I must warn you, this is long. Believe it or not, this whole exchange occurred over 6 days.
_______________________________________________________________________________
FROM: My Aunt
Subject: Jay Leno puts the USA into perspective for truth!
I hope you will All read this to the end. Jay Leno puts it into perspective and makes us think about our pathetic negativity.....Wake up People!
That's right, Jay Leno!!
Jay Leno wrote this; it's the Jay Leno we don't often see....
"The other day I was reading Newsweek magazine and came across some poll data I found rather hard to believe. It must be true, given the source, right?
The Newsweek poll alleges that 67 percent of Americans are unhappy with the direction the country is headed, and 69 percent of the country is unhappy with the performance of the President. In essence, 2/3's of the citizenry just ain't happy and want a change.
So being the knuckle dragger I am, I started thinking, ''What are we so unhappy about?''
Is it that we have electricity and running water 24 hours a day, 7 days a week?
Is our unhappiness the result of having air conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter?
Could it be that 95.4 percent of these unhappy folks have a job?
Maybe it is the ability to walk into a grocery store at any time, and see more food in moments than Darfur has seen in the last year?
Maybe it is the ability to drive from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean without having to present identification papers as we move through each state?
Or possibly the hundreds of clean and safe motels we would find along the way that can provide temporary shelter?
I guess having thousands of restaurants with varying cuisine from around the world is just not good enough.
Or could it be that when we wreck our car, emergency workers show up and provide services to help all, and even send a helicopter to take you to the hospital.
Perhaps you are one of the 70 percent of Americans who own a home. You may be upset with knowing that in the unfortunate case of a fire, a group of trained firefighters will appear in moments and use top notch equipment to extinguish the flames thus saving you, your family and your belongings.
Or if, while at home watching one of your many flat screen TVs, a burglar or prowler intrudes, an officer equipped with a gun and a bullet-proof vest will come to defend you and your family against attack or loss.
This all in the backdrop of a neighborhood free of bombs or militia's raping and pillaging the residents. Neighborhoods where 90 percent of teenagers own cell phones and computers.
How about the complete religious, social and political freedoms we enjoy that are the envy of everyone in t he world?
Maybe that is what has 67 percent of you folks unhappy.
Fact is, we are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats the world has ever seen. No wonder the world loves the U.S., yet has a great disdain for its citizens. They see us for what we are. The most blessed people in the world who do nothing but complain about what we don't have , and what we hate about the country instead of thanking the good Lord we live here.
I know, I know. What about the President who took us into war and has no plan to get us out? The President who has a measly 31 percent approval rating? Is this the same President who guided the nation in the dark days after 9/11? The President that cut taxes to bring an economy out of recession? Could this be the same guy who has been called every name in the book for succeeding in keeping all the spoiled ungrateful brats safe from terrorist attacks?
The Commander-In Chief of an all-volunteer army that is out there defending you and me? Did you hear how bad the President is on the news or talk show?
Did this news affect you so much, make you so unhappy you couldn't take a look around for yourself and see all the good things and be glad?
Think about it...are you upset at the President because he actually caused you personal pain OR is it because the "Media" told you he was failing to kiss your sorry ungrateful behind every day.
Make no mistake about it. The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have volunteered to serve, and in many cases may have died for your freedom.
There is currently no draft in this country. They didn't have to go.
They are able to refuse to go and end up with either a ''general''
discharge, an ''other than honorable'' discharge or, worst case scenario, a ''dishonorable'' discharge after a few days in the brig.
So why then the flat-out discontentment in the minds of 69 percent of Americans? Say what you want, but I blame it on the media. If it bleeds, it leads; and they specialize in bad news. Everybody will watch a car crash with blood and guts. How many will watch kids selling lemonade at the corner? The media knows this and media outlet s are for-profit corporations. They offer what sells, and when criticized, try to defend their actions by "justifying" them in one way or another. Just ask why they tried to allow a murderer like O.J. Simpson to write a book about "how he didn't kill his wife, but if he did he would have done it this way"...Insane!
Stop buying the negativism you are fed everyday by the media. Shut off the TV, burn Newsweek, and use the New York Times for the bottom of your bird cage. Then start being grateful for all we have as a country. There is exponentially more good than bad.
We are among the most blessed people on Earth, and should thank God several times a day, or at least be thankful and appreciative.
"With hurricanes, tornados, fires out of control, mud slides, flooding, severe thunderstorms tearing up the country from one end to another, and with the threat of bird flu and terrorist attacks, "Are we sure this is a good time to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance?"
Jay Leno
2007
Please keep this in circulation. There are so many people that need to read this and grasp the truth of it all.
_______________________________________________________________________________
FROM: Archie
My Aunt---
Well, please feel free to pass the following on to "Jay Leno", who didn't actually write the essay you forwarded. Please see:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/hitnail.asp
The real author, Craig Smith, is proprietor of the ultra-right-wing web site "World Net Daily" that reports that the world is 6,000 years old, that there is a vast conspiracy to merge the U.S., Mexico, and Canada into one state, and a host of other...er, colorful...stories that you can check out here:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/
Anyway...
I think we're headed in the wrong direction because we now believe that torture is a legitimate instrument of national policy.
I think we're headed in the wrong direction because more than 100,000 Iraqis, and more than 3,000 Americans, have died in a war that we didn't need, that we can neither win nor escape, and that is making our nation more unsafe by the day. And is costing the country $12 billion a month (that's $17 million an hour or $555,000 a minute, or about $10,000 a second).
I think we're headed in the wrong direction because, although we spend far more on health care than any other nation on the planet, 45 million of our fellow citizens lack even basic health insurance. And, with the President having vetoed the S-CHIP expansion, that number is set to grow by several million children.
I think we're headed in the wrong direction because during the recent economic "expansion," the incomes of the wealthiest one percent of Americans skyrocketed while everyone from the middle class through the working poor has seen their average real incomes decline.
I think we're headed in the wrong direction because we have a President who believes that all that should be necessary to systematically violate the civil rights of Americans is his say-so, and the Constitution and courts be damned.
I think we're headed in the wrong direction because many Americans, including the U.S. military, still believe it's OK to discriminate against people because of who they are. And, have the self-righteous gall to say that their god sanctions their fear, intolerance, and hatred.
I think we're headed in the wrong direction because so many folks believe that "intelligent design" is legitimate science but the overwhelming mass of evidence about global climate change is baloney.
I think we're headed in the wrong direction because we have an energy policy that was written by the oil companies, a Medicare drug benefit that was crafted by the pharmaceutical industry, and international family planning rules inspired by know-nothing religious fanatics.
I think we're headed in the wrong direction because more Americans know the name of Britney Spears' ex-husband than could locate Iran and Iraq on an unlabeled map.
I could go on, but I'll spare you.
Love ya,
--- Archie
_______________________________________________________________________________
FROM: Me
Thanks Archie, for the entertaining diatribe.
I've never met you but My Aunt tells me you are My Uncle's brother. Nice to meet you. I am My Aunt's nephew. Here is a picture of me...
Hi everybody!!
and you say... "Hi Dr. Nick!"
Ok, so since you took the time to respond to all these strangers with your manifesto below, I thought I'd take a moment to respond as well.
1. Out of curiosity, I went to Snopes and read their report. Nothing in their summary indicated that Craig Smith perpetrated a hoax, as is implied below. Here is the text itself:
"[in 2005, a year after many hurricanes and disasters including Hurricane Katrina], Craig R. Smith penned the ... essay exhorting Americans to focus on the positive aspects of their country rather than the bad events that typically comprise our daily news fodder. By March 2007 the original had been altered through multiple e-mail forwards, with the closing paragraphs (which quoted B.C. Forbes) removed and a paraphrase of Jay Leno's joke (with misplaced quotation marks) appended to the end, creating the mistaken impression that the talk show host was the author of the entire piece (as evidenced by its new opening line, "Jay Leno hits the nail on the head ..."). However, only the last sentence originated with the lantern-jawed comedian; the rest is the work of someone else."
The long and short of it is that this email is not some kind of wacko right-wing conspiracy designed to spread hope (gasp), but rather an essay that got sucked up in the swirling vortex of the internet and was finally spit out of (oddly enough) Jay Leno's mouth. Who says there aren't worm holes out there in space... So, Smith was asking folks to look on the bright side of things in America, instead of all the negative hand-wringing one sees on the evening news. (Hide the women and children, here come the optimists!)
2. I couldn't find a Craig Smith at the "ultra-right-wing web site "World Net Daily"" that you mentioned below. The Editor and CEO is Joseph Farah (he's also the founder). The Vice President and Managing Editor is David Kupelian. The Executive News Editor is Joe Kovacs. Here is the URL for their staff if you'd like to check your facts: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/contact.asp.
3. As far as the World Net Daily site being "colorful" is concerned, I suppose that's a matter of opinion. The site's motto is "A free press for a free people", which would be quite alarming if I was King George. Sigh, there's that pesky 1st Amendment again. As a matter of fairness I am adding a few websites that I find colorful:
http://www.myaurapaint.com
http://www.benjaminmoore.com/
http://www.aclu.org/
http://www.glidden.com/home/index.jsp
http://www.earthfirst.org/
http://www.sherwin-williams.com/
http://pol.moveon.org/
I could go on all day, but I forgot why I am looking for these sites on the internet...
4. Finally, if you think we're heading in the wrong direction, you should probably stop being so dog gone male, pull over and ask for directions. I recommend you stop by a church.
Thanks for the fun things to think about today, Archie, I got big yuks from this and hope you don't take it all so seriously.
Nice to blather in front of you all, and thanks for the peanuts.
ME
_______________________________________________________________________________
FROM: Archie
ME---
The long and short of it is that this email is not some kind of wacko right-wing conspiracy...
Never suggested or implied it was a hoax. Just pointed out that it wasn't written by Jay Leno, but instead by a right-wing wacko.
2. I couldn't find a Craig Smith at the "ultra-right-wing web site "World Net Daily"" that you mentioned below…
How hard did you look? Searching for his name on the WND site produces 285 hits for articles written by Smith, the most recent dated four days ago. You're right, however, about Smith not being the owner of WND; in fact, he's actually proprietor of a different right-wing-wacko Webs site, http://www.craigrsmith.com/ I apologize for the misattribution. At least I didn't say he ran. jayleno.com
4. Finally, if you think we're heading in the wrong direction, you should probably stop being so dog one male, pull over and ask for directions. I recommend you stop by a church.
I'm not the one who's lost; I know in which direction we need to go. And it definitely isn't anywhere near a church.
Of what are you a doctor, if I may ask?
Cheers.
_______________________________________________________________________________
FROM: Me
Hi Archie,
Nice to meet you. Call me Dr. Nyuk, if you must. My Aunt will attest to my obnoxiousness. I'm also one of those right-wing Christians that everyone is so terrified and paranoid about these days (living in Massachusetts we keep looking nervously out the window for the lynch mob). Too bad. The more polarized and angry the country gets, the sooner it will all fall apart. Oh well, when in Rome...
Not all conservatives and Christians are the whacked out zombies of stereotypical fame. Some of us are actually real doctors and lawyers, teachers, etc etc etc. I hope we can continue to kid around back and forth. It's fun to try to decipher the snarling and ranting from the other side, isn't it? ;-)
ME
_______________________________________________________________________________
FROM: Archie
ME---
I don't usually find much to kid about with "right-wing Christians," since I hold them to be mainly responsible for tearing down the country that I love. And I don't see much "fun" about hate, fear-mongering, and intolerance. So, like our President in choosing his Supreme Court nominees, I have a litmus test. What's your position on civil rights for gays and lesbians? Are they entitled to the same civil, legal and economic protections as heterosexual couples?
You may, of course, choose not to answer, as you apparently chose not to answer my question about your field (I'm a political scientist who's specialized in national security for 25 years, in case you're curious and/or wanted to see mine before showing me yours). But, I thought it worth asking, since at first glance you seem, you know, less zombie-like than many of your confreres. Plus, you're related to My Aunt, which is worth points in my book (are you My Mothere and DIck's son? I know, another question).
Cheers.
_______________________________________________________________________________
FROM: Me
Hi again,
hmmm, let me see if I have this "straight". I failed on two counts so far, I am a Christian and a conservative moderate (not even a "true" conservative) and now I have to answer this Litmus test question to see...? What? I am baffled. Why not just say "hey ME, I understand that most conservative Christian's think gays and Lesbians don't have the same rights under the law as heterosexuals. What do you think?" Why make this into a litmus test? Litmus of what? Why even bother having strikes against me or points for me? You don't even know me. Is this some kind of poli-sci thing I slept through in High School?
So, you have any kids?
ME
P.S. Why, yes. I am My Mother and My Father's son. 44 years old. Father. Christian. Nut cakes.
_______________________________________________________________________________
FROM: Archie
ME-
Most folks I've encountered who promptly self-identify as "conservative Christians" are moderate in neither dimension, so my reaction was Baysian. Generally, my image of how the world works is so different from theirs that it's hardly worth trying to communicate, for either side. They believe they have eternal truth on their side, and I utterly reject that schema, so once we're done discussing the weather, there's not a lot left on the agenda. So, why not cut to the chase and see if there's any point in trying to bridge the gap between our two worlds? I just live in a very different reality than does the average "conservative Christian."
So, anyway, ME, how do you feel about the whole "gay marriage" deal? Now you've got me interested...
As for the "points" thing, it was purely idiomatic; no offense intended.
I know your folks. Fact is, I got pretty drunk with your dad before my brother and My Aunt's wedding. He was a good guy.
No kids; my bride and I have cats. Much easier to toilet-train.
Cheers.
_______________________________________________________________________________
FROM: Me
you crack me up. btw, it's Bayesian, and how many of these idiomatic (idiotic, if you prefer) folks introduce themselves with a picture of Nick Riviera and call themselves Dr. Nyuk. Believe it or not (and sometimes my cohortic random population variables have a hard time believing this too) but God does have a sense of humor.
I'll respond to the rest in the AM.
Me
P.S. See, this is fun.
_______________________________________________________________________________
FROM: Me
starting a new email. The other one is getting too messy.
Questions:
1. Originally phrased: "What's your position on civil rights for gays and lesbians? Are they entitled to the same civil, legal and economic protections as heterosexual couples?"
2. Rephrased (I think this is what you are really want to know from me): "So, anyway, ME, how do you feel about the whole "gay marriage" deal?"
These are two different questions, so I will answer them separately.
1. When it comes to how a state treats its people in regards to the legality of their actions or their legal rights to act, this is the responsibility of the state. We live in a representative democracy governed by elected officials whose responsibility is to legislate (it would be nice if they legislated the way they promise they would while campaigning, since that's the "deal" they are making with the voters, but that's another topic). So, since "civil rights" are under the purview of the government, my response is the same as Jesus' when he was faced with a similar question (Matthew 22:15-21)
"Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. "Teacher," they said, "we know you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are. Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?"
"But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, "You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?"
"Caesar's," they replied. Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."
If we lived in a theocracy, then this issue of gay civil union would be the business of the religious institutions, since the underlying rules of the government would be based on religious text. This is not the case, so give to Caesar what is Caesar's, but give to God what is God's. This leads us to the second answer.
2. I do not believe in "gay marriage". It was interesting that you put that phrase in quotes when you asked the question, as it indicates that you understand the true nature of the question.
Civil union and marriage are NOT the same thing. If the aim is to guarantee people's civil rights under the law (as you phrased the question the first time), then so be it. That is in the world of Caesar--it is a legal term. If the aim is to redefine the word "marriage" so that it means something else than it did yesterday, then I completely disagree, especially as the term has meaning and origins within Christianity are are clear and unequivocal, and since the stability of family as defined within the Bible is based on this clear, unequivocal definition. Marriage is part of the universe of laws and creeds that make up a moral code, which is primary to, separate from yet influential on the current legal code. If you simply change moral codes at your whim to suit your tastes, what is to stop us from saying that murder is OK in certain situations, and then putting all of our sick and elderly to death (as you are aware, these things happen quite often in human history).
In simple terms I object to the following
Monday:
Marriage = ABC
Non-marriage = DEF
Tuesday:
Marriage = ABCD
Non-Marriage = EF
Wednesday:
Marriage = ABCDE
Non-Marriage = F
Who decided to add D and E, why, what effect will this change have on institutions beyond governmental one (e.g. synagogues, churches, etc.), what kinds of new legal authorities will be levied on religious institutions now that the definition is changed (e.g. what legal right will a gay couple have to force a gay marriage ceremony in any church, regardless of the church's stand on the matter?), how far will the changing of the definition go, how far will the related changes go, is it our right to change the definition, is it anyone's right? Have these questions been asked? Not fully, but they are being asked.
To me the real question is, why isn't the term "civil union" enough, especially if it conveys all the legal rights currently afforded those who are "married"? I believe that the aim is to force moral acceptance of gay union by adding it in to the definition of "marriage", thereby making it morally equal and forcing the change of an ancient moral code. Gay marriage is actually considered adultery in the Bible, as is union between any unmarried couple of any gender. But now we are changing the definition and saying it is the SAME as any other marriage. In effect it takes the legal imperative and forces a moral change, e.g. forcing moral acceptance of a previously deemed immoral activity. I close with an example:
Monday:
Good people = Liberals, Democrats, Clintons
Non-good people = Conservative, Republicans, Bushs
Tuesday:
Good people = Liberals, Conservative, Democrats, Clintons
Non-good people = Republicans, Bushs
Wednesday:
Good people = Liberals, Conservative, Democrats, Republicans, Clintons
Non-good people = Bushs
Thursday:
Good people = Liberals, Conservative, Democrats, Republicans, Clintons, Bushs
Non-good people =
Hi ho,
ME
_______________________________________________________________________________
FROM: Archie
ME---
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I fault myself for still not phrasing my question in a precise enough way to get the kind of answer I'm seeking. You described the process by which the decision regarding civil unions should be made rather than your preference as to what the decision should ultimately be, which is what I'm after. So let me try again:
Do you, personally, support granting the same legal status to gays and lesbians in committed relationships as are enjoyed by married heterosexual couples?
I don't think I can make the intent of my inquiry more clear than this, can I? And thank you for granting that I might actually "understand the true nature of the question."
Moving on, let's review this sequence of events:
Monday (OK, OK, 1700) : Slavery is OK, it's sanctioned by God
Tuesday (1865) : Slavery is horrible, it's a crime against man and God
I guess you'd have found that evolution of moral reasoning problematic? Once a sin, always a sin, once a mitzvot, always a mitzvot? You deny the possibility that man's ethical sense can, and indeed has, over and over again, changed? Or is it just that all change is bad?
Do you think that we should be executing children who backtalk (Leviticus 20:9), unfaithful wives and husbands (20:10), etc etc? All that "cruel and inhuman" stuff that's right there in the exact same book, in the exact same language, presumably dictated/inspired by the exact same God, as the supposed prohibition against (male) homosexuality? You've heard it all before, I'm sure--the inherent problems of using a book in which God doesn't merely tolerate but at times commands genocide and slavery as an inerrant guide to ethical behavior. Whaddaya think?
Me: “…Gay marriage is actually considered adultery in the Bible, as is union between any unmarried couple of any gender….”
Well, that's a Catch-22 for the poor SOBs, isn't it? You won't let it be called "marriage" because it's "adultery," and it's "adultery" 'cause you won't let it be called "marriage." And, of course, from my standpoint, saying something is condemned in the Bible is like saying that Zeus doesn't dig it, or that a Simpsons episode once criticized it. If that's where our discussion is headed, we're gonna quickly be flying in circles, chasing our own tails.
Finally, you ask:
To me the real question is, why isn't the term "civil union" enough, especially if it conveys all the legal rights currently afforded those who are "married"?
Well, of course, it is enough. I don't know how many gays and lesbians you've actually discussed this with; I am blessed to live in the Pittsburgh version of DuPont Circle in DC, and so have had the opportunity to talk about it with a lot of neighbors and friends whom the question affects much more directly and much, much more profoundly than it does either you or me. And while many of them naturally do wish that their own religious communities were more open to accepting and celebrating the miracle that is true human love--reflecting, as it does, God's love for all of us, according to Your Lord--in whatever form it takes between responsible, adult souls, they would be ecstatic beyond words to be granted "all the legal rights currently afforded those who are 'married'." So, you cool with that?
You live in MA, huh? You a Red Sox fan? We might soon, God willing, have something else to disagree about, and with nearly religious intensity...
Cheers.
_______________________________________________________________________________
FROM: Me
Short answers below, longer answers and questions coming sooner or later. Your counter-arguments are interesting, but I believe some of them are built on some incorrect premises. oh, and I hope I didn't offend in the last email. Of course you get the significance of all these things. It's what you do!
btw, I work in high tech. as a Solution Architect. I scope complex testing programs across a number of business domains. I have also been a college professor, a writer, a live rock night club manager and bartender, cook, waiter, construction worker, Lumber yard worker and a whole bunch of other things across the country over the decades. It's been interesting, but as they say, the more you know the less you know.
Me
_______________________________________________________________________________
FROM: Me
ME---
Do /you/, personally, support granting the same legal status to gays and lesbians in committed relationships as are enjoyed by married heterosexual couples?
Me: No, you were clear last time around what you were looking for. Here is a blunt answer: I personally don't care. What rights, legal status or most anything else any government grants to anyone is way beyond my spheres of influence, being a tiny little middle class nobody in America. I am curious in exactly what you mean by "legal status." Does "legal status" in the context of this issue generally refer to rights to insurance coverage and benefits, inheritance issues, and other matters of finance? Why should anyone /*not */be protected from their government and from insurance companies in these things (a larger discussion could be had on why people need to be protected from their government in the first place, but that is for another day).
…You've heard it all before, I'm sure--the inherent problems of using a book in which God doesn't merely tolerate but at times /commands/ genocide and slavery as an inerrant guide to ethical behavior. Whaddaya think?
Me: Gay marriage is actually considered adultery in the Bible, as is union between any unmarried couple of any gender.
Well, that's a Catch-22 for the poor SOBs, isn't it? You won't let it be called "marriage" because it's "adultery," and it's "adultery" 'cause you won't let it be called "marriage." And, of course, from my standpoint, saying something is condemned in the Bible is like saying that Zeus doesn't dig it, or that a /Simpsons/ episode once criticized it. If that's where our discussion is headed, we're gonna quickly be flying in circles, chasing our own tails.
Me: Question: I gather from these comments that you are perhaps an agnostic, if not an atheist. Most of the atheists I've met in my life have been genuinely antagonistic if not down right hostile towards those who believe in God. Why is that?
_______________________________________________________________________________
FROM: Archie
ME---
Do /you/, personally, support granting the same legal status to gays and lesbians in committed relationships as are enjoyed by married heterosexual couples?
Me: No, you were clear last time around what you were looking for. Here is a blunt answer: I personally don't care.
See, that I don't get. A whole group of millions of real people is being denied real, fundamental rights, every day, day in and day out, in ways that deeply impact their lives, and your attitude is "I don't care." But suggest diddling around with the definition of an abstract concept like "marriage," and you're ready to rock-and-roll. From my ethical perspective, you've got things just exactly backwards. To give you credit, it's among the least hostile attitudes on the issue that I've heard from any "conservative Christian," but still--like the shortest verse in the Bible says, "Jesus wept."
Me: Question: I gather from these comments that you are perhaps an agnostic, if not an atheist. Most of the atheists I've met in my life have been genuinely antagonistic if not down right hostile towards those who believe in God. Why is that?
Archie: I'm an atheist; have been since childhood. I could, of course, turn the question around: why are believers so hostile to non-believers?
I don't speak for anyone else, but I'm not hostile to believers, I'm antagonistic to the beliefs (hate the sin, not the sinner, I guess). I understand why religious belief has an appeal; children are all afraid of the dark. It's just that it's factually, logically, and morally wrong. "Faith" stifles critical thinking, is used to reinforce existing power relations between "haves" and "have-nots" (yup, that ol' "opiate of the masses" thing; look at the world as it is and tell me it's not so), and contributes greatly to the difficulties we have as a community, as a nation, and as a planet, seeking real and lasting solutions to the complex problems we face. It can't help but incite hatred and intolerance; no system of belief that claims to possess ultimate, eternal, and universal truth can do otherwise. It's a superstition that it's past time to outgrow; along with tribalism--to which it is closely related--it's the curse of our species. If there is an "original sin," it's believing in "God".
You also have to think about how it looks, experientially, from a non-believer's perspective. We're living in a society where most people believe in Santa Claus. But it's not enough for them just to believe it in their own hearts and homes, teach their children the stories, leave cookies out on Christmas Eve, and let it go at that. No, they have to try to impose Santa-ist doctrines on everyone via the legal code (no marriage for elves!), in the schools (the idea that toys come from department stores is just a "theory", read the stickers on the textbooks in Kansas), and so on. Meanwhile, I'm here saying, well, let's review the evidence. I've never seen Santa. I've never heard Santa, nor smelled nor touched nor tasted, nor even intuited the guy. Never detected even the merest inkling of his presence anywhere, any time. "The Night Before Christmas" is an OK poem, but it's not the be-all and end-all of moral instruction, its history is mostly lousy, it contradicts itself seven ways to Sunday (but the most rabid--sorry, "devout"--Santa-ists insist that every word of it is true, and that our society must be governed accordingly), and the good ideas it contains aren't original to it. The laws of physics--the ones that, because they turn out to be pretty much accurate in their depiction of how the cosmos works, make possible, among other things, the industry in which you work--say decisively that sleighs can't fly, at least not in the way that believers insist that Santa's does (there are always some Darwin Award candidates with sleds and rocket motors out there). And there's absolutely nothing--I mean, nothing--in the whole mostly-empty, still-expanding universe to suggest that Santa must exist, or ever has existed, or even could exist, let alone that he's up there right now making lists of "naughty" and "nice" boys and girls. And I'm thinking all of this while standing in the damn toy department at Macy's, surrounded by committed Santa-ists, none of whom sees what I'm seeing, all of which has seemed just patently obvious to me for about as long as I can remember.
And, woe is me if I let slip anything even remotely critical of Santa or Santa-ism or Santa-ists, or, say, dare to seek political office without claiming to be a good Santa-ist. Because, despite the fact that believers are pretty much all there is to be found in the halls of government, and in the courts, and in the boardrooms of the mega-corporations that control the media, the Santa-ists have every paranoid nerve ending out, 24/7, sniffing the wind for the merest hint of opposition or antipathy. "Santa-ists are under attack by the wicked secularists!" cry the watch dogs. "Why do the non-believers hate us?" It ain't easy bein' green, and maybe sometimes that spills out as anger, or a kind of intolerance of our (my) very own. But it helps that I know that I'm right.
So...Red Sox?
Cheers.
_______________________________________________________________________________
FROM: Me
Thanks for the reply,
You simply cannot take the first line of my response and ignore the rest. It is not that I don't care about people being persecuted, I actually do care about /*all */people being persecuted. What I am saying is that I don't care more about the gays than I do about anyone else, whether they be Chinese girls being left to starve because they weren't born male, to the untouchables in India, to the Christians being murdered around the world by Muslim extremists. There is hate and persecution and murder everywhere! You are asking me to expound on a single group and my answer is I don't care about them any more than I do about anyone else. When I answered "Why should anyone NOT be protected from their government and from insurance companies in these things" I am saying exactly that. Should gay get the same rights? EVERYONE should get the same rights. Again, it seems the fact that they are gay is some sort of litmus test, and as far as that litmus test goes, I don't care.
Am running out the door so haven't had time to look at the Atheist answer, but I am terribly curious.
Have a nice Sunday.
btw, my mom told me she will be seeing you in a few weeks. She likes you. She is also VERY curious about what we are chit chatting about. About the Red Sox, I'm actually a football (e.g. Patriots) fan, but if the Sox win as well as the Patriots this year, hurrah for NE!
_______________________________________________________________________________
FROM: Me
Me: I actually do care about /*all */people being persecuted. What I am saying is that I don't care more about the gays than I do about anyone else, whether they be Chinese girls being left to starve because they weren't born male, to the untouchables in India, to the Christians being murdered around the world by Muslim extremists.
Ah, but the gays in America are a group about which you can actually do something pretty concrete, with your vote, etc. Yeah, you can also vote for candidates who want to somehow "punish" China or whomever for this or that but, let's face it, there's really nothing to be done there.
And, of course, one could also be worried about the Muslims that we're killing for no particularly good reason. Fortunately, for the most part my desire to end discrimination against gays and lesbians in America lines up pretty well politically with my desire to stop killing Muslims for no reason. Your creditable but--you'll forgive me for saying this, I hope--somewhat Miss-America-like desire to stop all persecution everywhere is both difficult to act on politically, and also perfect cover for remaining functionally indifferent to the plight of those whom you can actually help. So, I'm still not sold.
Me: btw, my mom told me she will be seeing you in a few weeks. She likes you.
I look forward to seeing her, I'm guessing at my nephew's wedding. I like her, too, although I haven't seen her in quite a while.
_______________________________________________________________________________
FROM: Archie
The Pats are very, very good; it was criminal that they got Randy Moss for two dead lemmings and a broken face mask, or whatever it was they traded for him. They and the Colts are pretty clearly the class of the league.
Cheers.
_______________________________________________________________________________
FROM: Me
Good point, but I don't believe "one person can make a difference" as the sixties optimists believe (unless that one person is Jesus Christ). So you think I can change hatred and discrimination in America? In the world? That's pretty funny. I'll remember that on the next "Take a Gay to Lunch" day. From my previous email... "What rights, legal status or most anything else any government grants to anyone is way beyond my spheres of influence, being a tiny little middle class nobody in America." That's me. I vote, obey the law, love my family and tech them not to hate. That's my sphere of influence.
Longer email coming...
_______________________________________________________________________________
FROM: Me
ME---
Do /you/, personally, support granting the same legal status to gays and lesbians in committed relationships as are enjoyed by married heterosexual couples?
Me: No, you were clear last time around what you were looking for. Here is a blunt answer: I personally don't care.
See, that I don't get. A whole group of millions of real people is being denied real, fundamental rights, every day, day in and day out, in ways that deeply impact their lives,
Can you give me more details as to the rights they are being denied and the deep impact? Perhaps I am not fully understanding the nature of the issue.
To reiterate my point from yesterday (and again today), I believe any kind of persecution of anyone is immoral. It is hypocritical to follow a religion that is built on the exercise of free will and to simultaneously persecute those who exercise it. To but it in cliche' terms, you can't have your cake and eat it too. I do know this is a stumbling block for many of my brothers and sisters in Christ, but I have also found that those who have attained the rudimentary levels of spiritual wisdom do resolve this hypocrisy. As far as what I can DO personally, there's little to nothing I can see on a policy front, I am a no body. This is not "Miss-America like", it is reality. I live far far far away from Washington, as do most Americans. Washington DC is Mars as far as I am concerned, as it is to most Americans. We are all too busy paying our confiscatory taxes and competing in the marketplace to wonder much about Washington. BUT, there's plenty I can do in my family, which is where I do act.
and your attitude is "I don't care." But suggest diddling around with the definition of an abstract /concept/ like "marriage," and you're ready to rock-and-roll. From my ethical perspective, you've got things just exactly backwards. To give you credit, it's among the >>>least hostile<<< attitudes on the issue that I've heard from any "conservative Christian," but still--like the shortest verse in the Bible says, "Jesus wept."
I had to nyuk it up at this comment. If you knew me better you would know how un-hostile I am to everyone. He does weep, but not for me.
Question: I gather from these comments that you are perhaps an agnostic, if not an atheist. Most of the atheists I've met in my life have been genuinely antagonistic if not down right hostile towards those who believe in God. Why is that?
I'm an atheist; have been since childhood. I could, of course, turn the question around: why are believers so hostile to non-believers?
I don't speak for anyone else, but I'm not hostile to believers, I'm antagonistic to the /beliefs /(hate the sin, not the sinner, I guess). I understand why religious belief has an appeal; children are all afraid of the dark. It's just that it's factually, logically, and morally /wrong. "/Faith" stifles critical thinking, is used to reinforce existing power relations between "haves" and "have-nots" (yup, that ol' "opiate of the masses" thing; look at the world as it is and tell me it's not so), and contributes greatly to the difficulties we have as a community, as a nation, and as a planet, seeking real and lasting solutions to the complex problems we face. It can't help but incite hatred and intolerance; no system of belief that claims to possess ultimate, eternal, and universal truth can do otherwise. It's a superstition that it's past time to outgrow; along with tribalism--to which it is closely related--it's the curse of our species. If there is an "original sin," it's believing in "God".
All interesting, and I have heard all of these arguments before. There are 4 issues you mention above, so I will speak to each one separately.
1. The existence of God is factually, logically, and morally /wrong, and to paraphrase, you believe that belief in God is like believing in ghosts, it is superstition, something that children and primitives do but a behavior that reasoned and educated adults know better of doing.
Please demonstrate to me the factual, logical and moral arguments against His existence. It is not enough to simply state that it is " factually, logically, and morally wrong." You believe there are no ghosts by saying "there are no ghosts." Prove it. Personally I don't you think you should in this email thread unless you really want to. That is a matter between you and God.
2. "Faith" is bad for numerous reasons
I am curious about your definition of faith. I struggled with this for years until coming up with one that works. Faith is not an issue to me, as people can have faith in anything. What bothers me are systems (religious, political, scientific) that resist, hinder or stop the exercise of free will. Christianity as a theology is all about making decisions, e.g. the exercise of Free Will. People can either choose God or not. If you choose Him you are one of the family, if you don't, you're not. It's that simple. My job is to tell you what I know ("go into the world and spread the good news" (gospel) which is the Great Commandment), and not to condemn you to Hell. That's between you and God. The problem I have with much of organized religion is that it assumes the job of judgment when its only ordained job is the Great Commandment, to communicate the gospel and do good for people in God's name. Not doing this, or worse doing the opposite, is what I see as "bad religion", and not Christianity. Bad religion is the work of bad men, not God.
3. All systems of belief that claim to possess ultimate, eternal, and universal truth can only incite hatred and intolerance
Mathematics possesses ultimate, eternal, and universal truth, but math isn't evil. People who use math to murder other people are evil. Personally I have no problem in conceding that there exists ultimate, eternal, and universal truth beyond the scope of my knowledge and experience. This is called humility, a not very common human trait. The problem is that people are all too willing to exterminate each other (this is called original sin) and using whatever tools at their disposal to do so.
4. Why are believers so hostile to non-believers?
Though you ask this first I choose to answer it last. The reason is simple, because they are human beings just like you. When I see "believers" acting with hostility towards non-believers I am sad, because this is a direct violation of the Great Commandment I mentioned above. It pains me to chat with other believers who are clearly wrong about so many things, but I am called to love them also. Christianity is a process, a transformation, and when you get abused by someone in the name of Christianity you can be sure there hasn't been much (or any) transformation or processing going on. Christians are under special order to be meek, peace makers, to turn the other cheek, to love their neighbors and their enemies, to follow the Golden Rule. People mature in the faith are and do these things. I guess from this answer you could ask the question "Isn't God then accountable for things done in His name?" You can say the same for any organization or leader, and the answer is no, especially if people are truly free. Again, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
You also have to think about how it looks, experientially, from a non-believer's perspective. We're living in a society where most people believe in Santa Claus...
I enjoyed the analogy. I also found it interesting to substitute a few key words and keep the general premise.
"You also have to think about how it looks, experientially, from a non-believer's perspective. We're living in a society where most people believe in Evolution. But it's not enough for them just to believe it in their own hearts and homes, teach their children in the schools, declare that the macro-theory is fact, and let it go at that. No, they have to impose Evolutionary doctrines on everyone via the legal code (no mention of God anywhere in government!), in the schools (the idea that God is the creator is hatred and intolerance, read the bumper stickers on the cars in Massachusetts), and so on. Meanwhile, I'm here saying, well, let's review the evidence. The fossil record is incomplete and inconclusive (though if you point this out you are labeled a religious fanatic). The theory falls apart when presented with questions from micro-biology (irreducible complexity) and physics (the second law of thermal dynamics), but if you point these things out you are labeled a “creationist” even if you never even mention Creation. "The Origin of Species" is an OK piece of scientific theorizing, but even though traditional Darwinism was abandoned decades ago by the scientific community it is still taught as gospel truth in public schools in antiquated text books (but the most rabid--sorry, "devout"—Evolutionists insist that every word of it is true, and that our society must be governed accordingly), and the good ideas it contains aren't original to it (Darwin is not the father of the theory of evolution). The laws of chemistry--the ones that, because they turn out to be pretty much accurate in their depiction of how life works--say decisively that the theory needs to be overhauled and that the emergence of “life” in the Earth’s primordial soup could not have happened in the ancient Earth’s actual atmosphere’s, at least not in the way that believers insist that it does (no one has ever been able to demonstrate how this hocus pocus works, even though there are always some Darwin Award candidates with bogus experiments and faked results out there). And there's absolutely nothing--I mean, nothing--in the whole mostly-empty, still-expanding universe to suggest that life and the mechanism of evolution on other worlds must exist, or ever has existed, or even /could/ exist, let alone that it’s working today in the form of the continued growth, betterment and improvement of the human race via "Social Darwinism". And I'm thinking all of this while standing in my daughter’s science class as her seventy year old science teacher is babbling on and on about how accurate the theory is and how it is a proven fact (even though macro-theories are un-provable by the scientific method), and how terrifying belief in anything but science is, and I am wondering how all these educated people can buy this thinking as ultimate, eternal, and universal truth without questioning the premises of it simply as an exercise in intellectual clarity and honesty, all of which has seemed just patently obvious to me since I studied Logic and Philosophy in college.
And, woe is me if I let slip anything even /remotely/ critical of evolution or evolutionary theory, or, say, dare to seek political office without claiming to be a good Evolutionist. Because, despite the fact that believers are pretty much all there are to be found in the halls of academics and government, and in the courts, and in the boardrooms of the mega-corporations that control the media, the Evolutionists have every paranoid nerve ending out, 24/7, sniffing the wind for the merest hint of opposition or antipathy. "Evolution is under attack by the medieval backwards thinking right-wing religious zealots!" cry the watch dogs. "Why do the non-believers hate us?" It ain't easy bein' intellectually critical, but for me I am used to it. I am not angry or intolerant. It’s much better to discuss things with people of different beliefs so that my own may become clearer and stronger. I don’t need to silence of kill anyone, because it helps that I know that I'm right (too).
-fin-
I have found that the universal element in these kinds of exercises is mankind, and not necessarily the dogma to which he adheres. Just for fun some time, mention to a friend (the more liberal the better) that you are having serious doubts about evolution and see what happens. It's fun.
One last question: Have you ever read the Bible? It would be a good idea if you decide to continue to criticize it. Otherwise you are just venting your uninformed opinions, and in the world of critical thinking that is a "cardinal sin" (nyuk nyuk).
_______________________________________________________________________________
FROM: Archie
On Oct 8, 2007, at 14:52 PM, ME wrote:
Good point, but I don't believe "one person can make a difference" as the sixties optimists believe (unless that one person is Jesus Christ).
Obviously, zillions of individuals have changed the world--for good or ill--besides Jesus. Copernicus and Galileo, James Madison, Attila the Hun, Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King, George W. Bush, on and on and on and on. So, your view seems objectively, empirically, and historically incorrect.
I vote, obey the law, love my family and tech them not to hate. That's my sphere of influence.
Ah, but for whom do you vote? The guy who wants to enshrine hatred and discrimination in the Constitution, or the other guy? That's the question that you, somewhat sophistically, keep dancing around. If you don't want to actually tell me your view, that's OK. And, no, you haven't answered it already. You told me first that you didn't care, then you said, well, you'd didn't care about gays and lesbians in America any more than you cared about any other persecuted people in the world (although it counts for something that you at least seemed to admit that gays and lesbians are "persecuted" in this country), and now you've yielded up some banalities about your limitations as an individual. But I still don't know, if there were a vote in Massachusetts on whether or not to legalize civil unions for gays and lesbians, which way you'd cast your ballot. It's certainly your right to not tell me, but it makes this whole line of conversation rather pointless, doesn't it?
Cheers.
_______________________________________________________________________________
FROM: Me
again, you crack me up.
Me
_______________________________________________________________________________
FROM: Archie
Again, you don't respond. I'm starting to be a little frustrated by what appears to be condescension on your part. I'm not trying to be funny, dude.
Cheers.
_______________________________________________________________________________
FROM: Me
ok, here we go. I hope this clears it all up.
1. Civil unions for gays is legal in Massachusetts, I think. I can't remember how I voted for it. Maybe I didn't. That certainly would also be my right, wouldn't it?
2. If there was a ballot in a state in which I lived that addressed the establishment of civil rights for a specific group of people based on their behavior, then I would read that law very carefully before voting one way or the other. Without doing this, I couldn't agree that I would vote one way or another. Reading a law before voting for or against it is certainly not bigotry.
3. Civil rights for human beings are civil rights for human beings. If someone is being persecuted, it should be stopped.
4. I don't know how gays are being "persecuted" so I can't admit that they are.
5. I do not believe in or condone the concept of "homosexual marriage" any more than I condone the idea of "dishonest honesty", the terms are mutually exclusive.
This still feels like an acid test. You are asking me to agree to something that I cannot, homosexual marriage. I already told you that if a state decrees by law that civil unions include gay people, so be it. Are you asking me if people should be homosexual? I already said the moral code I follow says this is adultery. Is there a law in the US for the death penalty for adulterers? No. If there was one would I support it? No. I don't support the death penalty now (except in the case of child murder. Sorry, that's just that militant parent in me). People have been every-kinda-sexual all through history, there's nothing new or shocking here. My position on it is, are you ready... hate the sin, love the sinner. The new Testament is pretty clear that we ALL are in the same state as everyone else, screwed up. That's why it is better to help someone than to eviscerate them, because we all could use help.
As far as one person making a difference, I didn't mean historically.
ME
_______________________________________________________________________________
FROM: Archie
ME---
Yeah, it clears it up. You think gays and lesbians are sinners, and that therefore it's OK to discriminate against them. It is indeed your right to be wrong.
Cheers.
_______________________________________________________________________________
FROM: Archie
ME---
You may have seen this, but, in the "tip of the iceberg" department...
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/us/09aged.html?_r=1&ex=1349668800&en=21e7c0301067120f&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin
Trying to help in remedying the ignorance to which you confess ("I don't know how gays are being 'persecuted' so I can't admit that they are.")...
Cheers.
_______________________________________________________________________________
FROM: Archie
1. Civil unions for gays is legal in Massachusetts, I think. I can't remember how I voted for it. Maybe I didn't. That certainly would also be my right, wouldn't it?
Yup. As already noted, you have an inalienable right to be wrong.
2. If there was a ballot in a state in which I lived that addressed the establishment of civil rights for a specific group of people based on their behavior, then I would read that law very carefully before voting one way or the other. Without doing this, I couldn't agree that I would vote one way or another. Reading a law before voting for or against it is certainly not bigotry.
Concur, although within the context of this discussion, it's still a cop-out. And by apparently treating homosexuality as a choice ("a specific group of people based on their behavior") you're flying in the face of the bulk of scientific evidence, which strongly suggests--more than "suggests," really, but "proves" is probably a little too strong--that folks are born gay and lesbian, making this a case of discriminating against people based on who they are. And, in this country, we don't have to "establish...civil rights"; the burden of proof should be on those who wish to deny them. That, at least, is how I read the Declaration of Independence ("all men are created equal"), the Constitution, the Federalist papers, and pretty much every Supreme Court decision touching on the issue since 1865. The state doesn't grant us rights, we have them from birth. Unless, of course, you're gay, apparently.
4. I don't know how gays are being "persecuted" so I can't admit that they are.
This kind of ignorance can really only be willful. Do you live in America in 2007? Do you have any gay or lesbian friends or family?
5. I do not believe in or condone the concept of "homosexual marriage" any more than I condone the idea of "dishonest honesty", the terms are mutually exclusive.
Yeah, you said that already. You haven't, of course, addressed the "catch-22" aspect that I raised the last time you said it, or offered any evidence or argument justifying the basis of your code (which is, to put not too fine a point on it, "Santa says so"). Mere repetition of your position will not make me suddenly accept it as morally valid.
You are asking me to agree to something that I cannot, homosexual marriage.
Nope, the ground shifted a while ago to civil rights, if by "marriage" we're talking about the sacrament. I frankly don't give a flying whatever whether religious institutions do or do not recognize gay marriage or the theory of evolution or anything else. I only care that they keep their bigoted noses out of the Constitution and the statute books.
As far as one person making a difference, I didn't mean historically.
I have no idea what you mean by this.
Cheers.
_______________________________________________________________________________
FROM: Archie
Please demonstrate to me the factual, logical and moral arguments against His existence. It is not enough to simply state that it is " factually, logically, and morally wrong." You believe there are no ghosts by saying "there are no ghosts." Prove it. Personally I don't you think you should in this email thread unless you really want to. That is a matter between you and God.
Basic premise of logic is, you don't try to prove a negative. Nice try. I can sum up my position in three sentences: Factually, there is nothing I've encountered in this life that makes the existence of God either necessary or plausible. Since the existence of God would explain nothing, logically there is no reason to believe he/she/it exists. And, as I noted in my prior message, since religious beliefs are inherently intolerant--they by definition divide the world into an "in" crowd and everyone else--religion is morally problematic.
I am curious about your definition of faith. I struggled with this for years until coming up with one that works. Faith is not an issue to me, as people can have faith in anything. What bothers me are systems (religious, political, scientific) that resist, hinder or stop the exercise of free will. Christianity as a theology is all about making decisions, e.g. the exercise of Free Will. People can either choose God or not. If you choose Him you are one of the family, if you don't, you're not. It's that simple. My job is to tell you what I know ("go into the world and spread the good news" (gospel) which is the Great Commandment), and not to condemn you to Hell. That's between you and God. The problem I have with much of organized religion is that it assumes the job of judgment when its only ordained job is the Great Commandment, to communicate the gospel and do good for people in God's name. Not doing this, or worse doing the opposite, is what I see as "bad religion", and not Christianity. Bad religion is the work of bad men, not God.
Fair enough, I guess (although I thought that Jesus said that love was the greatest commandment?), and I'm with you 100 percent on the "bad religion" thing; I just put pretty much all religion in that particular box. Every proselytizing faith has from time to time spread the "good news" via torture and murder. By dividing the species into the "saved" and the "damned," pretty much every faith encourages--indeed, mandates--discrimination against outsiders, even unto mass murder. Are all religious people evil? Of course not. Is the declared purpose of religion evil? Not necessarily; it's just that evil inevitably results probably because--as you say below--people are people. Always have been, always will be. And just like breathing water makes people dead, religious faith tends to make them dangerous.
And, of course, I believe that God is a work of man in the first place. Again, nothing about the world is evidence of his existence, so what else can I conclude?
3. All systems of belief that claim to possess ultimate, eternal, and universal truth can only incite hatred and intolerance
Mathematics possesses ultimate, eternal, and universal truth, but math isn't evil.
Math is not a "system of belief." It is a scientific enterprise consisting of a handful of axioms from which are derived falsifiable propositions that are constantly subject to test and revision. Religion fails on all of the above counts. Bad comparison, in other words.
Personally I have no problem in conceding that there exists ultimate, eternal, and universal truth beyond the scope of my knowledge and experience. This is called humility, a not very common human trait. The problem is that people are all too willing to exterminate each other (this is called original sin) and using whatever tools at their disposal to do so.
I think "original sin" was the stain of copulation, by which the guilt of Adam's fall is passed down from generation to generation. "We are all born in sin" doesn't refer to murder, which didn't enter the world until after the expulsion from the Garden, according to Genesis.
The point is not whether or not one will "concede" the existence of truths beyond our individual or collective experience; it's the question of, upon what basis does one come to the conclusion that such a truth or truths does in fact exist? I insist on evidence and logic; you are content to let Santa explain it all to you.
4. Why are believers so hostile to non-believers?
Though you ask this first I choose to answer it last. The reason is simple, because they are human beings just like you.
I see. So it's inherent in our nature to be hostile to those who think differently that we do. Hence, things that divide us, without good purpose, are problematic. Religious faith divides us to no good purpose. Therefore, religious faith is problematic. I recognize that you disagree with one element of this, that faith serves "no good purpose." I ask for evidence to the contrary.
Again, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
I don't know what "cake" you're referring to, let alone the "again" part.
You also have to think about how it looks, experientially, from a non-believer's perspective. We're living in a society where most people believe in Santa Claus...
I enjoyed the analogy. I also found it interesting to substitute a few key words and keep the general premise.
"You also have to think about how it looks, experientially, from a non-believer's perspective. We're living in a society where most people believe in Evolution.
That's all somewhat entertaining, except of course it's also wrong in pretty much every important dimension. A large number of politicians have gained office precisely because they claim to not accept evolution (or, at least, their anti-evolution stance was a significant part of their appeal). Polls show that more people in this country believe in angels than in evolution. Etc. etc. So, you're not the poor, beleaguered, minority. Sorry; I know how much "conservative Christians" like to act like they're living in Nero's Rome, at imminent risk of being fed to the lions (or being seized by the Massachusetts "lynch mob" that you referred to in your first message to me), but in fact, you live in George W. Bush's America. You're the top dogs, the big cheeses. Quit whining and deal with it.
But the real problem with your experiment is that unlike, say, "intelligent design," evolution is, in fact, science--it is a theory based on evidence that produces falsifiable hypotheses subject to verification; religious belief, again, is none of the above. So, yeah, I think that teaching science in science class is probably a pretty good idea, broadly consistent with what I understand the purpose of public education to be.
I have found that the universal element in these kinds of exercises is mankind, and not necessarily the dogma to which he adheres. Just for fun some time, mention to a friend (the more liberal the better) that you are having serious doubts about evolution and see what happens. It's fun.
It might be fun, but unproductive, because the facts of the world don't allow me to make a coherent argument against evolution. It would be like saying I have doubts about water generally running downhill. I can amuse myself and my friend in other ways.
See, here's ultimately what this discussion turns on. I base my life and my behavior on what the universe has told me, factually, about how it works. I seek evidence, apply logic and reason, and reach conclusions that are subject to revision in the face of further, contrary evidence. You believe what you think Santa has told you to believe, and you believe that those beliefs are incontrovertible, universal, and eternal. That's the very definition of "dogma", my friend.
One last question: Have you ever read the Bible? It would be a good idea if you decide to continue to criticize it. Otherwise you are just venting your uninformed opinions, and in the world of critical thinking that is a "cardinal sin" (nyuk nyuk).
Yup, I have.
And, BTW, I'm not primarily interested in criticizing the Bible (although I stand by my earlier characterization of it), I just take it for what it factually is: a book, among millions of others. What I'm criticizing is the seriousness with which many people take the Bible, and more so, the consequences that flow from that. To legitimately do so, I actually don't need to have read the book; I can happily stipulate that "conservative Christians" are acting in full accord with its teachings because my problem is in many ways less with the teachings per se than with the process, and the behaviors originating in that process.
Cheers.
_______________________________________________________________________________
FROM: Archie
Is there a law in the US for the death penalty for adulterers? No. If there was one would I support it? No.
That's kind of strange, since the exact same chapter of the Bible that you claim condemns homosexuality also says that adulterers should, in fact, be put to death (Leviticus 20; verse 10 for adulterers, verse 13 for homosexuals). However do you decide which injunctions of the Bible to keep and which to ignore? Is there some algorithm?
_______________________________________________________________________________
FROM: Me
Thanks Archie, I think we are done here. I tried to chat with you about various topics that we don't agree upon and it turned out to be an exercise in turning the other cheek.
You come off as a very angry and hate-filled person. Most of the time I was hoping you were in fact kidding around, but it just doesn't appear to be so. It was truly eye-opening. I hope some day you find some peace.
ME
_______________________________________________________________________________
FROM: Archie
ME---
I'm truly disappointed, but not altogether surprised, that you can't tolerate having your ideas--if they even deserve that label--challenged. And it's sad, but also not unexpected, to see how quickly and easily your defense of your beliefs degenerated to name-calling. If I'm "angry and hate-filled," you are...well, you are just what you claimed to be. A "conservative Christian." More's the pity, for you, and the world.
I'll worry about finding peace when the world has some, thanks; please save your good wishes for those who need or want them. Peace is not everything; there is something out there called "truth," and something called "justice." We'll leave the light on for you.
Good luck in all your future endeavors. We are, indeed, done here.
_______________________________________________________________________________
FROM: Me (I have no idea if he ever bother to read this...)
Hi Archie,
I was going to let your last jabs lie but thought about them over the week and decided I'd set the record straight on a few things, for as you say there is such a thing as truth, and your comments below are not truthful.
1. I never called you any names in this entire dialog. I merely observed that you come off as an angry and hate-filled person.
2. I have neither fear of defending nor intolerance of challenge to my beliefs or my ideas. I simply see no point in engaging in conversation in which the responses to my comments are angry and hate-filled. While the substance of your comments is fine, your tone throughout has been hostile, antagonistic, derisive, condescending and rude. Since we are distantly related through marriage I had hoped you could have been civil merely on that count.
3. On a related point, it would required that you know something about Christianity for us to continue on with some of the topics raised. Christianity is a complex theology based on thousands of years of history and revelation. Anyone can Google verses from the Bible and use them to make their points. That's like Googling topics in Supreme Court Case law and building arguments out of single sentences without regard for the entire case or the nature of the Supreme Court. Arbitrarily quoting single verses of the Bible completely out of context of the entire book doesn't demonstrate knowledge of the Bible, but rather the opposite.
4. Finally, I believe in Free Will, and you have exercised it throughout this thread quite loudly. You are an atheist, and that is your right. I don't begrudge you the right to choose your destiny. Have at it. But whereas I have refrained from blind criticism of your atheism, you have mocked and ridiculed my beliefs throughout this thread. This has not been "argument" in the academic sense, but rather in the 5th grade playground sense, and I see no indication that this will stop. This relates to the second point above. There is no point in defending your beliefs to a person who responds only with anger and hatefulness. At some point you must "kick the dust off your heals" and move on.
I know you don't care what I think about anything, since I am the non-human, stereotypical, cardboard cut-out you call "conservative Christian", but you will be seeing my mother next week. Please remember that she likes you, and that she has lost a son to ALS and a husband to old age recently and therefore doesn't need any further grief. It would be humane if you could be civil to her.
Regards,
ME
