 'religious' standpoint, albeit one which endeavours to leave God undefined." It is a non-religious standpoint that seeks to let the definition of god be left to the people. Now it is my turn to ask: "Why is it that christians/religious people always assume that atheism is simply a religion with no god?" We are not religious in any way. We are outside of religion.
luke said: "I think Lindsay's saying that if we were to have a truly 'postmodern' government (i.e. one that is as permissive as possible without allowing people to harm each other), we would automatically minimise discrimination."
No indeed. But I can guarantee in such an instance that no official, governmentally endorsed discrimination would exist. Discrimination would decrease because the government would not be added to the 'pot' of discrimination. I am in no way advocating telling what others should think by coercion, and people are not perfect. But lets not make it seem OK because our government is also doing it and by extension must be OK.
luke said: "My problem with this line of thinking is that it still imposes a worldview on Australians" It is the lesser of two evils and has the smallest 'footprint' of imposition on freedom.
luke said: "yes, it's a worldview that would probably keep most Australians happy," Yay for democracy.
luke said: "but it would also marginalise those of us who believe that truth *can* be found and should be defended." Tricky. I am on record as defending minorities. But, fortunately it is easily solved. Nothing is stopping you from finding and defending truth. Absolutely nothing. Just keep it out of parliament and I will die to defend your right to say anything you want. Please don't interpret 'defending truth' as imposing will on others, because that is the only conceivable reason you could have to enforce it through law and legislation.
luke said: "Christians are already often considered 'intolerant' because we draw the logical conclusion that if what we believe is right, everything else must be wrong". OK explain to me how if a person is right, and a person disagrees with them, then they are right as well. Wouldn't that be arguing that there is more than one universal truth? I thought you said in your last post you believed a universal truth can be found?
luke said: "in general we're keen to do the right thing by everybody regardless of whether they agree with us or not." So explains the attitude of the crusades. So much for allowing a dissenting view. "We doing the right thing by taking over Jeruslam, if you don't agree with us well you will just have to stop us because we don't listen to what you say"
luke said: "Do these other cultures need to be educated by us? And if so, why? You might say that this is an issue where cultural groups within Australia should make up their own mind. But others will argue that allowing a girl that young to be married equals child abuse. What to do?"
Expanding on nat's point I would say that religion is not good measure anyway. The bible, for example, has been used at different times to promote slavery, the crusades, child (female) marriage to older men, among other things. The bible has also been used at different (or same) times to degrade the practices of slavery, child (female) marriage and crusading, among other things.
In essence you are still faced with the same basic problem you asked me... "What to do?"
Obviously, then, the bible is an indispensable tool in decision making (ok a little bit sarcastic there).
Again, time is my enemy, but a few comments:
Lindsay and Nat, thanks for doing the research on the constitution for me. I knew it mentioned God but wasn't sure in what capacity. Going off your quotes, Lindsay, it seems that our constitution defends church and state being separate, and in line with that, I think I'm pro gays being allowed to marry. (As in, genuinely.)
I still believe that homosexuality is wrong, and if anyone asks I'll tell them why, but I've believed for a long time that I should treat homosexuals the same as heterosexuals, and thanks to this dialog I've been able to extend this thinking to a legislative area, so thanks all.
So we've agreed that JH has no right to enforce his view of marriage on Australians. Now, onto the whole postmodern worldview issue.
First, a minor quibble -- Lindsay defended atheism as not being a religion. Personally, I don't think the word you use to describe it really matters. No doubt a dictionary would define religion as something involving belief in a deity, which is probably why atheists hate atheism being called a religion, but words aside, 'atheism' defines a particular view of the world and the supernatural. So call it a religion or a worldview, but essentially atheism is to the atheist exactly what Christianity is to a Christian: the means by which they answer the big questions of life like, "why am I here?" and "why is there suffering in the world?"
That said, I'm happy to stand corrected by an atheist if I've misrepresented them here ...
Now about the merit of postmodernism. For starters, I think we need to draw a line between impartial government and an argument about worldview. The two have become muddled in my head (as they were in my last post), but I think they need to be addressed separately.
I am pro impartial government, and what I think that should look like has been developed by you guys. In this forum, I don't think we're going to be able to resolve exactly how this should work when it comes to complex issues like, say, abortion, but at least we're on the same track here.
But impartial government isn't the same thing as postmodernism.
Postmodernism (or more specifially, relativism) tries to allow multiple conflicting things to be true simultaneously. In essence, it encourages individuals to seek and uphold their own version of the 'truth' without consulting others. Relativism maintains that "there is no such thing as absolute truth" (except, of course, this one absolute statement ... haha).
But how can multiple things be true? Only if there's no evidence to support or contradict all of them. So obviously relativism cannot be applied to things which can be proven ... eg. forensic evidence that says person A murdered person B cannot be challenged by person A on the basis that his version of the truth should be allowed to stand alongside the forensic scientist's version.
So relativism is generally applied in the religious arena, eg. your religion is 'true for you', and if it 'works for you' then it's 'good for you'. But if there is evidence to support or contradict a religion, then believing something that contradicts the evidence is just silly.
It's a long way of arriving at my response to Lindsay's comments about a worldview that doesn't impose on people's freedom, but I'm almost there!
To be fair, Lindsay was writing about 'postmodern government' rather than about postmodernism itself. But he did suggest that postmodernism imposes the least on people's freedom, and in general, he's right. The problems start when people like Christians present evidence that challenges postmodernism.
I'm not trying to impose that Christians are right, but it can't be avoided that they think are, and therefore their worldview is at odds with the very postmodernism that supposedly protects their freedom. Muslims are in the same boat.
So what happens when Christians speak up about something? We're labelled as intolerant extremists who ought to be silenced. This is the problem that I have with postmodernism... the only way it can cope with being challenged is to silence the challenger.
I admire your commitment to protecting the right of Christians to speak, Lindsay (truly!), but I'm not sure how long we'll be allowed to. The anti-villification laws in Vic. are a case in point, because they allow those with strong opinions on a religion to be prosecuted.
(NB: I'm not siding with the 'Catch the Fire Ministries' blokes who are in trouble at the moment. They probably said some things that were an embarrassment to Christians. But at the same time, I'm not sure that they should be punished for saying what they believed was right, even if it is offensive to Muslims. Inciting violence or hatred is a separate issue.)
Of course, as Lindsay has reminded us, so-called Christians have carried out horrendous crimes in God's name and I've already condemned these in an earlier post. Which brings us back to the Bible and how badly it can be misunderstood and applied ... which brings us to 11:53pm and not enough sleep. More on the Bible soon. Ish.
On the defination of Atheist I think both Luke and Lindsay are right. As I said in the orignal post Atheism is a religous stance, not a religion.
This is my view and it is supported by the dictionary - "a system of faith and worship; human recognition of super human controlling power and esp. of a personal god entitled to obedience." (Reg you'll be pleased to know it is the Oxford dictionary. Bryn, you'll be pleased to know it is the Australian Oxford dicitionary ;-D)
Luke, you are right in that it's going to be a hard slog in forming a truly impartial government. Reason being that there are too many fanatics on all sides and they are all trying to vie for power. As I believe is evident in my posts I'm a big believer in equal rights. That means that all people have a right to talk about their religion openly. I do draw the line aganist people inciting violence aganist people of differing beliefs. This includes book burnings (which was the context of a previous blog entry). "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."- Evelyn Beatrice Hall, Friends of Voltaire
BTW this makes this the 30th reply to this blog entry, our longest yet. Prior champion is Reg's Astronauts Vs Cavemen (29 replies).
OK so just quickly while I await luke's second part:
luke said: “So call it a religion or a worldview, but essentially atheism is to the atheist exactly what Christianity is to a Christian: the means by which they answer the big questions of life like, "why am I here?" and "why is there suffering in the world?" “ Not quite. To an athiest there may be no why, or indeed any truth. Maybe the universal truth is that there is no universal truth (hows that for a contradiction). Regligion always needs a 'why'.
luke said: “Christians present evidence that challenges postmodernism” ... thats the problem, you can't present any evidence of god. You cannot prove god in laboratory conditions and repeat experiments. The 'evidence' you present is not testable and therefor not evidence under its definition.
luke said: “So what happens when Christians speak up about something? We're labelled as intolerant extremists who ought to be silenced. ... the only way it can cope with being challenged is to silence the challenger.” No, no, no. I cite this exact forum as evidence. Has anybody ever posted here that you should shut up and not express your views? We are having a robust debate in which you have changed your views on civil unions and it has all happened because nobody was silenced.
Nat said: “On the defination of Atheist I think both Luke and Lindsay are right. As I said in the orignal post Atheism is a religous stance, not a religion.”. Nat, you relativist you ;-)
Thats it for me, might go and do some work now...
I'm not going to argue the point about atheism, except to say that the definition Lindsay presents (i.e. belief in the possible absence of truth) could be better used to define relativism than atheism. Atheism, by definition, is simply the absence of theism, i.e. the belief in a deity or deities. Anywayz, be that as it may ...
I just wanted to respond with gratitude in light of Lindsay's mention that I haven't been silenced in this forum: I've been very impressed with the way everyone has engaged with this discussion without trying to shut me up, and I appreciate it. In my last post I was writing about the way Christians are generally treated in the media or by the secular world at large. Present company obviously do much better than the 'world at large'.
Gotta get to work.
So who is voting for Howard this time around?
Post a Comment
<< Home