Religion, Government, and Foreign Policy

[NachtcGleiskette]

Admin Note:

As the discussion on the religion thread was moving in a direction that was getting off topic for the thread, but still very interesting and timely - I felt it deserved a thread of it's own.

--SK

Originally posted by Saint Kurt

And now for something new: Because this thread so often focuses on Christianity vs. the world I am constantly looking for ways to bring other religions in. I found this, this morning:

Convert from Islam Sentenced to Death

There are a lot of things that are interesting about this article. The first is that it demonstrates firsthand what it's like in a country that really doesn't have a separation of church and state*. Afganistan has a "state religion" and that is Islam - anyone who rejects it is breaking the law. It's a real human rights violation and even though human beings have been killing each other in the name of God for centuries, it's still shocking.

But what is even more interesting is that other governments are attempting to intervene. It makes me ask so many questions, but they all boil down to one: "Why now?" I can think of quite a few times in recent history when governments and people have abused people in the name of religion and no one in any political power did anything. Some of them have been discussed in this very thread. But, why now? Why this one guy in Afganistan?

I don't have an answer of course, but it will be interesting to see where this goes.

-e

Today was a rare ocassion when i woke up early and watched Good Day NY (this happens maybe once every two years) and they mentioned this whole thing, and went on to make comments about what we (the government) should do. All I could think is "This is none of our damn business!"

Yeah, its a violation of human rights and morally wrong by our standards, but our government does not have any right to march in there and tell their government what they should/shouldn't do with their people...and trying to police this situation will only strengthen the animosity toward the US that region has...we don;t need to give people more reasons to hate us.

That being said, I sorely hope Bush doesn't plan to step in....

[Edited on 27/3/06 by Saint Kurt]

[Angelique]

^Hey, we didn't take out the Taliban for things like this to happen.

At any rate I am a former agnostic. And I experienced far, far less hostility on account of my beliefs when I professed no religion than I did after I returned to the Church. I'm actually kind of with Em on this. If you, as an atheist, feel persecuted for your beliefs, congratulations! Welcome to the club! Happy Birthday! We've found some common ground. At last, atheists can relate to religiously inclined people on some level. I'm not saying it's right to spread the misery, but it does come across as insensitive (and more than a little ironic) when a member of a group, any group, responsible for attempts to suppress free expression of religion complains about their beliefs not being respected.

I had thought this up when there was yet another blow-up about the ten commandments being displayed on public property- how the ten commandments really don't pose a threat to an atheist or agnostic.

1. I am the Lord your God. You shall not worship any false gods...

Easy enough to follow. I don't really believe in any god, anyway. No fear of me actually worshipping them, let alone carving up statues and worshipping them as gods.

2. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.

Why would I care to speak the name of a god I don't believe in anyway? But yeah, an appeal for me to restrain my own tongue beats the government censoring it for me.

3. Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day.

I don't know or care much about holiness, but taking a day off out of seven to rest sounds like a good idea.

4. Honor your father and mother.

Well, I owe at the very least my life to them.

5. You shall not kill.

Where would society be if we allowed indiscriminate murder? (Reason why I was pro-life even when I didn't believe in God.)

6. You shall not committ adultery.

And after my friend was rendered sterile via her husband's philandering, I'd say that commandment is in place for an excellent reason.

7. You shall not steal.

It is scientifically verifiable that tolerating theft is sociologically and economically unhealthy.

8. You shall not bear false witness.

The truth is kind of important if I'm being tried for a crime, of which I'm innocent.

9. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife...

10. ... or goods.

Depending on the method of counting. Some think 9 and 10 are the same commandment. I don't, because I don't think of spouses as property. Anyway, I'd be a bit uncomfortable if someone was lusting over my husband, or drooling over my house, truck, et cetera. And why would I want anyone else's spouse, house, or any of that if I'm happy and secure with what I have?


And I have seen as much if not more (and more open) hostility directed toward religious people than toward atheists.

[NachtcGleiskette]

I think the point was that hostility toward Atheists is more accepted than hostility toward other minority groups/denominations. And the ten commandments are all well and good, but when it comes down to it, they're Christian and they don't belong on government property unless there is a way to represent every other faith believed by every single citizen of this country..

And we took out the Taliban, and handed the country over to them to run. This is how they're running it. It's how they want to run it. We can't go back and say "whoa, whoa! I know we freed you from your oppressors and all, so you could run your country as you see fit, but you can't run it in a way we don't agree with!"

I'm sorry, but if it comes down to this man dying, or him surviving through our intervention, which will then breed more animosity toward the US and in turn put us in the line of fire for more terrorist attacks, I have one thing to say to him. Say hi to Jesus for me. And I don't care what anyone else says, because you know what? I live in NY. I live in a place that is much much more likely to be hit by terrorism (and, obviously, has been) due to its fame, its coastal location, and its, basically, reputation for being one of the, if not the biggest/most densely populated cities in the country. And if it comes between this guy and my neighbors/friends? Sorry dude.....

[HoodedMan]

Originally posted by Angelique
1. I am the Lord your God. You shall not worship any false gods...

Easy enough to follow. I don't really believe in any god, anyway. No fear of me actually worshipping them, let alone carving up statues and worshipping them as gods.

You don't really think like an atheist, no matter how hard you tried. Why would you want to follow that commandment? By "following" that commandment, you accept that the Christian God is your God. If you don't think he's your God, you don't follow that commandment; you ignore it.

Originally posted by Angelique
2. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.

Why would I care to speak the name of a god I don't believe in anyway? But yeah, an appeal for me to restrain my own tongue beats the government censoring it for me.

Government should not be able to censor it. Religious issue. And again, atheists would find nothing wrong with saying it.

Originally posted by Angelique
3. Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day.

I don't know or care much about holiness, but taking a day off out of seven to rest sounds like a good idea.

How can you keep it holy when you don't believe in its holiness? Why should you be forced to? See #1.

Originally posted by Angelique
5. You shall not kill.

Where would society be if we allowed indiscriminate murder? (Reason why I was pro-life even when I didn't believe in God.)

Well, that kind of makes it black and white when really it's grey. There are reasons to kill; I have killed, or I wouldn't be here today arguing with you.

Originally posted by Angelique
8. You shall not bear false witness.

The truth is kind of important if I'm being tried for a crime, of which I'm innocent.

I'm pleased you didn't try to say as so many others do, that that commandment means "Thou shalt not lie."

You act like you're fair-minded, but you just can't think like an atheist, you are so obviously steeped in your religion. Your mind works around contradictions like a snake. Don't speak for atheists, please.

[Angelique]

Well, we didn't take out the Taliban so they could be replaced by, oh, the Taliban. And just because it might not improve our opinion in the Middle East doesn't mean we should avoid doing the right thing. If anything, capitulating to terrorists proves that terrorism works.

I don't think hostility toward atheists is more socially acceptable than it is toward religious people. If it were, you'd think I'd actually see more of it. Maybe data on the subject is lacking, but I've never ever witnessed, experienced, or heard of a hate crime being directed against atheists.

Let's be perfectly fair, here. I am not generalizing, but there are atheists who wish to force all religious expression into a closet. There are atheists who think not believing in God means they are somehow stronger and/or smarter than people who do believe in God. There are some who get offended by other people discussing and practicing their beliefs, but don't see what's so offensive about mocking religion and calling religious people, sometimes vociferously and publically, weak-minded, superstitious dupes.

And I've been privileged to know a few who are genuinely respectful of those who hold religious convictions, and who, while not believing in God, hold to very high moral standards as a matter of what they consider common sense.

Finally, that the Ten Commandments are specifically Christian is news to me. I thought they were first given to the Jews, and Muslims also subscribe to them.

[Edited on 24/3/06 by Angelique]

[HoodedMan]

Originally posted by Angelique
Let's be perfectly fair, here. I am not generalizing, but there are atheists who wish to force all religious expression into a closet. And there are atheists who think not believing in God means they are somehow stronger and/or smarter than people who do believe in God. There are some who get offended by other people stating their beliefs about sin and redemption, but don't see what's so offensive about mocking religion and calling religious people, sometimes vociferously and publically, weak-minded, superstitious dupes.

Yes, there are those sorts of people. But they are a minority; you can't generalize.

Originally posted by Angelique
Finally, that the Ten Commandments are specifically Christian is news to me. I thought they were first given to the Jews, and Muslims also subscribe to them.

Maybe you shouldn't put words in my mouth.

[Angelique]

Nacht said the Ten Commandments were Christian. I wasn't addressing you, yet, Northstar.

As for minority, I can count on one hand the number of atheists with whom I could discuss our differences without them presuming to tell me how I think. I acknowledged that they exist. I never said "all atheists are like such and such." I did not generalize. And I think they are proof positive that not all atheists think alike. (So who's anyone to tell anyone else they "can't think like an atheist" anyway?)

But my experience has been that far too many display a rather arrogant, irrationally fearful, and occassionally hateful attitude toward people who do believe in God. Yes, I know religious people who display that attitude toward atheists. While it doesn't make it right, however, I don't think it's anywhere near to the same extent.

[Edited on 25/3/06 by Angelique]

[Saint Kurt]

Originally posted by Crash Tofu
Ah, but absolute separation of church and state is the only way to not declare an official state religion.

Yes. I pointed this out to show what a fine line we walk as a country. We really have no protection other than ourselves.

...it's okay to publically state, in a national interview, while on the campaign trail, that you think that atheists should not be considered citizens.

You may as well doubt their status as human.

Well the paragraph after my joke was the more important one - that choices of religion (or in this case to not have a religion) is the wrong thing to base a judgement on. And of course it is NOT okay for any politician to publicly state such a thing anywhere. Once again though, atheists are not the first or the last group to be targetted based on their religious preferences.

Think of "ethnic cleansing", Soviet Jewry, or the Holocaust. Those people didn't have human status either.

The University of Minn study points out the same thing I did and by pointing it out I wasn't validating Bush's actions, but simply stating that human history has a sad legacy of wronging groups that don't deserve it. I was agreeing with both you and Bamfette.


Oh, and it's been mentioned, but it's worth mentioning again outside of any debate that the 10 commandments were given to Moses in Exodus, one of the books in the Pentatuch (part of the Torah). This means that the 10 commandments are attributed to the Judeo-Christian God "Adonai" or "God, the Father" and are thus subscribed to by both Christians and Jews. I don't know about Islam.

-e

[Bamfette]

Angelique, I am taken aback by your argument. you REALLY just don't get it at all. I'm sorry but that is one of the most moronic arguments i have ever encountered. I find it offensive, quite frankly. I second Northstar, don't speak for atheists; it's insulting. no other words for it, what you said was insulting.

I don't care if the ten commandments have a Jewish version and a Christian version. And as an aside, the '10 commandments' may not be inherently Christian in themselves, but they do differ between Jewish, Protestants and Catholics. Even if they all agree that Moses got commandments from God, and they generally say the same thing, the wording and even the order in which they are listed does differ. By choosing one version not only are you endorsing the Abrahamic religions as a whole, you are endorsing one specific sect. But even if they were the same, it doesn't change the fact that it is something that is steeped in religiosity and has no place being displayed by the governent. The government is supposed to represent ALL the people, not just the Christian (or any other religion) ones.

Look there's no denying that lying, killing and stealing can generally be considered 'bad things' but here's the thing. That's not the point. Not in the slightest. I would have just as much an issue with the 9 Noble Virtues being displayed, and they're a WHOLE lot more secular than the 10 commandments are, and I agree with them to a much greater extent. The point is, as C pointed out with his product placement example, by displaying the commandments or ANY other religious message (without including any others) is like the govenment doing product placement for that religion. It gives the appearance that they endorse that religion, that they approve of THAT religion over any of the hundreds of others out there. It makes people who believe something different feel like they are inferior, that they are the 'other' people, because it appears the governemnt values that other religion more than it values theirs. That's the issue, not what the commandments say or how much I may or may not agree with the values expressed.

Also, it's not like these values (the killing/lying/stealing bit. not the 'no gods before me' or 'keep the sabbath holy' bits) are held by ONLY Christians/Jews, they weren't the first group to come to this conclusion, they don't have a monopoly on morality. It's not like the 10 commandments are the origin of our morals, and it's silly to treat the commanments like they are the origin of our morality and laws when they are not.

And did you not read anything I posted? haven't seen evidence of any discrimination? when was the last time a presidential candidate said Christians shouldn't be considered citizens and still managed to get elected? And I was talking about HERE and NOW (or at least inthe past 20 years or so) what happened to the Jews in Germany? horrible, no denying that. But I am not talking about what happened 50 years ago in another country, I'm talking about what's going on in America RIGHT NOW. I am also not saying that atheists are alone, clearly other groups also suffer persecution. But it is pretty bad, even if most people choose to ignore it. And I admit I have to roll my eyes when a Christian in the USA tells me they're persecuted when they make up 80% of the population.

And Lisa, I agree totally. As sad as the situation is over there, it is not our place to police the world.


[Edited on 25/3/06 by Bamfette]

[NachtcGleiskette]

Originally posted by Angelique
Well, we didn't take out the Taliban so they could be replaced by, oh, the Taliban. And just because it might not improve our opinion in the Middle East doesn't mean we should avoid doing the right thing. If anything, capitulating to terrorists proves that terrorism works.

One man is not worth the thousands that could be lost due to this act. And it may seem like an easy choice from where you are, but don't tell me that. I know we all saw 911 on our TVs as it happened, and we were all shocked, scared, and hurt. But how many orphans do YOU know from 911? How many widows? How many people who lost sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, neices, nephews, etc?

When you say something like that, when you say that our country should take a step in a direction which may perpetuate terrorism, you are saying it because you may believe its the right thing to do. What you don't realise, is by doing that you are putting MY LIFE as well as the lives of MY FRIENDS AND FAMILY on the line. That's not fair. I don't want to die, or lose a loved one, because this country stuck their nose where it doesn't belong. We've already lost too much.

And I agree with Em. Why now? Why this guy? Religious persecution is happening ALL the time, to all kinds of people. What is so special about this one guy??

[Edited on 25/3/06 by NachtcGleiskette]

[Bamfette]

I just found this, it's relevant to what i said about Jews/Catholics/Protestants having differently worded/interperted commandments. This is a Rabbi who is making my point better than i can: http://velveteenrabbi.blogs.com/blog/20 ... ten_1.html

[Angelique]

Again, give a piece of candy to a kid throwing a tantrum, and it will teach the kid that throwing tantrums works. Caving to terrorism will not stop it either. It's like, "These guys blew up a train station, and Spain pulled out of Iraq! Hey, this blowing up train stations deal really works! Let's try it again!" Give them their way, and we'll be perpetuating more terrorism- by rewarding it.

I can talk about terrorism, too. Just because I don't like in New York doens't mean I know nothing about it, after all. I've flown on airplanes, ridden on trains. I have friends and family that work for a nearby nuclear research facility. Suffice to say, they think they're at enough risk over there to warrant some pretty extreme security measures. I have friends in Northern Ireland, too, some of whom have been pretty scarred by what used to be an almost everyday occurrence over there. I've been privileged to know people from Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, and Israel, and have heard how terrorism has affected them. And the much simplified but objective one sentence description of the situation there is that life gets a lot better for a lot of people when folks on every side realize blowing each other up will never work.

As for atheism, it can also be argued that specifically banning or removing pre-existing public religious displays (particularly ones that have been regarded even by non-religious members of a community as part of the community's tradition or a local landmark, important not so much for religious meaning as for cultural/historical significance) can be construed as an endorsement of secular humanism or atheism.

And finally, I never presumed to speak for all atheists, but if you'd read my post, you'd know that I was speaking from my own experience as a one-time agnostic.

[Edited on 25/3/06 by Angelique]

[NachtcGleiskette]

One big point your missing is that the people of Afghanistan are not terrorists. This new government of theirs are not terrorists. I am concerned that us becoming involved where we don't belong will cause enough animosity to breed terrorism in a place we just worked to extinguish it!

And, sure, you can tell me what you think about terrorism all you want. But you know what? I don't care. No terrorists are going to come out to Idaho and wage an attack. I think that's pretty obvious. And I'm sure this is going to get argued, but unless you were in NY at the time of 911, you have no frikken clue what it was like. Unless you were so close to the city, that you were on lock down, you weren't allowed on the streets, you could smell it in the air, and the smoke settled in your backyard, you have no clue. Unless you spent hours upon hours calling every person you care about, trying to get through over cell phones (which were out about 90% of the time), you don't know. You don't know the panic. You don't know what its like for your home to be a war zone, and to have no answers as to why. Landmarks you grew up with destroyed, along with over 3000 lives.....neighbors and friends.

I understand you have friends who are in possibly terroristic situations. But you and your family are safe, Angelique. And you have no idea how scary it is here. Because this whole country is making decisions like this, decisions that can breed animosity toward this country. And its places like NY, DC, LA that are going to feel it. I don't understand why we can't do everything in our power to avoid it, rather than practically invite it.

And still, I wonder about this ONE man. This ONE man who is being persecuted. Where as THOUSANDS have been persecuted over their beliefs in the past. What is it about this ONE MAN that makes it a cause we need to get behind? I have a feeling were this a muslim man being persecuted by a Christian government, we wouldn't be nearly as concerned...

[Edited on 25/3/06 by NachtcGleiskette]

[Angelique]

Because he's just one of many people in numerous nations whose very life is being threatened all because he doesn't subscribe to the state religion.

I didn't say or even suggest all Afghans are terrorists. Different subject entirely. But my question is not, "Why this one man?" but "why are we only beginning to care? What did we do for the Buddhists, Muslims and Christians being persecuted in China and Chinese occupied territories? Or the animists and Christians raped, enslaved, and/or slaughtered in Sudan, all for not belonging to some state-approved religion?" No, this shouldn't stop now with this one man. It should've stopped ages ago. But better late than never.

And how would you have felt about it if the man left Islam for atheism?

Finally, if I were drinking anything, I would have spewed it all over the keyboard over the remark about my friends who "are possibly in terroristic situations." At least two that I mentioned had rocks thrown through their windows on an everyday basis. And one such family had to move and change their names after their business was bombed. A fun day to be sure.

Finally, Idaho has already been highly placed on the Defense Department's protection list as a high profile target. Being the birthplace of nuclear energy and continuing nuclear research, a bomb here would irradiate the drinking water of the entire west coast. (Several times evacuations at the Idaho National Laboratory were ordered all because, as in several cases, of things like unauthorized personel on the premises, and such.)
Terrorists may be spoiled rotten little brats who blow things up when they have temper tantrums, but they are smart enough to know that if they want payload, they don't always have to hit big cities.

And for crying out loud, yes you bore the brunt of 9-11. I never have and never will downplay that tragedy. But NYC was neither the first nor only city to suffer a terrorist attack. Washington DC also got hit. And there have been terrorist attacks of one sort or another in Oklahoma City, Atlanta, GA, Wichita, Kansas, Spokane, Washington, and yes, another person I know had his home in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho bombed. And recall that Northern Ireland and Israel have had to endure senseless killing for generations before 9-11, and know a thing or two about it.



[Edited on 25/3/06 by Angelique]

[Bamfette]

As for atheism, it can also be argued that specifically banning or removing pre-existing public religious displays (particularly ones that have been regarded even by non-religious members of a community as part of the community's tradition or a local landmark, important not so much for religious meaning as for cultural/historical significance) can be construed as an endorsement of secular humanism or atheism.

that's ludicrous.

1. unless they replaced the commandments with the Humanist Manifesto you can scratch Secular Humanism from your example altogether.

2. 50 odd years isn't long enough to be counted for special exemption on historical or community basis, sorry. If it's been there for a hundred years, maybe, but anything under a single persons lifeime is up for grabs as far as I'm concerned. And besides, most monuments have been around for far less time than that. Most of the protests are over displays that are not even erected, they're just planned or have been up for less than a year. yeah, some cases about older monuments go to court, but typically it's over brand spankin' new displays.

3. And most importantly, It's not ONLY atheists and humanists lobying for the removal of such displays. many members of alternate religions and even many Christians and Jews (if you read it, that Rabbi i linked to was all for removing the commandments from public displays even if they displayed the Jewish commandments, for example) are behind this. the removal of the displays would not show as governmental endorsement of their religion(s), so why should it be seen as endorsement of atheism?

And how would you have felt about it if the man left Islam for atheism?

If you intended that as some kind of throught provoking 'ah-ha!' statement, it's not. This isn't about what religion he converted to or from. I would feel exactly the same. terribly unfortunate, very sad, but ultimately i don't believe we should intervene for two reasons. one, I agree with Lisa, the cost would be too great. It's incredibly sad that he has been sentenced to death for a right we take for granted, this is true. but it's not worth the lives that could be lost in fighting or in (fairly likely) retaliatory terrorist attacks should we go in to put a stop to this. and secondly, who decided that we are the ones who should make decisions for the entire planet? where does us forcing our beliefs on them stop if we do this?

(and Lisa's not an atheist. just fyi.)

[NachtcGleiskette]

Yeah, for the record, I'm not Atheist...and even if I was, the guy being an Atheist wouldn't make a difference...except I wouldn't tell him to say hi to Jesus for me

And Ange, you're right, you never said these people were terrorists. So why don't we just stay out of their business in order to make sure they STAY non-terrorists?

And if you are trying to compare ANY terorist-type attack on this country to 9/11 you have no fucking clue how huge 9/11 really was. I'm done with this conversation. I'm offended you'd even respond like that. And shocked, to be quite honest.


[Edited on 25/3/06 by NachtcGleiskette]

[The Drastic Spastic]

Originally posted by Angelique

And finally, I never presumed to speak for all atheists, but if you'd read my post, you'd know that I was speaking from my own experience as a one-time agnostic.

One: Agnostic is not the same as atheist.

Two: As a one-time Catholic, I'm completely fine with religion being something people practice in private, among consenting adults. I think I'm on to something here, since I used to be Catholic and that means I totally understand Catholic beliefs, despite rejecting them on the grounds that they are shockingly ignorant.

From now on, I'm going to bring the Catholic perspective to this thread based on my experiences being Catholic. Watch for it.

[Crawler]

Just something to ponder (though a few of you may not see the poignance of this question)...

Would there be as much of an American uproar if he HAD "converted" (in quotes because I'm not sure of its application in this case) to Atheism?

[The Drastic Spastic]

As a Catholic, I don't think it matters which version of the Ten Commandments goes up in public. Heck, I didn't even KNOW there was more than one version. I go to church every week, but I don't know that much about my religion. I think most Catholics wouldn't even notice if they used the Jewish or Protestant version, because I wouldn't. I'd just be happy to see religion getting out there. It's all the same anyway, right? We all believe in Jesus Christ, and Jesus was a GOOD PERSON. Why do people hate Jesus so much??

[Angelique]

>I'm completely fine with religion being something people practice in private, among consenting adults.



We're talking about religion. I think comparing that to- oh, other behaviors we may be "fine with" as long as it's kept private and between consenting adults, is a bit offensive.

But another matter, I have actually had college professors who have made a habit of lambasting religion in general, and usually more specifically Christianity, in classes. I went to a publically funded university. Complaints about their obvious displays of anti-religious bigotry, if they were heard at all, went completely unaddressed, because the behavior would persist. These people are paid by the state. I hear it's happening on other campuses, and quite frankly, I believe it. Our tax dollars are paying people who actively promote atheism on the job. I wouldn't mind that so much if religious professors were allowed the same latitude in the classroom.

As for monuments, Boise has had an on again, off again kerfuffle about a big light-up cross overlooking the city. The cross was built by a private organization- on land that was, at the time, public. It's all private property now, but some people still want it taken down. Here's another problem. In the fifty years that cross has been up- and fifty years in a city that's only about two hundred years old is pretty long- the cross has earned a reputation quite apart from its religious significance, inspiring local tradition (high school seniors consider off-roading or hiking up to the cross a rite of passage, due in part to the high visibility and relative inaccessibility of the landmark), and even local legend. It's become a part of the city's culture.

And I think a monument to every religion represented in a community is perfectly fine.

Finally, let me repeat- I was not presuming to speak for all atheists, just to relate my experience that I did not witness or experience any hostility on account of my beliefs when I did not believe in God.

[Saint Kurt]

Originally posted by Crash Tofu
Just something to ponder (though a few of you may not see the poignance of this question)...

Would there be as much of an American uproar if he HAD "converted" (in quotes because I'm not sure of its application in this case) to Atheism?

Well, I did. And It's why I delibrately didn't post any kind of leading questions other than "why now?" when I raised the subject. I think the man's Christianity has more to do with it than ANYTHING and that all these other countries are intervening for the wrong reasons.

My biggest fear after the 9/11 terrorist attacks was that we would go to war in the Middle East and that we would destabilize an area that already has an increadible amount of destabilization and tension within it. And that's before we show up and start bombing stuff. And now that we have been there for years we are finding ourselves in the position of "nation builders", but I don't think Islamic nations are the kind we know how to build. In fact, I would go as far as saying, we shouldn't even be nation building and that we've overstayed our welcome.

I think nothing demonstrates this more than this situation with one man. He has broken a law in his country and even though that law sounds crazy to us, it is their law not ours. Our continued meddling only serves to raise tension and let the destabilization flourish. It seems obvious to me that the use of this Christian man is almost designed to appeal to our sense of what is morally right and wrong and thus has gotten a tremendous amount of attention.

It is this use of religion as a barometer of morality in this country that is the most dismaying fact about the University of Minn study on Atheism. So, would so many western governments jump to the defense of an Afgani Atheist to save his life?

For the same political reasons that we shouldn't be doing it now, I hope not, but I dearly hope the desire would be there anyway.

-e

[Angelique]

Em, I'm kind of with you on this, except for one thing. History has shown that oppresion only gets worse when good people worldwide merely hope the governments responsible will stop on their own.

Whether or not we should be in the position of nation building is one thing. But even if we did know how to build an Islamic nation- it doesn't mean we should. Recall that a lot of the tension now is around what kind of Islam the nation should be built.

[Crawler]

Also just FYI, I don't consider myself Atheist, either.

Originally posted by Angelique
>I'm completely fine with religion being something people practice in private, among consenting adults.



We're talking about religion. I think comparing that to- oh, other behaviors we may be "fine with" as long as it's kept private and between consenting adults, is a bit offensive.

To be fair, that language has been used in reference to sexual acts, but YOU are the one comparing it to that.

But I agree with her because that statement makes two points: First, that religion should be practiced by adults. It has always seemed forced or even abusive to endoctrinate children. Teach them about it, sure. Tell them that it's the only way? Couldn't disagree with that more.

And second, that forcing religion on anyone is oppressive...not just to atheists, as I'm sure you'll jump at, but also to non-practicers, agnostics, and members of other faiths.

Oh, and please use the quote button/tag. That's what it's there for.

But another matter, I have actually had college professors who have made a habit of lambasting religion in general, and usually more specifically Christianity, in classes. I went to a publically funded university...Our tax dollars are paying people who actively promote atheism on the job.

Speaking against religion is not promoting atheism, hate to break it to you.

That's like saying that speaking against wearing fur is promoting public nudity. It's not the same thing at all.

On top of that, I went to a public University, as well. This happened in only two of my classes. One was a Biology class when a student used Intelligent Design to answer all the questions on a test.

The other was in a Journalism class and was about religion-controlled television. The professor jokingly said that they were "one-note networks." Someone did get huffy, which is why I remember, but it was clearly in jest. People really need a sense of humor sometimes.

And I think a monument to every religion represented in a community is perfectly fine.

You're gonna need a bigger boat: http://www.venganza.org/

Or where do you draw the line?

I did not witness or experience any hostility on account of my beliefs when I did not believe in God.

Jill posted several great links to the hostility you did not witness.

Originally posted by Saint Kurt
I think nothing demonstrates this more than this situation with one man. He has broken a law in his country and even though that law sounds crazy to us, it is their law not ours. Our continued meddling only serves to raise tension and let the destabilization flourish. It seems obvious to me that the use of this Christian man is almost designed to appeal to our sense of what is morally right and wrong and thus has gotten a tremendous amount of attention.

I agree. And our most public leader, the man that speaks for our nation, calling us a "Christian nation" does not help the situation.

You simply CANNOT attempt to interfere with religious oppression in another country while you are doing the same thing at home.

Originally posted by Angelique
But even if we did know how to build an Islamic nation- it doesn't mean we should.

We took out the system that was in place. Should we just leave it to them to sort it out, now that we've injected a huge amount of chaos into the place?

History has shown that oppresion only gets worse when good people worldwide merely hope the governments responsible will stop on their own.

Please refer to Board Rule #6 and back up your statement. When you state something as fact you MUST back up your statement.

We've let you get away with this in hopes of "good examples" being enough, but no longer. This is the LAST TIME we let that go. Consider yourself warned.

[Edited to add responses to later posts at 12:17 Mountain time.]

[Edited on 3-25-2006 by Crash Tofu]

[NachtcGleiskette]

Originally posted by Angelique

Whether or not we should be in the position of nation building is one thing. But even if we did know how to build an Islamic nation- it doesn't mean we should. Recall that a lot of the tension now is around what kind of Islam the nation should be built.

So, what kind of nation should we build then? We can't very well go in and destroy who's in power now and leave the people with nothing. I'm not trying to be snarky, but what kind of nation do we help them build?

[Angelique]

We're talking about religion. I think comparing that to- oh, other behaviors we may be "fine with" as long as it's kept private and between consenting adults, is a bit offensive.

To be fair, that language has been used in reference to sexual acts, but YOU are the one comparing it to that.

But I agree with her because that statement makes two points: First, that religion should be practiced by adults. It has always seemed forced or even abusive to endoctrinate children. Teach them about it, sure. Tell them that it's the only way? Couldn't disagree with that more. [/quote]

Passing on a religion to one's children is pretty much part of every religion. That a religion is the only way is also part of some religions. And finally, treating religion as something that should be kept hush-hush is not only against the intent of religious freedom, it is contrary to many religions.

Speaking against religion is not promoting atheism, hate to break it to you.

I beg to differ. Speaking out against religion in general is an indirect endorsement of atheism. And even if it weren't, if it's not the place of a Christian, Muslim, pagan, or whatever professor to discuss their beliefs in class, it's not appropriate for an atheist to do likewise. And openly mocking or upbraiding students in front of the class, as I have seen happen, just because they hold some belief, whatever it is, that the professor doesn't agree with (and it can happen to any student, but I've seen it happen more to Christians) is completely inappropriate.

I was kind of grateful that I majored in music, and I enjoyed my art history classes, because there, the subject of religion had to be treated with respect at least as part of the cultural context and the inspiration for, say, Beethoven's Missa Solemnis, Native American ghost dances, nonrepresentational mosaics in mid-Eastern architecture, etc.,.

Outside those classes, it was another matter. I had a philosophy professor hand out a paper he wrote about why the whole Bible is bunk, and he openly espoused his own brand of nonspecific deism. (He also wasn't very nice to atheists, either, but he came down particularly hard on Christianity and Judaism.) A sociology professor I had earned himself a reputation for lecturing almost exclusively about two topics- drug legalization and how everyone in their right mind should be atheist.

I had two professors outside the music and art departments that I knew professed any religion. But that was one went to my church, and the other, a biology professor, felt she'd be more forthcoming with the class if she explained her reservations- as both a scientist and a Baptist- about teaching evolution, and that while she would teach it, she would not espouse it as a complete explanation of our origins, and then reminded us about a geology prof at the same college who took issue with the plate tectonics theory, but taught it anyway.

You simply CANNOT attempt to interfere with religious oppression in another country while you are doing the same thing at home.

I could see your point if we had a law making it a capital offense to belong to anything other than some designated state-approved religion. We do have some issues here, but what's going on is far from the same.

oringally posted by yours truly History has shown that oppresion only gets worse when good people worldwide merely hope the governments responsible will stop on their own.

And I do think, if World War II is not a good enough example (millions of people dying because of their religion, in part because we were too isolationist at the time to get involved) all we need to think about is how many people were murdered, raped, or enslaved in Dharfur just because they were Christian or animist, while governments around the world wondered just how and if they should do anything about it.