On the Civil Supremacy of Secular Law

It is so nice to have Susan Jacoby espousing the rational basis for civil law trumping religious dogma. In America, countering fanatical, religious extremism is overdue. Thank you, Ms. Jacoby.

Tonio,

it is the simple fact that Moderate and his fellow religionists are too weak to even imagine a non-personal cause. The only possibility of thinking all religionists have at their disposal is the projection of their own personality into the universe. Therefore they had to invent gods.

The universe is much more than personal, and the invention of gods comes from a human aporia, or weakness of imagination.

We see the Moderate is not only an expert on all matters religious, but is equally adept as a first-rate (self-declared) historian. As such, it would be more instructive to provide historical insights rather that criticize our host columnist out of hand as the 'one with the dunce cap' and no understanding of history.

Moderate, we've seen your insights before, and they seem quite slanted toward conventional/conservative christian views and may we say, slightly skewed to the right in all things political. You clearly have no appreciation for the atheist view point and that much is never in doubt.

Moderate appears to be anything but........

Sorry, that sentence should read "Attributing any event in the physical universe to a god amounts to an intrusion by RELIGION onto SCIENCE."

"When one says the existence of God cannot be proven by the scientific method, that may be true, but that is only one method of discovery."

What other methods are there for discovering aspects of the physical universe? Wouldn't other methods apply only to the "mental" universe, meaning the nature of human existence?

"It's a big enough universe out there to contain both God and science, and I see no conflict between the two."

The only way to prevent such conflict is to postulate a god that has no role in the physical universe at all, not even in its creation. Attributing any event in the physical universe to a god amounts to an intrusion by science onto religion. Why can't religion simply focus on questions about the individual creating meaning and purpose for his life?

"God is not a magician. When He creates, natural forces are at work, some of which neither scientists nor religious persons comprehend."

What evidence do you have that there is a god behind natural forces? Would you explain how your belief any different from the fundamentalist belief about earthquates and hurricanes being punishments on non-believers? You are obviously not promoting the hatred that the fundamentalists promote, and I commend you for that. However, I seek to know why your belief would be right and the fundamentalist belief wrong. Wouldn't it be just as likely that you're wrong and the fundamentalists are right?

"Since God exists outside the time continuum"

Again, what evidence do you have for that? Wouldn't it be just as likely that a god exists in the time continuum?

"The Book of Genesis is allegorical and prophetic."

I also read Genesis allegorically, although I object to the negative spin that the book places on the development of human sentience and civilization. However, there are numerous denominations and believers who claim that their reading or interpretation is the "right" one and that all other readings or interpretations are "wrong." In fact, many of these claim that individual interpretation is forbidden. So how is one to know if an allegorical reading is the right one?

CHRIS EVERETT:
Your thesis is well reasoned. The only impasse between us, I think, would be if we're playing a zero sum game: only one of us is right. Right or wrong is not the issue. Understanding is prime.

If Jonas Salk were not looking for a cure for polio, he never would have found it. Similarly, if one does not look for God, one will not find Him. The methods of each search are disparate, but that fact invalidates neither.

When one says the existence of God cannot be proven by the scientific method, that may be true, but that is only one method of discovery.

As William Shakespeare said so eloquently, "There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophies."

It's a big enough universe out there to contain both God and science, and I see no conflict between the two. God is not a magician. When He creates, natural forces are at work, some of which neither scientists nor religious persons comprehend.

Now, I could talk until I am blue in the face and not lead another human to understand faith. And, you could talk until you are blue in the face and never lead me to understand how Jonas Salk did what he did. Scientists do things that I cannot wrap my head around. God does things that scientists cannot wrap their heads around.

Let's take for instance the debate over evolution. Since God exists outside the time continuum (time is a scientifically artifical way of marking the passage of eternity), He could conceivably pass a million years in a second. Science has determined that time is, in fact, relative, and the so-called "big bang" theory suggests a sudden event resulting in the universe as we know it, sort of in keeping with the command instant of "Let there be light." BANG!

The God that I know took great delight in creation, and I think it was a leisurely pastime. I think he enjoyed the big show. I think he delighted in the dinosaurs and all the extinct creatures that came and went in the ebb and flow of natural processes. Who knows what marvels exist throughout the universe? Doesn't current scientific theory say that when one reaches the edge of a black hole all scientific theories fail at the very brink? Look at all the discoveries just within the last decade that will lead to decades of scientific endeavor to understand.

If God actually were a magnificent Magician and simply said, SHAZAM! a chicken. SHAZAM! a duck, and so forth, he and I would both quickly become bored. The more science reveals about the wonders of the earth and the universe, the greater my awe at the powers of God.

The Book of Genesis is allegorical and prophetic. Adam and Eve were not the first humans on the earth. They were the first humans that God convenanted with or engaged with personally. Their sons married the daughters of men (gee, where did they come from?). Religious literalists, who lack understanding of most spiritual truths, take things like the six days of creation at face value. Actually, the six days refers prophetically to the six thousand years designated by God to His purposes from Adam to the end of the age of man.

Ergo, religious fundamentalists defame science.

Trust me, I spend far more time taking religion to task than rational thinkers.

Many of us on these threads such as Arminius (All hail, and well met!) and Jihadist (May God's face shine down on thee, and give thee peace!) are not trying to proselytize, but rather to attain mutual understanding.

Paramount, in my opinion, is for those of us who seek peace with all men draw as many men of all faiths and convictions to the side of peace. If we cannot come to terms with one another here and now, how can any come to terms anywhere at any time?

If you wish to dismiss me as a lunatic, but a nice lunatic and quite harmless, I can live with that. I only aspire to call you friend.

Jihadist,

Thank you so much for giving a fast, and comprehensible, response. This sounds akin to "socially responsible" or "green" funds; investors want to make a profit but not at the expense or pain of others. You take it further, applying your principles to all aspects of banking. Keep charging right ahead, it sounds like you're on the right track. :-)

Dear Arminius:

"To all - don't miss this article by Susan Jacoby here in WaPo. America is so ignorant that it is frightening."

Was that Susan in the corner with the dunce cap? It should have been. Her knowledge of history is so weak that she of all people has no place complaining about ignorance in others.

Hello Wiccan,

You have to ask : "May I ask you, what are the basic differences between financial dealings as guided by the Qu'ran and and how they are handled in the West? What is most important to you?"

Islamic banking? Do I have to talk about my line of work here? : )

No one is asking or forcing the British to adopt Islamic banking and financial services, or to ask it to be the "gateway" and global centre of Islamic finance.

What is important to me is:

- get Muslims who are leery of conventional finance to make better use of their money

- let there be parallel financial systems to cushion the negative impact of another, and offer options and recourses (the Islamic finance is relatively sheltered from sub-prime problems and thus offered recources for rescue funds and options for investments)

- let the marketplace be more competitive for consumers on choices of what is best for them.

In gist, Islamic banking and financial services is just a financial service that is in compliance with Muslims values as codified in the Shariah, and now forcing Muslims to be adaptive and innovative on the Shariah while maintaining certain basic Islamic principles on specific less desirable and productive human activities. Thus, there be no investments in arms, alcohol, gambling establishments, pornography, pork products. Also, the principle that all business and financial transactions be just.

Shariah is the key pillar of Islamic finance from which Islamic finance derives its unique characteristics. Shariah injunctions require that Islamic financial transactions be accompanied by an underlying productive activity.

Under the risk sharing principle required, Islamic financial institutions will share the profit or the loss incurred by the entrepreneur, an explicit sharing of risk by the financier and the borrower. This arrangement entails the appropriate due diligence and the integrating of the risks associated with the real investment activity into the financial transaction.

Conventional instruments generally separate such risks from the underlying assets. As a result, risk management and wealth creation may, at times, move in different or even opposite directions.

Conventional financial instruments also allow for the commoditisation of risks. This has led to its proliferation through multiple layers of leveraging and disproportionate distribution, in turn, which could result in higher systemic risks, thus, increasing the potential for instability in the financial system.

Transparency represents a basic tenet underlying all Islamic financial transactions. There is an inherent obligation on Islamic financial services providers to meet the appropriate standards of transparency. It is from the profit-sharing feature of Islamic financial transactions that imposes a high level of disclosure in the financial contract. The accountabilities of the respective parties involved in the transaction are clearly defined in the contract.

This transparency also provides a strong incentive for Islamic financial institutions to appropriately manage risks. This disclosure allows the market to assign the appropriate risk premiums to the respective companies and thus the potential for the enhanced role of market discipline to take effect. These inherent features as required by the Shariah injunctions, provides inbuilt checks and balances which serves to ensure financial stability in the Islamic financial system.

The sukuk market is emerging as the most significant form of Islamic financing for fund raising and investment. Strong demand for sukuk have also been spurred by the high levels of surplus savings and reserves in Asia and the Middle East. The sukuk is also an attractive instrument to assist Islamic financial institutions in managing our liquidity requirements. It is also an instrument used by corporations, institutions and sovereigns in tapping funds at competitive rates to finance long term funding needs.

In Malaysia, a comprehensive Islamic financial system was developed that operates in parallel to the conventional banking system. The supporting legal framework includes a dedicated legislation that takes into account the unique principles of Islamic contracts.

The legal infrastructure also includes the court system and arbitration mechanism to resolve disputes to ensure that contracts relating to Islamic financial transactions are effectively enforced. The Islamic financial system is supported by a significant number of diverse players in the banking, takaful (insurance) and capital market.

Tax reforms have been undertaken to accord neutrality in treatment between conventional and Islamic financial products. The establishment of a National Shariah Advisory Council has been important to ensure harmonisation of Shariah decisions in the Islamic financial services industry.

The Islamic financial industry in Malaysia has now expanded into residential mortgage backed securities, commodity based financing, as well as investment and equity linked product based on musharakah, mudarabah and ijarah.

In reality, the global Islamic finance industry has evolved from a faith-based initiative to a business driven industry for all communities. Conventional financial institutions have entered into alliances with Islamic financial institutions to be co-arrangers, to structure sukuk or other Islamic products based on Shariah compliant assets.

Shariah issues relating to risk mitigation, liquidity management and hedging are being broached, researched, argued, disputed, deliberated and determined. Islamic experts and scholars do have differences on aspects of Islamic banking and financial services and do make widely reported statements on their reservations on the whether some aspects of Islamic banking and financial services is Shariah-compliant.

As like classical Muslims who formulated schools of thoughts/jurisprudence on the Shariah for implementation, current Muslim scholars have varying views and interpretations on Islamic banking and financial services. It has become competitive as for experts/scholars to give reasons why they think this or that aspect of Islamic banking and financial services is not Shariah-compliant.

But then, formulators and implementers like me in this field just charge right ahead until and unless the state/National Shariah Advirory Council, in their deliberations and assessments of our proposals and activities say, “Hey, wait a minute! Is what you are doing fair and just and would not cause economic, political and social problems? ”

Thanks and best regards
“J”

Sorry - wrong thread!

A few of us are beating the idea of any religious law / rules becoming law of the land on the Susan Jacoby thread.

Here’s my short n’ sweet version.

We can not include religious doctrine in our laws. Because once God is the supreme law of the land there is no one to conscientiously object to anything. We will be giving the power of God to man and that is a very, very dangerous thing.

I read the article “The Dumbing of America.”

There are some good points in the article. I wonder how much of it comes down to people not feeling empowered to change the course of their country or even their own lives. We can’t control the big picture so we look to control the little picture which is what affects me right now. I check out of the real world and create my own little sanctuary of self gratification.

As for politics and the media since when is a newspaper endorsing a candidate make any sense? What ever happened to the objectivity of reporting. Editorials are fine but saying that the newspaper itself endorses a candidate send the wrong message.

Chris Everett

I believe that even very relgious, fundamentalist people experience a great deal of doubt. It is how they react to it that is the mark of their type of belief; they react with fear, and then with an aggressive counter-strike to stamp out what they may presume is the source of their doubt. I feel, with a great deal of certainty and assurance, that this is behind the extreme hostility of Christians and Muslims towards atheitst; atheists remind them of their own doubts, and are therefore most hated.

One of the marking characteristics of very relgious people is the need and insistence to impress their own belifs upon others, to the point of degradation, and even physical abuse. To me, this is incredible, and absurd, that no one's inner will can be changed by any exterior force, and the most that can be gained is outward pretense of belief.

But this insistence that one is right and everyone else is wrong is a sort of childish denial of doubt, that to act against it aggressively can make it go away. But nothing can make your doubts go away; they are beyond our conscious control; and therefore, very religious and fundamentalist people lurch from one emotional drama to the next, as they slip up in their faith, repent, are born anew, and then slip-up once again, in an endless cycle of emotional turmoil. Many of the very religious people who post on these threads, are just such people, emotionally unstable, passive-aggressive, just generally mixed-up, as they seek to defeat their doubt, by yelling louder than anyone else.

In fact, this dramatic struggle against doubt, if not moderated by some other worldly and secular interests and activities, can rapidly devolve into a weird sort of nihilism, in which everything causing a doubt can be a legitimate target of destruction, even the twin towers, in New York City, on 9/11/2001.

Arminius has provided a valuable link just above to Susan's article, 'The Dumbing of America' - read it and weep. A most cogent observation with no countertrend in sight. Our current political campaigns prove it in spades - no substance, plenty of religion and lots of media spin...but no real information worth a damn upon which to base voting decisions. Is this just the way political marketing strategies are these days, or are there more sinister ulterior motives - and especially as regards media coverage??

As Altermann's column in Media Matters has pointed out on many occasions, the mainstream media has an ongoing love affair with John McCain, of all people. Factually speaking he's an inferior to mediocre candidate with both dangerous and unpredictable tendencies, and yet well within striking distance of the presidency.

News coverage seems overwhelmingly positive regarding McCain's presidential run. Despite the monumental GOP/Bush fiasco which has been building momentum over the last decade, this man has a better than even chance of being next POTUS. A pitiful historical development indeed, if not such an imminently real possibility.

With an intelligent,educated electorate Bush World would never have happened to begin with.

Anyone other than a starry-eyed political day-dreamer knows this because the 'body politic'
cannot be counted on to make intelligent, informed decisions in it's own best interest.....look no further than the popularity of the right-wing talk radio hacks e.g. Limbaugh, Hannity, et al for an object lesson.

Main stream columnists that I occasionally glance at are hardly better. Even NPR has been decidedly neutral during the Bush years - there are powerful forces keeping things just the way they are media-wise, and our Congress continues to support media monopolies (on both sides of the aisle). Business as usual - the 'dumbing down' process can be expected to continue unabated.

The more intellectual defenders of religion usually argue in favor of its usefulness, its acceptability ("eligibility" comes to mind!) social or moral (which both is very debatable!), its tradition, or even, ridiculously, its majority of followers or enemies and not on the ground of the evidence of its content, to avoid the word "truth".

Simple everyday honesty demands that arguments must be about evidence, not acceptibility. A lot of strange things, errors, superstitions, lies, genocides have had their "acceptability" across history. (Just take a look into the OT!)

Tonio.

I agree that trying to uphold a belief as fact would not be the correct. As far as holding a proposition up without “hard evidence” I think there is still merit.

The human consciousness I am talking about is the work done by the Monroe institute. Robert Monroe, now deceased could leave his body at will. His book Far Journeys details many of his experiences.

They studied his brain waves at the times he left his body and were able to map the changes in his brain waves. They then developed hemi sync technology which allows people to simulate those brain waves by place different tones ion each ear.

They identified numerous levels of consciousness. The scientific research was able to identify similar and repeatable experiences at each level of consciousness with hundreds of test subjects. I haven’t been on the site in years but when I was signed up as a member you had access to transcripts of a number of the sessions as well as the published results. I found it extremely interesting.

I do agree on the moral authority issue. That has always seemed to me to be man imposing his concepts of what should be right and wrong onto their version of God. Right and wrong are relative terms given your position in the world. And here is where I side with the atheist.

If life is so precious where do we draw the line on preserving it? Do we go as far as killing in order to preserve life?

The esoteric teachings of our religions don’t help us much with the modern day issues. If our enemies are threatening our lives then are we ok to go to war and kill them. Considering we are a “Christian nation” we sure have been in a lot of wars. If Christ was commander and chief I don’t see him order people to kill other people. People don’t even follow the most basic tenets of their religion. If a gunman is rampaging across a campus shooting people do we use lethal force to stop him? No – Thou shall not kill. The commandment does not shall not kill unless the person is evil. That is because evil is a relative term.

Looking at any religion; if we are allowed to fight against evil in God’s name then what are the rules.

Is it ok to kill one to save 1,000,000 – 1,000 - 10, another? Is it OK to nuke a few hundred thousand to save a million? Should we wipe out an entire ethnic group to make sure the evil does not return? I don’t recall seeing these guidelines anywhere in scripture.

Is it okay to stand by and watch Hitler wipe out an entire group of people? Yes – thou shall not kill. Who wants to step forward in peaceful protest a la Gandhi to stop Hitler?

Gandhi against Hitler would have been an interesting stand off. I admire Gandhi perhaps more than any other person in the 20th century. Would he or his cause have defeated Hitler? Perhaps eventually, I like to think that he would have. They may have been wiped out and we would all be living under Nazi rule. Do you become like the enemy to defeat them or do you stand with your principles?

Tonio you said “I just don’t see the possibility of God as relevant”. Here’s why I disagree with that.

I said earlier that it is not God that drives us apart, but the idea that we are separate from one another that drives us apart. This concept can be use regardless of religion or the lack there of. For the believers out there many of the contemporary spiritual teachers (both religious and non religious) talk about the idea of inclusiveness. This was the original intent of the great teachers; Christ, Buddha, Lao-Tsu; Gandhi, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Walsch , Tolle, Dyer and many others including John Lennon according to this thread (loosen up people, that’s funny). Even look at Brian McLaren who catches grief from conservatives. Perhaps my not being a Christian invalidates my take (yes I have read the Bible) but I think he gets it.

Those who use religion to divide are missing the point and they are the ones we can not let put religion into law.

I spoke of going down the road of killing to protect life. This is why we can not include religious doctrine in our laws. Because once God is the supreme law of the land there is no one to conscientiously object to anything. We will be giving the power of God to man and that is a very, very dangerous thing.

This makes the possibility of God extremely relevant.

To all - don't miss this article by Susan Jacoby here in WaPo. America is so ignorant that it is frightening.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021502901.html

Ms. Jacoby,

I saw you on the Bill Moyers show today, and I must say you made a fine presentation. More dangerous, perhaps, than secularists or religionists are the ignorant rabble of the uneducated and undereducated, many of whom are well represented on these threads.

"I would say that belief does play a part in the physical universe. If I believe that additives to the food supply are responsible for a number of ailments; allergies, cancers etc then one sets out on a quest to prove that theory. Belief, thought and contemplation is what pushes science onward."

Sounds like you and I are using different definitions of "belief." I use the word to mean the classifying of a proposition as fact independent of evidence for or against that proposition. If a proposition is upheld by evidence, then it isn't a belief, and if it isn't upheld by evidence, then there's no reason to hold the proposition in the first place.

Using your example of additives, my own position is similar to yours, except that I describe my position as a suspicion rather than a belief. My suspicion is grounded in such things as the history of artificial sweeteners and the history of cancer rates. I cannot say as a fact that additives are responsible for those ailments, because I don't have evidence or proof. You're absolutely right that we should investigate further, and that such a suspicion is reasonable grounds for personally abstaining from additives. I'm saying that it is not reasonable grounds for deeming the unsafeness as fact.

"If you look at the science of human consciousness then it strongly suggests beings on a plane other than this one. That doesn’t prove God, just that these other beings seem to exist and perhaps we should spend some time looking at the scenario."

I know of no aspect of human consciousness that would suggest such beings. Would you please describe what you mean? That sounds like the questionable claim that one's conscience is a voice in one's head. It isn't - it's merely a feeling.

"I don’t see the theory of a God being any crazier than time travel or parallel universes. What I will grant you is we don’t create laws based on the theory of quantum physics. That is a good thing."

No disagreement there. The whole issue is that religions claim that their gods are moral authorities. The likely alternative is that the religions themselves are simply claiming divine endorsements for their own ideas about morality.

"It seems hasty on both sides to come to a firm conclusion that something exists or doesn’t exist when the theory is yet to be proven."

I don't rule out the possibility of gods. I just don't see the possibility as relevant. We can imagine the possibility of anything that might exist beyond our senses, but all such imaginings are equal as to the lack of evidence. The existence of the Abrahamic god or the Buddhist god is just as likely as the existence of a race of gods that enjoys John Irving novels.

Tonio.

I am a theist I do I agree with you on one point.

“We would certainly need much more than some men's word for it”. I agree 100% with this statement.

I would say that belief does play a part in the physical universe. If I believe that additives to the food supply are responsible for a number of ailments; allergies, cancers etc then one sets out on a quest to prove that theory. Belief, thought and contemplation is what pushes science onward.

If we take the nature of the physical universe in the limited concept of only the physical universe then you points are very strong indeed. You said “such beings cannot be detected with the senses, and then what basis do people have for claiming that the beings exist?” A fair question.

At one point we thought we knew everything about the physical universe then we discovered the molecule, the smallest particle the building block of the universe. Then came the atom, the proton, the electron and a host of other particles.

Quantum theory and mathematics talk about the possibility of other realities and other time lines and parallel universes.

If you look at the science of human consciousness then it strongly suggests beings on a plane other than this one. That doesn’t prove God, just that these other beings seem to exist and perhaps we should spend some time looking at the scenario. (See Monroe Institute).

It seems to me that the physical universe is only a part of the puzzle. I don’t see the theory of a God being any crazier than time travel or parallel universes. What I will grant you is we don’t create laws based on the theory of quantum physics. That is a good thing.

It seems hasty on both sides to come to a firm conclusion that something exists or doesn’t exist when the theory is yet to be proven.

Wiccan!

Well met! YEE-HAH! Where you been?

Yes, harm none. I freely admit there is a lot of Pagan in me.

And, oh, hell, it will be cloudy here on Wednesday. I will howl at the moon anyway! The so-called 'primal scream' has nothing on howling at the moon. The shrinks should get in touch with true nature.

Keep in touch, friend.

Arminius

Merry Meet, my friends!

Arminius,

"The problem is not the core of what I believe, but how I pursue it, how it affects me and those around me. And those around me include all of mankind."

Bail ó Dhia ort, Arminius. You truly understand "Harm none." There will be a full moon this Wednesday; the Lady will be in Virgo, a most auspicious time for business and employment. May I? I laughed when I read about your baying at the moon; it brought back memories of a barbeque on the North Shore (Long Island) under the full moon. I don't know who starting howling, but we all joined in, even the toddlers. When we finally hushed we could hear people down the beach baying back, answering our calls. Very primal, and great fun.

Jihadist, I'm so glad you didn't desert this forum. I learn so much when reading your posts. May I ask you, what are the basic differences between financial dealings as guided by the Qu'ran and and how they are handled in the West? What is most important to you?

"Just because you have not seen God does not mean other men have not; just because you have not heard God does not mean other men have not."

That doesn't qualify as evidence because of the concept of falsifiability. Those men might be honestly mistaken, or they may be lying. There is no independent way to verify their claim. Any claim about a god or gods is a claim about the physical universe and thus subject to scientific scrutiny. Objects and phenomena in the physical universe are not matters of "belief," since those things would still exist if humanity didn't exist.
While I cannot rule out the possibility of gods, the burden of proof is on any claim that such beings exist. We would certainly need much more than some men's word for it.

"It is a slur to consign all persons with faith in God to irrationality."

You're right in the technical sense. However, it's still valid to ask why believers who otherwise have a deep respect for science make an exception when it comes to the idea of supernatural beings. (If such beings cannot be detected with the senses, then what basis do people have for claiming that the beings exist?) In my experience, most believers argue the existence of gods on philosophical grounds instead of scientific grounds. Creationism is merely this concept taken to its logical conclusion - the devising of explanations about the origin of life and the universe according to theological ideas instead of scientific ones. I regard this as a mistake because, as I said before, belief is simply not applicable to the physical universe. Again, believers who make this mistake are not irrational for doing so. They simply need to understand that questions about the nature of human existence are entirely separate from questions about the nature of the physical universe.

Tonio,

You said, "...what I'm trying to understand is how belief in an all-powerful deity is compatible with separation of church and state in the first place. Doesn't belief in such a deity automatically mean that one must follow the dictates of such a deity in every area of life?"

My answer: No. There was this guy, name of Jesus, who said something about render unto Caesar what is his, and render unto God what is His. Thus, separation of church and state. Further, the God of love is a God of peace, not dominion. A true Christian does not pine for rule, but walks the true walk of compassion towards all. Repeat, all.

Arminius

Neal,

"I suspect the same could be true for other minority religions and sects which had experienced persecution at the hands of state-sanctioned religions and sects."

Thanks for the information. While you have an excellent point about the Anabaptists, what I'm trying to understand is how belief in an all-powerful deity is compatible with separation of church and state in the first place. Doesn't belief in such a deity automatically mean that one must follow the dictates of such a deity in every area of life? Wouldn't the believer inevitably subvert the Constitution out of an honest belief that he is doing right by his deity?

Jihadist,

Yes everyone, including atheists, would likely be best served by continuing to evaluate beliefs. That’s how we evolve. Our beliefs control our actions and if we want to create a different world we need to change some of our beliefs.

I had not seen the lyrics to Imagine until today. Google; Imagine Lennon Lyrics and you get the whole song. Yes the song is a little dated but the message is fabulous.

How dare you try and paint me as a baby boomer :o

Always a pleasure Jihadist.

Oh, Obfuscating Jihadist,

If you could only come to terms with the flaws of Islam!!!! Apparently coming to terms with the flaws of other religions is no problem for you. Very strange!!!!!! But then there is all that breeding, birthing, brainwashing and fear in Islam for the last 1400 years.

Jihadist,

And that is the finest and warmest compliment I have ever received here. Thank you, from my heart, and best wishes forever, friend.

Arminius

Hello Arminius,

What you said above is the most spiritual thing anyone of any faith said here in On Faith threads that I read of. It moved me.

Thank you and warmest regards

Julia

Hi, Jihadist, and well met,

The core of my belief is not a struggle: God IS, and He is with me. All else flows from that, and it is a struggle. As in your faith, it is an internal jihad - a struggle with myself and God, trying to find the path, trying to find out what it all means. The problem is not the core of what I believe, but how I pursue it, how it affects me and those around me. And those around me include all of mankind.

Arminius

Hello Chris Everett,

Does "doubt" covers believers doubting some of the premises put forth by atheists on religion in state and society?

--------------------------------------------------

Hello Arminius,

You stated: "Faith, at least to me, is by no means stagnant. It is a constant struggle and learning process. It is not a stopping point, it is a doorway, an endless journey."

I agree. But, being a simpler person, faith is not quite the struggle for me - either I have faith in something, anything or I don't. Either I believe in something or I don't.

I don't have a lot of faith in many of our political masters and religious leaders nor do I believe all they think and do is well considered and just. But then, they are only human.

I have lots of doubts on religious and secular related laws in place because they are interpreted, formulated and implemented by man. I should know.

--------------------------------------------------

Hello Spiritual Mongrel,

You stated : "I have posted before on this site that it be ironic if it was the atheists that shows the theists the way to God by making us continually evaluate our beliefs."

Well, believers hope to continue to evaluate what atheists posts as a return favour. If atheists can judge believers to a certain standards they set for believers, so can believers judged them on what they say and do, and by their own self-set standards of reason, logic and rationalism.

After all, atheists calls on believers to think for himself or herself as an exercise of free will. We are just doing that. So, don't be upset or frustrated or exasperated if believers don't agree with everything atheists said and do on faith, beliefs and everything else.

After all, atheists call on believers to be "open" to criticisms, observations, premises, theses, theories, facts on their faith and beliefs.

And what is this with that John Lennon song again? Musical stagnation? Stuck in the Sixties? Is everyone here of my parents' generation - the Baby Boomers?

Thanks and regards
"J"

Chris (and Arminius).

Thanks for the Lennon lyrics I looked up the whole song (I am not a big Beatles fan).

I don’t know that you could write a better anthem for world peace.

“My” God doesn’t require belief in God, simply a belief in life. In my world God is the creator and the created so a belief in life is a belief in God, you just might not know it. God, Life, Love, Change are all interchangeable but that is a conversation for another day.

God certainly could play a role in the world John Lennon wrote of, but he would need to behave himself :)

I have posted before on this site that it be ironic if it was the atheists that shows the theists the way to God by making us continually evaluate our beliefs.

As Arminius said, keep the journey and the dialogue going.

Chris,

'Imagine', by John Lennon. Considered one of the greatest songs of all time. President Carter said that he heard it in his travels about as often as he heard national anthems played.

Arminius

Gerry,

Thanks! I am very aware that only a few centuries ago, I would have been burned at the stake by howling stagnant 'believers'. And, yes, if I should ever go to certain Islamic countries, I would be very careful to keep my mouth shut. It would be difficult - I have no patience or respect for anyone who thinks he has all the necessary answers.

Spiritual Mongrel (love the name!) said something very important: you non-believers keep us believers more honest because you keep us searching.

The journey continues. So does the dialog, thank God.

Arminius

Spiritual Mongrel,

You write, "Think of what the world would be like if we indeed treated each other as if we were all one."

Someone wrote a song about that once. "Imagine there's no heaven, it's easy if you try. No hell below us, above us only sky..."

DITLD,

Your description of belief seems right on.

You say, "Then your own doubts and thoughts go to work, sculpting this inherited scheme of belief." That's true, as long as religion hasn't crippled your ability to doubt effectively, which is one thing it seems to do very well.

Arminius,

congratulations to your wonderful honest heretical inclination! (No irony!) Such openness would already have meant death for you a few centuries ago, and even today in Islam, depending where you lived....

Important first steps.

Gerry.

Thanks for the reply.

I should be clear on my scientific evidence. I was talking more about being more than our body, versus scientific evidence of a God.

BTW I did love the world is flat analogy. It is perfect.

I agree some faith is eternal, stagnant and immobile. Currently one of the biggest disservices to humanity and ones self right now is Spiritual stagnation. If it weren’t for atheists the stagnation would be more prevalent. For the record I am against tying civil law to any religious doctrine. First how do you pick the “right” one and second it would lead to further stagnation.

However some theists / pantheist / people of faith believe, as the saying goes, the only constant is change. It is demonstrated in the universe around us. A new definition or better stated a new theory on God is needed let us evolve.

I don’t believe the divide between science and spirituality needs to be so great. Like a Ying and Yang of cosmology they should drive each other to learn more. I believe scientific exploration of human consciousness like at the Monroe Institute is one of the next great frontiers. It should indicate more evidence of the nature of who/what we really are. If God is at the core, then it should move us closer to that realization. If God is not then we are at least closer to understanding who/what we are.

It is not God that drives us apart but the idea that we are separate from one another, that anyone of us are better, more worthy, more deserving than another. Whether God joins us at the core is almost irrelevant.

Think of what the world would be like if we indeed treated each other as if we were all one.

Gerry,

Faith, at least to me, is by no means stagnant. It is a constant struggle and learning process. It is not a stopping point, it is a doorway, an endless journey.

Arminius

Belief is not formed by reviewing all the evidence, and formulating theories, and seeing this way adds up better than that way, and that way makes more sense than this way.

This is how belief is formed:

You inherit all that has been built up before, by your parents or care-givers. The original thoughts on God were probably when people were afraid of death, and not intellectual fear of death, but imminent fear, fear when the lightening strikes, then whe thunder thunders, when the hungry beasts roam near, when the cold winds blow, when the river floods, when the earth shakes. people sought a great movivator, God, and then, we're off!

You inherit all of this from your parents, teachers, care-givers. Then your own doubts and thoughts go to work, sculpting this inherited scheme of belief; you cannot control these thoughts, or these doubts, they just set to work, changing and sculpting your inherited beliefs, until they change into something else, something that you call your own beliefs, arrived at and excercied, by the mystery of your own inner will, and resisitent to the coersion of other people's arguments or beliefs.

Spiritual mongrel,

"My belief or let’s say my theory on God’s existence is based on research of numerous religions, scientific evidence, theory and on personal contemplation and experience."

Granted with the exception of "... scientific evidence".

"Religious scientific evidence" is an oxymoron, if there ever was one. Even the believers will admit this. (It would destroy their concept of "faith".)

Of course life and mind is more than our body! We are a part of the whole, in time, in space, in evolution, in thought. Agreed wholeheartedly, without having to resort to split brain thinking, that is, to being forced to thinking and agreeing to something together with its logical negation!

And the fact that billions of people thought the earth is flat did not make it flat.

Science is never finished. Every door opened leads to other doors still closed: Development, life, movement.

Faith is finished, "eternal", immobile, stagnation, dead. Not for me.

Using logic and experience:

With the "pwtfft" i.e Moroni and Joe Smith as the "spiritual" guides/founders, what does one conclude about Mormonism???

A cult based on hallucinations which has bought respectability with a $30 billion business empire, the BYU "mission matured" football team and a great choir.

With the "pwfft" i.e. Gabriel and the "warmongering, womanizing, "holey not holy hallucinator" aka Mohammed what does one conclude about Islam?

A cult based on the oil profits, terror, fear of the sword, stoning, hand chopping and suicide bombers.

With the "pwfft" i.e. Gabriel and the illiterate peasant, possible mamzer, hallucinating and embellished Jesus what does one conclude about Catholicism/Christianity?

A cult based on the fear of hell, guilt trips, the sin of myths, limbo, and the false promises of sin atonement, "miracles", water purification, indulgences and the only key to the spirit state of Heaven.

With "avenging pwtfft"s, and the mostly mythical OT and its "fortune tellers" what does one conclude about Judaism?

A cult based on the support of its rich members, the fear of Hell, the promise of a messiah and the return to the mythical promised land conquered previously by mythical OT characters.

Chris Everett.

You said that religion “can only be "understood" through by irrational means, such as faith.”

As a generalization I might agree with you. However there are people, both religious and spiritual who apply logic and experience to help determined their understanding. I am a very spiritual person with no religious affiliation.

Johnny B Goode said “In short, don't throw out the baby with the bath water. Just because you have not seen God does not mean other men have not; just because you have not heard God does not mean other men have not”. I agree with that. I wouldn’t go as far to say it is a slur to all persons of faith need to be rational, but I would consider that an inaccurate statement. Granted there are numerous people who take an irrational approach, but that is a mighty big brush to coat anyone who believes in God as irrational.

My belief or let’s say my theory on God’s existence is based on research of numerous religions, scientific evidence, theory and on personal contemplation and experience. I started with I am more than my body of which there is some evidence that suggests this is true. I add in my personal experience and I have developed my theory.

A theory is “A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or -- phenomena --, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.” It is also defined as “Abstract reasoning; speculation:”

Science comes up with theories all the time and some are proven and some are discarded and some remain as theories; time travel, the unified theory etc.

My theory indicates there is reason to believe there is more than the body and more than an individual consciousness.

Does that mean the universe is conscious and we are just part of it? God is like the wizard of OZ running the universe from behind the curtain, God is a separate omnipresent being, we are part of God or are we just cogs in the machine; randomly generated life forms with a finite beginning and end.

These are all wonderful theories but none of them provable at this point in time. Does that mean we stand pat and wait for something to happen? Or do we continue to explore the possibilities?

I will side with you that absolutes are troublesome, especially when we do not know absolutely for sure that the absolute is correct.

What theory or theories work for you? Figure that out and run with it. Worse case is you find out you are wrong and you move on to the next theory. Some religious doctrine has place a constraint on human thought. I don’t find that to be of use to me. Believe what “others” have said is giving up personal freedom. We all need to choose for ourselves what works for us. I have found numerous concepts from various schools of spiritual thought that have proven to be very effective in life.

I don’t believe any religion has it completely right. This doesn’t mean that everything spoken about in religion is wrong. There is a wonderful little book called Oneness that cites the same concepts from numerous religions. While it is possible that billions up billions of people over time have been 100% wrong, I find that unlikely. Where there is smoke there is fire. In my mind there is “something” to this idea of more than your body. Once you start down that path the possibilities are endless.

Peace

Gerry,

I couldn't agree more. Deference to superstition has to end. Naturalistic, humanistic institutions dedicated to the cultivation of meaningful human experience have to be fostered. The prison walls of mankind's cultural infancy must fall.

I simply don't have the slightest reason to believe in anything above nature. Nature is all, and it is as exhilarating and inscrutable as anything I could possibly imagine, without me having to pervert my thinking and my perception to the "absurd" of the church father Tertullian. "Credo quia absurdum" means. "I believe because it is absurd". Well, I think believing in the absurd, logically, is absurd. Why then should I believe in impossibilities? Only because Luther said that reason is of the devil? Reason is what differentiates us from animals. Reaction to stimuli we have in common with animals.

Why are so many honest atheists so afraid to be called atheists, even on these threads? If you don't believe in any religious creed somebody tries to push down your throat, the only honest and dignified behavior is to stick to it and say so, instead of pretending to believe in the unbelievable for fear of damaging your career.

If this degree of honesty would prevail, a lot of people would be surprised about the percentage of enlightened atheists even in the US population.

Johnny B. Goode,

I did not mean to imply that nothing associated with religion has value. There is a lot to commend some religious traditions, particularly eastern introspective traditions like Buddhism. But L. Kurt Engelhart was asserting that the principles required for civilization were fundamentally religious, which I disagree with. That was the distinction I was focusing on. More than anything, religion implies supernatural origin or agency, and since it IS supernatural, it can only be "understood" through by irrational means, such as faith. Perhaps it is a bit of a generalization to go from there to the idea of divinely-provided ABSOLUTE moral truths, but in practice that seems to be what is usually done. And wherever it IS done, there is an insurmountable barrier between civilizations, because each claims their own as absolute, and neither will submit to the other. On a personal level it is also alienating because it replaces personal conscience with an externally-provided rule book, along with the demand that wherever one's conscience conflicts with the rule book, it is the duty of the believer to beat his conscience into submission.

Subjective experience exists, but there is no ABSOLUTE basis for extending one person's personal foundational beliefs to another. Yet this is precisely what religions tend to do, and the authority they claim for doing so is that they have the ABSOLUTE TRUTH. So I continue to maintain that the claim of absolute truth is the eternal enemy of civilization. It's true that absolute claims are not necessarily religious (which I conceded, with examples), and it's true that not all religions claim absolute truth (particularly humanistic "religions" such as Ethical Culture), but it would be absurd to deny the historical track record, which is not good.

You say, "In short, don't throw out the baby with the bath water. Just because you have not seen God does not mean other men have not; just because you have not heard God does not mean other men have not. It is a slur to consign all persons with faith in God to irrationality. It is intellectual laziness to dismiss out of hand those things and persons you fail to comprehend."

I couldn't disagree more. First, my disbelief in God isn't just because I haven't seen him/it, it's because there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that such a thing exists, and those who attempt to demonstrate its existence invariably spin off into obscurantism, logical fallacy, emotional bribery and fear mongering. Also, what is intellectual RIGOR if not a requirement that ideas about objective truth have some basis in reality, as well as logical coherence. Of what use is the intellect AT ALL if its job is to believe anything anyone says? What intellectual activity is it that I'm failing to perform, choosing laziness instead? I'd really like to know.

Tonio:--"Having said that, I don't understand why most believers value that principle in the first place."

According to Wikipedia, "The Anabaptists were early promoters of a free church and freedom of religion (sometimes associated with separation of church and state)."

I suspect the same could be true for other minority religions and sects which had experienced persecution at the hands of state-sanctioned religions and sects.

LOCO_MOCO:--"A society which is sufficiently advanced and sufficiently self-assured to allow these sorts of ancillary legal processes within its "big tent", will discover that this gives it the opportunity to prune all purely religion-based laws from its secular legal system."

I don't see how society, in general, is served by allowing religious courts to do to their members which other, non-religious members of that society might rightfully find abhorant. This seems like "unequal protection under the laws". Surely a secular society does not need to create religious courts in order to purge religiously-based laws from its secular canons. It would seem that truly just, equitable laws that benefit some members of a society can benefit all.

Thanks

Dear Gerry,

Sorry for the accidental Anonymous post. I meant to put my byline.

"Maybe I was jumping to a conclusion, but your wording has a strong implication. If you had omitted the word "secular" I would not have been able to conclude this."

I said:

"I believe that Archbishop Williams badly erred in his positions. He simply did not recognize the secular crimes being committed in the name of a religion."

Let me clarify what I meant by that. Some things done by British Moslems like creating "no go" zones in which is worth your life to go if you are not identifiably Moslem are flat wrong. Enforcing arranged marriages by threats an intimidation is also wrong and illegal. Such threats and violence are crimes under secular law. No amount of religious mumbo jumbo should obscure that these religionists are committing crimes under secular law, or excuse them for it. That is why I think that Archbishop Rowan Williams is in grievous error.

Even Jesus Christ Himself said: "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and render unto God the things that are God's." I would suggest that Archbishop Williams should review the Gospels and demand that his Islamic countrymen give the secular civil government its due. Religion, Moslem, or any other kind, is no excuse for breaking the secular law.

As someone who sees Mike Huckabee as a potential real-life Nehemiah Scudder, I am grateful that most believers do value the principle of separation of church and state, and I welcome their support.

Having said that, I don't understand why most believers value that principle in the first place. If one believes in a moral authority god, wouldn't that naturally lead to a belief that every aspect of human life, including government, should be based on that god's desires or orders?

Neal,you said:

"This type of "belief" is also usually not provisional; it is believed no matter what opposing evidence is provid"

Allow me to add a comment. In religion beliefs, most of the times there is a punishment if you stop believing: toasted in the after life -if there is anything like life after death- or could be more expedite, local and swift if you are in the wrong religion or cult.

Peace to all,

JAC

loco_moco: "-- Participation in "parallel" religious legal processes must never be compelled, and individuals must always have recourse to the larger, secular legal system. (Note: The Archbish stresses this in his comments!)"

This seems to imply that the co-religionist in question doesn't really believe the tenets of their faith and/or that there are no real consequences for choosing the secular court over a religious one. How much choice does someone, raised from birth in a particular religion and dependent on it's society for survival, really have? It would seem that the best way to insure equal protection under the law would be to not create a separate court system with it's own, highly motivating, set of sanctions designed to coerce participation.

Thanks

Well now, you see the above argument is also one that supports allowing shared-faith communities some degree of latitude in managing civil disputes that arise between members.

A society which is sufficiently advanced and sufficiently self-assured to allow these sorts of ancillary legal processes within its "big tent", will discover that this gives it the opportunity to prune all purely religion-based laws from its secular legal system.

If we root out the fundamentalist mentality from our secular courts, and banish fundamentalist precepts to their own internal religious tribunals, justice will be more equitable for all in our society.

I didn't intentionally leave out nonbelievers in my initial post, but I neglected their point of view and perhaps this will help make up for it ;-)

Oh "reality challenged" and Obfuscating Jihadist,

Where Oh where are your counter-points to the obvious flaws in Islam?

Without these, your commentaries on obfuscating issues become mute.

A scientist might say, "I believe in gravity". This "belief" is based on testable, falsifiable evidence examined over time. To a scientist, such a "belief" is provisional; it remains a "belief" until proven wrong.

A religious person might say, "I believe in a god who created the universe and oversees it's operation". This "belief" may be based on a holy book or a "feeling", but in neither case is it based on testable, falsifiable evidence. We have just someone's word for it. This type of "belief" is also usually not provisional; it is believed no matter what opposing evidence is provided.

I personally do not care if others believe in god(s) or not. But, like many other believers and non-believers here, I do not want laws governing my life or society to be based on "feelings" or other untestable, unfalsifiable "beliefs", as theocracies do. I am encouraged that many religious folks have not taken the bait offered by some divisive elements in the US presidential campaign which have attempted to equate secularism with atheism.

Despite the rampant fearmongering on this subject -- much of it perpetrated by media pundits who have no deep grounding in either religious or legal matters -- the issue really boils down to something quite straightforward.

First, we need to toss out the strangely persistent misinterpretation that the First Amendment guarantees "freedom from religion". What it does is to declare a level playing field for all religions.

Second, we need to toss out the related notion that allowing a given faith community to self-police using appropriate portions of its own civil legal code somehow is a "favoring" of that faith community. There's a crucial difference between "favoring", which this is not, and "permitting", which is all it amounts to.

Any and all faith communities should be able to request this sort of thing -- subject, of course, to an enlightened larger society's power to insure that inherent, individual civil rights are not violated.

It clarifies the issue immensely if we separate it from First Amendment questions that are really not germane. We can then focus on the real question, namely, what sorts of powers can properly be granted to these religious "tribunals".

-- The larger society should not cede its authority to impose sanctions against life, limb or liberty. This implies that enforcement of criminal law remains the province of the whole of society.

-- The enforcement of human rights violations must also remain a function of the larger society. This certainly would specifically include equal treatment of women from the legal standpoint.

-- Participation in "parallel" religious legal processes must never be compelled, and individuals must always have recourse to the larger, secular legal system. (Note: The Archbish stresses this in his comments!)

This leaves a great many types of common civil disputes, arising among co-religionists, that could quite properly be handled in accordance with the precepts of said religions. And indeed, this may well be something that society should encourage.

After all, civil courts are already grossly overburdened and actively try to shunt prospective litigants into parallel secular mediation processes instead. Why should willing co-religionists not be entitled to their legal venues of choice as well? If we ensure the necessary protections are in place, this seems like a win-win to me.

Jihadist,you said:

"Belief is also faith in someone a premise, an idea, a notion, a view."

This kind belief or faith is OK, but in my view is different from the faith in a fact, faith in the existance of something concrete for which the only proof is my belief:

"Faith is seeing evidence of God on earth and in the universe in all creation and life."

Your statement is inspiring and very well worded. Nevertheless, for me, changing the definition of faith is not an evidence to prove that God or gods exist for a fact, and least that God or gods interactively comunicate with humans.

One more comment. I "believe" that there are a bunch of "irrational, illogical, unreasonable, naive, utopian, intellectually blinkered believers" that are religious, atheists, secularist, democrats, republicans, comunists...

The best for all,

JAC

Jihadist,

You said, among other good things, "Faith is seeing evidence of God on earth and in the universe in all creation and life. Science is the methodology to unravel, understand and comprehend the mysteries of creation to its source."

Thank you. I am right with you on that.

Yes, believers who fight for separation of church and state are secular in that respect. I am one of them.

With respect,

Arminius

Faith is seeing evidence of God on earth and in the universe in all creation and life. Science is the methodology to unravel, understand and comprehend the mysteries of creation to its source.

Believers congregate, mobilise and act up together for either their group benefit or to help their fellow men even those not of the same faith - whatever is of of benefit to them.

So, will atheists find benefit to get together with the likes of Johhny B Goode to support and defend the sensible Constitutional principle of separation of church and state?

or

Are atheists so focussed on religion as nonsense, and all believers are irrational and delusionists that they would not come together with the so-called "religionists" to cooperate to ensure seperation of church and state?

Any wonder why "moderate" or "liberal" believers in the Democratic party sidelined or marginalised "unapologetic" secularists? If secularists in this context means atheists.

I had thought that believers who want seperation of church and state are also technically "secularists".

NEAL:

"Faith is the evidence of things not seen."

What you say is absolutely true: when one has substantial or undeniable reason to believe in God, it is generally of no benefit to anyone else.

"If you believe, you believe for yourself, and if you scoff, you alone will bear it."

I'm not trying to convince anyone that he or she should believe in God as I do. I am seeking on these threads to come to a common consensus with persons of other faiths and persons without faith to support and defend the sensible Constitutional principle of separation of church and state.

Anyone who has an appreciation of history knows the inherent dangers of theocracy.

Dear Gerry,

"Maybe I was jumping to a conclusion, but your wording has a strong implication. If you had omitted the word "secular" I would not have been able to conclude this."

I said:

"I believe that Archbishop Williams badly erred in his positions. He simply did not recognize the secular crimes being committed in the name of a religion."

Let me clarify what I meant by that. Some things done by British Moslems like creating "no go" zones in which is worth your life to go if you are not identifiably Moslem. Such threats and violence are crimes under secular law, or enforcing arranged marriages by threats an intimidation. No amount of religious mumbo jumbo should obscure that these religionists are committing crimes under secular law, or excuse them for it. That is why I think that Archbishop Rowan Williams is in grievous error.

Even Jesus Christ Himself said: "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and render unto God the things that are God's." I would suggest that Archbishop Williams should review the Gospels and demand that his countrymen give the secular civil government its due. Religion is no excuse for breaking the secular law.

Ah, the "reality challenged" and Obfuscating Jihadist still cannot come to grips with the flaws in Islam.

"I believe reason, logic and rationality will solve hatred, unjustness and reduce baser human nature."

"I believe if there is no religion, there will no longer be any discords and strifes and wars".

"I believe science will solve everything."

Belief is also faith in someone a premise, an idea, a notion, a view.

"I believe Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins et al will make every believer divest themselves of their delusions once they read all their books".

....and I have the facts and evidence to support all those statements. Take that irrational, illogical, unreasonable, naive, utopian, intellectually blinkered believers!

Mr. Moderate,

you said "he simply did not recognize the secular crimes being committed in the name of a religion."

Maybe I was jumping to a conclusion, but your wording has a strong implication. If you had omitted the word "secular" I would not have been able to conclude this.

Johnny B. Goode: "It is a slur to consign all persons with faith in God to irrationality. It is intellectual laziness to dismiss out of hand those things and persons you fail to comprehend."

Faith is usually defined as belief without evidence.

Belief without evidence can reasonably be seen to be irrational.

Personal experience of supernatural things would seem to be of no evidentiary value to anyone else.

Supernatural things would seem to defy human comprehension, by definition.

It seems ironically unfair to dismiss someone as intellectually lazy for failing to comprehend the incomprehensible.

(Apologies to Chris Everett for butting in.)

To the Obfuscating and Unenlightened Jihadist and the rest of the Muslims out there:

Your problems go beyond the Bin Ladens, the Shiite Iranian crazies, the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia, atheists, secularists and antitheists,

The problems are in the basic foundations of Islam itself as one can see from the following:

1. Belief in "pretty/ugly wingie thingies"

2. Belief that an hallucinating, illiterate Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the hot "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words and resultant laws now listed in the koran.

3. That Sunnis are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life. And Shiites think the same way about Sunnis.

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7, 800 year-old blood feud between Sunnis and Shiites gives significant credence that greed, hate, suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran. Having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of rape, adultery, lust and polygamy. The condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of hatred, anger and greed.
These are tough issues. Address them, correct them then ask again to be allowed into the civil world!!!!!

And accusing someone of spreading hate and lies does not work when these "someones" are simply listing the facts. If you have counter points about your beliefs then list them. Hiding behind imams and clerics blinded by 1400 years of brainwashing serves no purpose other than to secure a dishonest living for said imams and clerics.

We are on theses now here? :)

Ah well, let's get silly on easy cliches and lazy generalisations....

Karl Marx : Religion is the opiate of the masses.

Richard Dawkins : God is a delusion.

Christopher Hitchens : Religion poisons everything.

Chris Everett : Religion is the a real and demonstrated threat to civilization.

(His caveat - as are all "utopian" ideologies that claim absolute knowledge of human nature, such as communism and even libertarianism).

- Since when has religions becomes ideologies like communism and libetarianism? (P.S - it is the European socialist/communist/leftist intellectuals who defined religions as ideologies. They still do as opposed to their own ideology and ideological solution of all human affairs)

- Since when is Nazism, Fascism, Stalinism, Moaism, Pol Potism regarded as less dangerous than religion in spite of plainly inhumane acts committed in the last century which are apparently NOT in the name of religion?

- Since when is religion not based on morals, ethics and values as demonstrated in the dialogue between Arjuna and Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita, in the Eight Noble Path of Buddhism, in the Ten Commandments, in the sins and virtues as tabulated by early Catholic clergy, in the Right Path for Muslims?

- Since when is ethics or religious discords not due to states or the more powerful ethnic and religious groups imposing or given primacy to one ethnic and religious group?

- Since when do people of the same faith stop having discords due to political affiliations, political differences, personal values, and even class?

Good thing religious "moralists" such as Martin Luther King spoke against segregation, and Desmond Tutu against apartheid.

From Karl Marx to Christopher Hitchens, those who speak against beliefs seem to understand the human condition less than one would hope. Of course it is the fault of the masses for not getting them and their obvious "truth".

I never heard Hitchens or Harris or Dawkins speaking on the human condition, or on human rights that inspired and moved many on human rights to believe or not to believe.

Nor have I heard of atheists organising a March to Washington for atheism where Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins would give an inspiring speech, say, ummm, "I have a dream that everyone don't have to believe in God if they don't. That everyone don't have to be a member of any organised religion if they don't want too...". But, yawn...it will never happen.

Can to enlighten us the unenlighten ones on this?

Thanks and regards
"J"

Susan,

I saw you last night on Bill Moyers Journal, a program which I like to watch with eagerness. I must admit I never had the chance to see you give a television interview before; so it was nice to put a voice and a face to the words you write here on faith and elsewhere; and I thought you looked great.

I enjoyed the discussion and I agree that America faces a great deal of civic ignorance and a dumbing down of our culture. The reasons are numerous and the consequences are immeasurable. Photographer Lori Grinker’s pictures of Iraqi refugees give a somber testament to the actions done in our name by Homo Politicus, or Potomac Man, when left to his own devices without challenge from an informed public. I wish we had more of you who challenge the status quo and the nation to live up to our place in the world. I am looking forward to reading your new book, The Age of Unreason.

Dear Arminius:

"We do not always agree - but your last post I agree with 100%. Exactly how I feel, and how my religion is."

You agree with this one, and insult that one. It is all the same.

Dear Gerry,

"For you, a crime is "a priori" secular, no matter how deeply it is rooted in religions. An elegant evasion of responsibility, I must say!"

Eh? You do read so much into what I say that is not there. Where did I ever say that crime is a priori secular?

In some instances religious groups have committed crimes, and in other instances secular governments have. Please try to read what I say, not what you fear.

Chris Everett:

You have written a very concise and clear argument that is wrong, simply because you make sweeping generalizations.

What we are experiencing worldwide is a clash of cultures, philosophies, and religions. As with all things, even fried chicken, some is good and some is bad.

Religion has served some of the most noble purposes of man, conveying a sense of wonder, an explanation for the inexplicable, a common thread binding a community together, continuity from ancestors to progeny, and a fellowship between man and the mystical. Think of the American aborigines who long ago lived in their own world alone and unaware of the rest of the world. For centuries, they had all the answers to everything. There were many, many such people who had a cohesive grasp of life and death. They enjoyed answered prayer, visions of the future, and faith in the Great Spirit.

Christianity as taught by Jesus is harm free. Jesus laid down his life rather than kill and commanded his disciples to follow his example. If everyone in the world were willing to sacrifice his or her life rather than kill, all wars would cease and peace would break out.

The Jains (a Hindu sect) are so benevolent that they brush the path where they walk with a soft feather for fear of harming even an insect.

Buddhism in its purist form is a path to personal enlightenment, a godless form of religion, that harms no one.

I could go on, but suffice it to say, not all religions are inherently bad, but some persons manage to bugger up anything.

So far as secularism is concerned, there have been Titans of intellect in philosophy and the arts who have paved the way in salient movements. Thomas Paine, Max Weber, Adam Smith, Plato, Hegel, etc.

Ghandi led a peaceful movement that chucked the Brits out of India without a shot being fired.

In short, don't throw out the baby with the bath water. Just because you have not seen God does not mean other men have not; just because you have not heard God does not mean other men have not.

It is a slur to consign all persons with faith in God to irrationality. It is intellectual laziness to dismiss out of hand those things and persons you fail to comprehend.

Moderate,

you understood my point very well: Why should I address any particular religion if they are all invented, promoted and perpetuated according to the same principles?

"You MUST believe, or else", whatever, is a logical (and moral, if there is such a thing) oxymoron, with fatal consequences (death in Islam, even today; in Christianity, a few centuries ago - not much). The rest of the colorful religious variety is cultural folklore.

For you, a crime is "a priori" secular, no matter how deeply it is rooted in religions. An elegant evasion of responsibility, I must say!

ARMINIUS:

Have you considered the fact that a kid boiled in its mother's milk tastes so delicious precisely because it is forbidden?

All I know is, I don't want the state to take ganja away from the Rastafaris.

To the one billion Muslims out there,

Once again:

Your problems go beyond the Bin Ladens, the Shiite Iranian crazies and the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

The problems are in the basic foundations of Islam itself as one can see from the following:

1. Belief in "pretty/ugly wingie thingies"

2. Belief that an hallucinating, illiterate Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the hot "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words and resultant laws now listed in the koran.

3. That Sunnis are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life. And Shiites think the same way about Sunnis.

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7, 800 year-old blood feud between Sunnis and Shiites gives significant credence that greed, hate, suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran. Having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of rape, adultery, lust and polygamy. The condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of hatred, anger and greed.

These are tough issues. Address them, correct them then ask again to be allowed into the civil world!!!!!

And accusing someone of spreading hate and lies does not work when these "someones" are simply listing the facts. If you have counter points about your beliefs then list them. Hiding behind imams and clerics blinded by 1400 years of brainwashing serves no purpose other than to secure a dishonest living for said imams and clerics.

Moderate,

We do not always agree - but your last post I agree with 100%. Exactly how I feel, and how my religion is.

Arminius

Hi Gerry,

"I force you to freely believe what I tell you".

Agreed, that is the line of some religions, and some secular governments. Does that make all secular governments, or religions bad?

My religion does not force anyone to believe. We are open and inclusive of diverse people. Nor do I scorn people who believe differently from me, though, as you know, I have my own opinions which I will vigorously debate for.

So methinks your brush is too broad. If you were to mention what particular groups you are addressing instead of simply hitting everyone who might harbor some religious belief, that might work better.

However, about the Sharia Law, as it is currently practiced in the "No Go" zones in England, I do agree with your point that they want to force belief and punish unbelievers. I believe that Archbishop Williams badly erred in his positions. He simply did not recognize the secular crimes being committed in the name of a religion. Rose colored glasses help no one.

Hi Gerry,

"I force you to freely believe what I tell you".

Agreed, that is the line of some religions, and some secular governments. Does that make all secular governments, or religions bad? My religion does not force anyone to believe. We are open and inclusive of diverse people. Nor do I scorn people who believe differently from me, though as you know, I have my own opinions which I will vigorously debate for.

So methinks your brush is too broad. If you were to mention what particular groups you are addressing instead of simply hitting everyone who disagrees with you. That might work better.

Chris Everett:

That was a well-written and thought-provoking essay. You justly deserve the praise, and for the most part I agree.

But you said: "My thesis is that the dischord around ethics and the rule of law will persist SO LONG AS religion claims moral authority. RELIGION is the a real and demonstrated threat to civilization (as are all "utopian" ideologies that claim absolute knowledge of human nature, such as communism and even libertarianism)."

Here, speaking as a liberal Christian, I will voice a somewhat different opinion. Yes, the discord will continue, religions (and parts of religions) will say they have the moral high ground. This in itself can be valuable, in that it keeps the dialog going. But when a religion, or, as you add so well, any utopian ideology, threatens to make it into law, that is when I grab my claymore and look into getting a high powered rifle. The fundies, or whoever, can claim they have all the answers all they want to, let them shout themselves hoarse. If they tell me I am going to hell, then I laugh. But only when they are becoming a direct threat - as some of them are now! - that is when I get very angry.

Arminius

The word "believe" suggests that I have an opinion out of my free will and personal perception.

Anybody who forces me to believe something (e.g., by threatening to send me to hell) distorts the meaning of "believe".

"I force you to freely believe what I tell you".

That is the essence of religious power, and always has been.

"Religious Belief" is an oxymoron.

Chris Everett:

Perfectly put, and so true.

Chris Everett:

In four paragraphs you've articulated what it would have taken me a lifetime to figure out how to say! Go man!

I'm going to play against type and agree with L. Kurt Engelhart to this extent: society depends on a fundamental agreed code of ethics upon which to base the rule of law. I interpret LKE as saying that the choice of ethics is intrinsically a RELIGIOUS choice, so we are all, to the extent that we wish to live in society, religious. That's where I disagree. Secular government has its ethical foundation in the NATURAL RIGHTS OF MAN. Illumination of these rights does not require, and indeed must avoid, deference to the authority of supposed "revealed" texts, or speculation about the wishes of some supernatural overlord. Illumination of natural rights is an intrinsically HUMAN activity and involves investigation into human nature, through an understanding of history, economics, philosophy, and most importantly through honest introspection.

But there's no law saying that every individual will come to the exact same conclusion about the natural rights of man, since we all have different experiences, inclinations and capacities. Like it or not, there's no ABSOLUTE ethical basis upon which to build the rule of law. Consequently, our government keeps the ethical proclamations to a minimum and primarily focuses on fairness - hence democracy.

It is curious that the loudest voices AGAINST increases in equality tend to be religious. That tells me that religion is intrinsically ALIENATING - it separates the individual from awareness of his nature, and replaces it with a crude and crass substitute that in many respects goes against his nature, perhaps because it exists primarily to serve the institutions that promote it.

So that brings me full circle, and ultimately in opposition to LKE's thesis. My thesis is that the dischord around ethics and the rule of law will persist SO LONG AS religion claims moral authority. RELIGION is the a real and demonstrated threat to civilization (as are all "utopian" ideologies that claim absolute knowledge of human nature, such as communism and even libertarianism).

Dear Susan,

Outside of your usual florid manner of expression, I find myself in agreement with your concerns. So don't say I never agreed with you on anything. :^))

Separation of Church and state as embodied in the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause is good for the church, the state, and civil society.

As to:

"The archbishop's bow to mulitculturalism run amuck is, in an odd way, a mirror image of Mike Huckabee's suggestion that the U.S. Constitution should be amended to conform to God's law. By which Huckabee means the God of Christianity, not the God of Islam."

I would suggest that Mike Huckabee means the Baptist interpretation of the God of Christianity.

Many Christians, I would venture even the great majority, would oppose a "Baptist Amendment". I have nothing against Baptists, mind you, but I suspect that most would rightly oppose an "Episcopalian Amendment" a "Buddhist Amendment", a "Jewish Amendment" or "Atheist Amendment".

Bravo, Freestinker.

Your last post to LKE said it all.

L. Kurt Engelhart:

Thanks for your reply, and comment.

L. Kurt,

Nice punt.

There is no need for us to agree on religion as long as we have separation of church and state.

As long as we have strict separation, we can live in peace together without ever agreeing on a single religious opinion!

"So what fundamental religious principles do you claim we all must eventually agree with?"

That is for us all to agree upon together. We have a long road ahead of us.

L. Kurt Engelhart said:

"The problem arises when some people believe they have the right to tell everybody just what to believe."

I agree with you there but then you said:

"... all humans will eventually have to agree with some fundamental religious principles. I believe democracy must be one of those principles."

Well that's just not true at all. If we are free to believe or not believe in religion, then we are free to disagree (eternally if necessary) with any particular religious principle. Democracy is a civil not a religious principle. So what fundamental religious principles do you claim we all must eventually agree with?

DW,

"None. But many have kept their strength, morally and physically, the longer they adhered to the commandments."

None. Precisely.

Why do you claim this cause and effect if there are no examples that demonstrate it's validity?

DW

"The revelry, debauchery et.al. that epitomized the Roman empire at its fall was not of the Christian community. And if any 'Christian' was involved in such, they were not Christian."

The era of 'revelry, debauchery et.al.' was the late 1st Century B.C. through the middle of the 3rd Century A.D., all when the Roman Empire was officially pagan and at the peak of its power and prosperity. By the end of the empire in the west, its was officially Christian and had been for about 160 years. By your logic, God apparently pulled His support for the empire for turning Christian. Or perhaps Jupiter was annoyed? At the end, the Roman Empire in the west was a religiously dominated, military autocracy that wanted to squelch all dissent, whether political or religious.

"There was something fundamentally missing from that society at the end...resembling the pleasure seeking and uninhibited desires that abound in our society today, to name a few things."

Lots of nonsense has been written about the fall of Rome, but the Hollywood "decadent orgies while the barbarians burn the city" nonsense is the silliest, and only shows a lack of knowledge about the subject.

There are certainly parallels with today, a paranoid, security-obsessed population exploited by its rulers for their own gain, and who are fed the pap of fundamentalist Christianity to keep them docile and unquestioning of the social and economic order.

In response to Jeff P. “We exist together in a secular society, my being an unbeliever, you a (?) believer…” Jeff, there are no unbelievers. I am not sure why you need to believe this, but everybody believes something. The problem arises when some people believe they have the right to tell everybody just what to believe. These people support this right with force, and eventually violence. You may say that some beliefs that must be enforced are not religious. That belief is as mythical as any aspect of any religion. You may think it is impossible, but all humans will eventually have to agree with some fundamental religious principles. I believe democracy must be one of those principles. The agreement must be arrived at democratically. My belief is fundamentally a religious belief.

http://kengelhart.home.igc.org/religion.htm

To All Muslims,

Your problems go beyond the Bin Ladens, the Shiite Iranian crazies and the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

The problems are in the basic foundations of Islam itself as one can see from the following:

1. Belief in "pretty/ugly wingie thingies"

2. Belief that an hallucinating, illiterate Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the hot "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words and resultant laws now listed in the koran.

3. That Sunnis are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life. And Shiites think the same way about Sunnis.

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7, 800 year-old blood feud between Sunnis and Shiites gives significant credence that greed, hate, suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran. Having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of rape, adultery, lust and polygamy. The condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of hatred, anger and greed.

These are tough issues. Address them, correct them then ask again to be allowed into the civil world!!!!!

And accusing someone of spreading hate and lies does not work when these "someones" are simply listing the facts. If you have counter points about your beliefs then list them. Hiding behind imams and clerics blinded by 1400 years of brainwashing serves no purpose other than to secure a good living for said imams and clerics.

I am hopeful that the archbishop did not mean what he wrote. However, both England and the US have a long way to go in teasing out any number of factors regarding religion, race, ethnicity, etc., not to mention secularism.

As an American Jew, I can tell you that this is a Christian country and that the influence of the Christians here is extraordinary. Thank God, we do not have a state religion as England does, but the Christians' influence, and power, is extraordinary. Witness our born again president's request to the pope for his opinion on stem-cell research? Why should that be of any more interest to me than anyone else's opinion? Why, on earth, would I care?

Witness, too, the assault on a woman's right to choose, successfully destroyed in Ireland by the American Catholics, and under assault here by Christian fundo's of all denominations. Now, Judaism requires abortion if the mother's life is endangered by the pregnancy or would be endangered by the delivery. If Christians, Catholics, et al, prefer to die in childbirth, that is their choice. If the Christians wish to follow the primitive and barbaric practice of colonizing women's bodies, they should be allowed to do so, on a voluntary basis.

If the archbishop did mean what he said, then I wonder if he might have been part of the cowering to Muslim extremists in England that we read so much about here. I am thinking, for instance, of the removal of Holocaust content from curricula, with the explanation that its inclusion was "offensive to Muslim students." Then, again, we must wonder if that was really the reason.

Americans have read Tony Blair's commissioned report on anti-Jewish racism in England, which we have found illuminating. The thing is, it all seems so consistent with historic English anti-Jewish racism that I wonder....And, of course, we have read of your unions, etc. When I consider such things, along with your treatment of Pakistani Muslims in England, your gunning down of an innocent Brazilian man, your historic belief that Irish Catholics are inferior, then I am moved to reconsider whether the archbishop may be making a gesture to multi-culturalism.

I am at a loss to explain why you so much object to terrorism on your own soil. After all, the English view it as protest when it happens in Israel. And do not think that Middle Easterners are stupid. They know what British Petroleum is. They know who the real culprits of their historic oppression.

If terrorism is to be equated with protest, perhaps you might legislate it as acceptable if the protestors are believers in one or the other religion, and forget about Shariah, for the moment.

At least, then, you would be consistent.

I am hopeful that the archbishop did not mean what he wrote. However, both England and the US have a long way to go in teasing out any number of factors regarding religion, race, ethnicity, etc., not to mention secularism.

As an American Jew, I can tell you that this is a Christian country and that the influence of the Christians here is extraordinary. Thank God, we do not have a state religion as England does, but the Christians' influence, and power, is extraordinary. Witness our born again president's request to the pope for his opinion on stem-cell research? Why should that be of any more interest to me than anyone else's opinion? Why, on earth, would I care?

Witness, too, the assault on a woman's right to choose, successfully destroyed in Ireland by the American Catholics, and under assault here by Christian fundo's of all denominations. Now, Judaism requires abortion if the mother's life is endangered by the pregnancy or would be endangered by the delivery. If Christians, Catholics, et al, prefer to die in childbirth, that is their choice. If the Christians wish to follow the primitive and barbaric practice of colonizing women's bodies, they should be allowed to do so, on a voluntary basis.

If the archbishop did mean what he said, then I wonder if he might have been part of the cowering to Muslim extremists in England that we read so much about here. I am thinking, for instance, of the removal of Holocaust content from curricula, with the explanation that its inclusion was "offensive to Muslim students." Then, again, we must wonder if that was really the reason.

Americans have read Tony Blair's commissioned report on anti-Jewish racism in England, which we have found illuminating. The thing is, it all seems so consistent with historic English anti-Jewish racism that I wonder....And, of course, we have read of your unions, etc. When I consider such things, along with your treatment of Pakistani Muslims in England, your gunning down of an innocent Brazilian man, your historic belief that Irish Catholics are inferior, then I am moved to reconsider whether the archbishop may be making a gesture to multi-culturalism.

I am at a loss to explain why you so much object to terrorism on your own soil. After all, the English view it as protest when it happens in Israel. And do not think that Middle Easterners are stupid. They know what British Petroleum is. They know who the real culprits of their historic oppression.

If terrorism is to be equated with protest, perhaps you might legislate it as acceptable if the protestors are believers in one or the other religion, and forget about Shariah, for the moment.

At least, then, you would be consistent.

Oooohh, let's not go to Camelot. It is a silly place. ;)

"in a place of prominence in our living room hangs a copy of Rembrandt's "The Return of The Prodigal Son," which I think is a beautiful work of art, and one of my favorite bible stories that is also a beautifully human story about love and forgiveness.
Just to let folks know that even non-believers or "apostates" can appreciate the finer things religion brings to our lives."

I also have a biblical painting hanging over my fireplace. I bought it because I love the painting for its aesthetic merits, and I also enjoy it as a fine bit of unintentional absurdest humor. It's supposed to be the arrival into Bethlehem, but it's all northern European architecture and vegetation, full of rolling hills of lush forests and moated castles. it looks more like the arrival into Camelot.

>>Rembrandt's "The Return of The Prodigal Son,"

Now, thats art...

Rembrandt was da man...

Good points on the story of it too..

History,

Check this one; it might be what you have been looking for:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2008/02/a_very_undead_christian_right.html

Jeff P,

Kudos and two thumbs up! Well said, and thanks. By the way, I am Episcopalian. Oddly, I came back after 30 years of non-belief.

Arminius

Jeff P.

Epicurus...WOW! I had forgotten about him (philosophy in college was eons ago for me)..

Interesting times in that BC era...as well as interesting people. Studies of history and its people grip me...its good stuff.

Regards...

...and in a place of prominence in our living room hangs a copy of Rembrandt's "The Return of The Prodigal Son," which I think is a beautiful work of art, and one of my favorite bible stories that is also a beautifully human story about love and forgiveness.

Just to let folks know that even non-believers or "apostates" can appreciate the finer things religion brings to our lives.

Check it out here:
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/rembrandt/1660/return-prodigal-son.jpg

DW,

Well said. Our Lord took the 10, with all the "Don't do..." and turned them around into "Do this...". With one stroke, He turned the direction of religion from inward to outward. The key word is love.

To me, the Gospels are the core of all inspiration. Anything else in the bible is simply supporting text. I realize this view is a bit, well, awkward to many.

Arminius

Arminius, as always, I always appreciate your input, you're a gentleman and a scholar!

And I do understand DW's position and DW, appreciate your input--I was there for 46 of my 47 years as a Christian. I think of all the Christian writers of the day, I deeply appreciate Marcus Borg (Episcopalian) and John Spong (Episcopalian) who, despite on occasion being labeled as co-conspirators with the devil, reflect what I believe were Jesus' best moments. If I were still a believing person, I'd be an Episcopalian for sure.

Even as a de-convert, I believe Jesus had some of the best messages to contemplate, although I also enjoy some of the early philosophers like Epicurus and Spinoza.

"For Epicurus, the purpose of philosophy was to attain the happy, tranquil life, characterized by aponia, the absence of pain and fear, and by living a self-sufficient life surrounded by friends. He taught that pleasure and pain are the measures of what is good and bad, that death is the end of the body and the soul and should therefore not be feared, that the gods do not reward or punish humans, that the universe is infinite and eternal, and that events in the world are ultimately based on the motions and interactions of atoms moving in empty space."

Not bad for 391 BC!

Arminius

Thanks for your points also.

The inspiration you have from the Gospels is duly noted.

I believe similarly to you...only that all of the 10 exist in the 2 great (1st great = first 4 - love toward God, 2nd great = last 6 - love toward our fellow man)- that our Lord and Saviour came to fulfill, magnify beyond the literal that we may understand it in our hearts and in living everyday life with our neighbor....

...with that in mind, and in each case, as you mention, the Gospels are certainly an inspiration

All the best

First, I want to commend DW and Jeff P for having a thoroughly polite and disciplined dialog on this difficult subject. This is what these blogs are supposed to be about, and it is a pure delight to see it in action.

Next, I do have a question about exactly how the 10 commandments, or other religious ideas, should affect the public sphere in any legal manner. As offered inspiration, yes, but how offered? Not many of them can be found in any laws here. Or should be found, I might add.

For the record, I am Christian, but liberal. My inspiration - the excellence, the base that DW so rightly mentioned - comes from the Gospels. To me, the Two Great Commandments are much more important than the 10. But that is another topic.

Arminius

Jeff P.

No sarcasm taken. I hope I am not presumptuous in any way either. Just throwing out thoughts..but sometimes I can be a bit longwinded and somewhat forward in presentning those thoughts...

It is certainly a subject that many see from many differing views...and not always differing in a sense that they conflict. Appreciate your points.

Without being verbose and long, I personally see, for instance, each commandment of the 10 as not only physical in application, but much deeper in application to our human lives.

For instance, the first commandment...having no other God's before God. I take this literal, as well as apply it in ways of the physical (dont put money, as a god, before God as well as before my family and their needs....one could fill in many things along with that) and spiritual (I believe in one, creator God...my personal belief).

Another, the 4th commandment: Remember the Sabbath day. In my studies of Hebrew and Roman calendars, I believe our 7th day of the week, Saturday, is still the Sabbath. Much of Christianity manuevers around this commandment. But it was given to the 12 tribes of Israel(the modern day Jews are descended primarily from Judah..its a fascinating study to see where the other 11 ended up (ie tribe of Dan..descendents were Danites..who are descendents of modern day Danish people) and, I believe, existed from creation (God rested on the 7th day as a example for mankind). I personally feel I need the Sabbath..for rest, to spend with my family, to worship and everything else good that comes along with all of this. I dont push it on others...but it means something to me.

The others, honor father and mother, stealing, lying (bearing false witness)...we all know what human characteristics such as these bring on.

The book of Hebrews (in chpt 13 I believe) states Jesus Christ (who was the Word in the beginning) is the same, yesterday, today and forever. With that, and as a believer, I cannot envision a God who thinks something such as the 4th commandment is not valid today. But then again, my opinion and view.

To sum, in my view, the excellence that can be in a human beings existence must have a root, a base if you will...that will always transcend our faults and weaknesses, but can always be there for us when we pick ourselves up and try again.

All the best...and thanks for the comments and observations.

L. Kurt Engelhart:

Religious "bias" would be just that--bias: "a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice."

There is no merit in such a bias. To remove bias from a public institution would and should not threaten religious practice, insofar as the religious practice isn't incorporated into the public institution.

You might consider that a common definition of "secular" is exactly what the 1st Amendment refers to--the ability to freely practice your religion of choice, but not to be subject to any religious practice established by the state. (I think we come very close to breaking this rule with the advent of "faith based initiatives" that use my tax money..)

I think Mark's statement is inaccurate on all counts. Again, I'd love to learn where I'm wrong on that, particularly where, on losing religious "bias," we would lose human rights. Please give me some examples.

Additionally, the argument has been made many times that non-belief is a form of "belief," that atheism is really another form of "religion," and that secularism is another "worldview" or "religion." I don't see accuracy in any of these statements.

We exist together in a secular society, my being an unbeliever, you a (?) believer, and we use the same traffic lights successfully, watch the same football games and shout for the same teams, and we eat at the same restaurants. If you needed to borrow some brown sugar I'd loan it to you. That is secularism.

'Religious bias' - exactly what does that mean? If any religion, creed, sect, denomination, etc. does something against the law, Congress has every right to act against it. If that 'religious bias' is internal to the group, and harms none, then Congress has no business doing anything about it.

Arminius

"In my interpretation of these two statements, Mark may believe that any attempt legally to remove religious bias would constitute interference in religious practice. This would occur if any government, or non-government, activity were legally required to be 'secular.'"

That doesn't sound accurate. Sure, government must remain neutral among competing religions. But surely non-governmental entities would simply be required to obey the secular law. Many of the horrific aspects of Islamic religious courts would clearly be illegal under U.S. and British law, and there is no legal or moral reason reason to exempt those courts from obeying the law.

Please let me bring attention back to Mark’s statement above, “The first laws to be repealed to remove religious bias will not be laws, but rights.” My understanding of the 1st Amendment is that it restricts the right of Congress to interfere legally in any religious practice. In my interpretation of these two statements, Mark may believe that any attempt legally to remove religious bias would constitute interference in religious practice. This would occur if any government, or non-government, activity were legally required to be “secular.” Whatever the meaning of the word “secular,” such a requirement would obviously be interference in religious practice. One might conclude from this that “secularism” is in itself a form of religious practice.

History,

Ok, I did not know which one you were searching for. Actually, I still don't know. But Anon is right, navigation on this site can be really tricky.

Arminius

History,

For the record, I've had the same concern, but so far I've been able to find the material eventually even though navigation can be confusing on this site. But if you become certain that they are censoring then by all means speak up!

Armininus (or whatever)

It's the column WAPO gave a headline yesterday, a little line on which you could click to get to the column directly.

Under the banner ON FAITH.

There were several posts under it that were very interesting. We copied them for future reference. Once again, it was not today's column.

It has disappeared.

"There is a good reason why the word 'sodomy', its connotation, its meaning...exists to this very day. Its not by mistake or lack of knowledge or lack of enlightenment."

It exists to this day because bigotry is codified in the Bible. It's truly tragic that after two thousand years some people are still so unenlightened that they don't recognize it as such and insist on perpetuating it. There's simply no excuse for it.

DW, thanks for your reply.

Agreed on Rome's fall. I mostly was just trying to clarify the point you made about (if I'm understanding you correctly) biblical principles being kept firmly in place (in the example of laws which are based upon those principles) where they enable the service of mankind, but also where they would prevent the fall of societies --like those civilizations that fell before.

I'm simply trying to learn where biblical principles (as serving-mankind-law) kept civilizations from demise. I wasn't aware of any, and I'm willing to learn about them.

My premise is this: I don't know of any society that survived the epochs of world history that survived as a result of the incorporation of Bible-specific principles (outside of our current Theocracies, which I consider less than in-the-service-of-mankind.) In fact I know of a few that were much more religious and survived that phase, becoming more secular and then (by almost every measure) became a more humane society.

It is important to know because if there are any, then the topic of Susan Jacoby's post is moot, and we should immediately incorporate such a thing--be it Christian or Islam or any other that is "protective," so to speak. I promise I'm not being sarcastic with this, and would genuinely love to know and learn.

Finally if "Biblical priciple, to the believer, transcends human interpretation or fallacy.." then it seems it would be hard to pinpoint which man-serving laws should be preserved on its account. Maybe you're referring to laws written in a person's heart.

"For the most part thru the ages, societies have banned them, because the majority of human beings intuitively know it is beneficial to mankind to do so."

No, it is not intuitive. A gay couple living in a committed monogamous relationship poses no intrinsic harm to the couple or to or anyone else. Please explain how you see it as beneficial to ban gay marriage. Any aspect of an individual's personal life that does not harm himself or others should not be anyone else's business.

>>If "biblical principles" are so good at keeping societies from ruin, please name one society and the "biblical principles" that kept it from ruin?

None. But many have kept their strength, morally and physically, the longer they adhered to the commandments. You see, the purpose and intent for each of the commandments go far beyond the words they are made up of.

It is the human beings that fail to be 'so good'...the principles work.

That is elementary.

Regards

"Salem witch hunt, anyone?"

Exactly. Does the Archbishop really want secular courts to recognize such idiocy?

“If she weighs the same as a duck, she’s made of wood, and therefore, A WITCH!!!”

>>Please explain how bans on same-sex marriage are beneficial to mankind?

For the most part thru the ages, societies have banned them, because the majority of human beings intuitively know it is beneficial to mankind to do so. Thats why we make the laws we have made.

There is a good reason why the word 'sodomy', its connotation, its meaning...exists to this very day. Its not by mistake or lack of knowledge or lack of enlightenment.

Regards

DW,

Don't worry about addressing my earlier questions, they were obviously rhetorical.

Here's an easier one for ya,

If "biblical principles" are so good at keeping societies from ruin, please name one society and the "biblical principles" that kept it from ruin?

Jeff P

The revelry, debauchery et.al. that epitomized the Roman empire at its fall was not of the Christian community. And if any 'Christian' was involved in such, they were not Christian.

Biblical priciple, to the believer, transcends human interpretation or fallacy. Just because there were Romans, Christians, pagans and others, doesnt mean they were following God's laws that benefit mankind.

There was something fundamentally missing from that society at the end...resembling the pleasure seeking and uninhibited desires that abound in our society today, to name a few things.

Regards

DW, I might also suggest you research the destruction of the Alexandrian library, and the movement of freethinkers around the Mediterranean to escape persecution and death, as described by Jennifer Hecht in "Doubt, a History" --and Susan in "Freethinkers" regarding this country.

The "Dark Ages," according to more modern research, would today seem more forgiving toward Christian theology as a contributor to the loss of scientific advances, but there was definitely a "good versus evil" mentality (that has interestingly been resurrected by the current administration) which was fortunately rescued by Enlightenment thinkers, resulting in betterment of the human condition around the civilized globe.

Again, it's just difficult for me to pinpoint where "biblical principles" have kept societies from ruin, or at the very least served as somehow protective against secular tyranny.

Chris,

Good quotation from the father of our country, thanks. Unfortunately, the religious right will sadly and wrongly argue that anyone gay, marriage or not, is not a 'worthy member of the community'.

Arminius

Here's one of my favorite quotations from George Washington. It's relevant to today's gay marriage issue and shows that secularism itself is a journey of ever-expanding enlightenment:

"As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality."

History (or whatever)

If you are looking for the essay titled "It's the Theocrats, Stupid", it is there. I just found it again.

Arminius

Arminius, (or whatever0

No, you cannot find the jacoby column, the anti conservative thing, by going to archives.

THAT's the whole point.

it has disappaeared. Somebody didn't like the
repots to her screaming screed.

But, you know, it isn't worth noting the censureing. Anything that isn't fawningly pro Israel disappears. Like GANDHI. "On Faith is a total fraud.

WAPO needs to put an Israli flag on it. A little truth in advertising.

DW,

You said:
"I feel that any law of this land that is based on biblical principle that is for the benefit of mankind should be kept firmly in place, less we slip into an oblivion that societies past succumbed to."

But laws based on a biblical principles aren't always beneficial. Take slavery for example. Those laws were based on biblical principles but were obviously wrong and not beneficial to mankind.

So, what if the law (like bans on same-sex marriage) is based on biblical principle but is NOT beneficial to mankind? Shouldn't those laws be repealed? Please explain how bans on same-sex marriage are beneficial to mankind?

Or what about laws based on conflicting biblical principles like the death penalty. Eye for an eye vs. turn the other cheek. How do we resolve those laws?

DW, I might remind you that the most famous of all those societies, Rome, was at the end an officially Christianized society under Constantine I. With the rise of religious influence and the naming of the first Pope, came the plunder and fall of Western Rome. So it's hard, at least in that example, for me to reconcile how biblical principle can keep a sophisticated and advanced society from going into oblivion. (And I certainly appreciate that there were many influences.)

As per Stuart's note above yours, it's difficult for me to see exactly which laws are "based on biblical principle...for the benefit of mankind."

However, I would applaud those as well, if I knew what they were. Additionally, my bet would be that they could and most certainly would be interpreted by the majority of folks as having secular, not religious value, by the very notion of "benefit of mankind."

Sorry if I'm beating a dead horse.

Faithfulservant:

Excellent post.

I feel that any law of this land that is based on biblical principle that is for the benefit of mankind should be kept firmly in place, less we slip into an oblivion that societies past succumbed to.

Thanks for your insight

Craig:

some of the "christian biases" you mention have been muscled into US law by radical religionists in the last 50 years.

however, modern homophobic and anti-choice US law has no more foundation in either christianity or western legal principle than does slavery.

both christianity and western legal tradition were used to protect that institution, but it was not indicative of a "christian bias" in US law- neither is homophobia and suppression of women's rights.

that the USA is somehow "steeped in christian principles" is an inaccurate assertion made by the religionists to justify the radical reinterpretation of the law to fit their agenda.

the US government is steeped in Enlightenment principles. the US Constitution does not use the words god, jesus christ, bible, religion or anything of the sort. strange then that so many religionists externalize their beliefs onto that document.

I agree with Gabe also.

I have many conservative friends and when the Virginia ammendment that bans same-sex marriage was up for a vote 2 years ago, none of them could give me a single non-religious reason for supporting the ammendment.

Sure, they tried to avoid the religious argument at first because they all know that it's wrong to legislate religious opinions. So they trotted out culture, history, and tradition as trojan horses for what was obviously (since I know these guys really well) a religious opinion. I rebutted their dubious and unsupported claims by giving many examples where culture, history, and tradition contradicted their position. I also pointed out that tradition alone is no reason to deprive people of equal treatment under the law (i.e. slavery, segragration, women's sufferage).

Then I called them on it directly and eventually they admitted that their support for the ban was really based on their religious opinions. The shocking thing for me (as a religious minority) was that they (my friends, so I thought) saw no problem establishing a law that forced their religious opinion on everybody else, including me! I called theocracy on them and they did not refute my accusation. Instead, they seemed proud knowing that they could get away with such tyranny.

So if your own friends (of 20 years) are willing to sell your (and ironically their own) religious liberty for their personal brand of religion, watch out for your enemies!

As I said to Pamela Taylor, thank you, Ms. Jacoby, for a sane and rational resposte to the multicultural, touch-feely balderdash that the Archbishop has put on the table, and all too many people are willing to endorse. The incorporation of a body of religious doctrine into the legal code of a Western nation is, on its face, a violation and corruption of everything the "rule of law" means in the West. Turning the fate of women and children over to a bunch of misogynistic old men out of touch with their own societies, much less liberal democratic Western culture, would be a travesty too horrible to contemplate.

I only hope the Church of England has some way of impeaching Archbishop Williams and removing him from office for proposing such an outlandish idea as introducing 7th Century jurispendence into Great Britain.

I really liked Ms. Jacoby's last paragraph about looking to America's Founding Fathers for all you need to know on this issue--since I made exactly the same point in my reply to Mr. McLaren! (If it ever makes it past the electronic or human censors).

"it is the rather secular values of freedom of speech and expression, social equality between men and women, and the separation of church and state that are the reason why we protect private activities that religious communities find objectionable. I would venture that in the United States, prohibitions against gay marriage are perhaps the most obvious exception among the vast majority of laws that, per a number of Supreme Court decisions, must have a secular rationale or else be struck down as violating the First Amendment to our Constitution. The opponents of gay marriage may read from religious texts when they declaim from the pulpits, but when they enter the courts, their arguments turn to culture, tradition and the wishes of the community and even these have failed in more progressive states."

Excellent points, Gabe. I noticed that the Maryland high court defended a ban on gay marriage on the specious grounds of government having an interest in procreation. Specious because that argument could just as easily be used to deny marriage to straight couples who can't or won't conceive.

Jeff P,

You beat me to a reply. I think you understood Mark's post perfectly. He made a blanket statement, backed by no examples, strongly implying that any repeal of laws which threaten separation of church and state will be aimed at religion. Funny, I thought the Constitution already guaranteed freedom of religion - or no religion. How does repeal of a 'blue law' threaten anybody?

Arminius

"The first laws to be repealed to remove religious bias will not be laws, but rights. The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are dust in the wind, a mere social contract which can be exploited and dismissed when the need arises."

Those aren't exclusively religious concepts. No religion has a monopoly on them. They have inherent secular value.

Mark, I might suggest doing a little research on this.

If I'm understanding you correctly, your premise is that to repeal religious "bias" in government would cause loss of human rights, and that somehow these "rights" would be at the whim of a secular, schizophrenic society--and that they therefore are somewhat protected by account of religious oversight.

On the contrary, all evidence I've seen points to the opposite--theocracy most blatantly and currently limits those rights of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Please let me know if I'm misunderstanding your psot.

The first laws to be repealed to remove religious bias will not be laws, but rights. The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are dust in the wind, a mere social contract which can be exploited and dismissed when the need arises.

!
>))))2)0)0)8))))) "NO-SHARIA!"
!
!
!
{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}}{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}
[ ?: +) http:///\ VOTE http://\Hillary )
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
{}{}{}{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}{}{}{}{}
[ ?: +) http:///\ VOTE http://\Hillary )
[][][][][]][][]][]][]]][]][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
PEACE, PAZ, SALAAM, SHOLOM:........______________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton МИР,평화, 和平:

VOTE:
NO' Sharia!
NO Hallakha!
NO Caste System(s)!
NO Rule By BiBLE, GiTA, QURAN!
NO Putting Down Woman Anywhere!

THANK YOU!

Your basic premise is well taken: "the state should never recognize the authority of religious courts over any secular legal matters."

However, your belief that the United States of "America" is somehow the ideal standard of a secular state is somewhat off. Yes the founding fathers probably had every intention of keeping religion out of the state (through the 1rst ammend.) but as the US has become older it has grown backward in this regard. Examples include the Congressional revision to The Pledge of Allegiance in 1954; the standard use of the phrase "In God We Trust" on our currency (God and money, now that's ironic) in 1956; and the use of the phrase "so help me God" that was also added to the oath of federal offices (including federal judges) though they are not obligated to say this. It’s also no coincidence that this social and political shift occurred during the 1950s at the height of the Cold War and the McCarthy scare. Finally, Judeo-Christian symbolism is found throughout US courthouses and trial proceedings including the highest court of US land the Supreme Court (displayed both inside and outside of the Court)!

Matthew Joseph -

The fact is humans can make non-binding contracts with a hand-shake and do it all the time. Muslims may do the same within their own communities, without the introduction of a publically approved set of theocratically codified laws - that would work well between Muslims but there may be some resistance to shaking hands with a non-Muslim, so we'll have to fall back on civil law at that point.

The Vatican makes degrees on a regular basis, but who among Catholics bothers to take them seriously other than the clergy (mostly out of self-preservation)?? There's just no starch in those decrees unless you're a true believer in the most stringent sense.

Nevertheless, those very Vatican inspired decrees have been used to assault Roe v Wade and government-funded stem cell research as others have pointed out - not to mention resistance to birth control methods and education. On the other hand, no one pays any attention to the Pope's declarations against war and captital punishment, so I wonder who is parsing out the Pope's message? Could it be the Protestant Evangelicals in and around big government that rather like war and capital punishment but despise abortion, the morning after pill, and stem cell research?? At least they're in agreement on homosexuality - absolutely unnatural in the biblical sense!

Since the West is at war with Muslim fundamentalism in thought, word, and deed at the moment, why make any concessions to the fundamentalist philosophy (or any part) that drives the conflict e.g. Sharia law??

Let's no further obscure the boundries between government, civil law, and religion in however a limted form it may take.

This just in: Associated Press 2/14 Happy Valentine's day:

BEIRUT, Lebanon - "A leading human rights group appealed to Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah on Thursday to stop the execution of a woman accused of witchcraft and performing supernatural acts.

The New York-based Human Rights Watch said in a statement that the kingdom's religious police who arrested and interrogated Fawza Falih, and the judges who tried her in the northern town of Quraiyat never gave her the opportunity to prove her innocence in the face of "absurd charges that have no basis in law."

Falih's case underscores shortcomings in Saudi Arabia's Islamic legal system in which rules of evidence are shaky, lawyers are not always present and sentences often depend on the whim of judges."

Salem witch hunt, anyone?

Susan wrote:

"As long as adherence to religious law is voluntary--and religious practice does not defy secular law--that's fine."

This is essentially what the Archbishop was discussing, thereby making much of this debate artificial.

Read the transcript of the speech yourselves, it may add to the discourse:

http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1575

I believe that God used the Founding Fathers to create a situation where faith would flourish--as it has; with approximately 90% of Americans believing in God.

I also believe that putting man's laws above God's law is foolish.

I used to be an agnostic, and in a manner of speaking I was "hedging my bet"--which seems to be the logical thing to do if you are not sure you believe. I read about and respected many faiths. Sometimes I prayed, and I went to church with family on holidays--and often enjoyed it.

The hatred and anti-religious tenor of some comments amazes me. If I am wrong, then I lived at least the second half of my life dedicated to material sacrifice, love, peace, helping people and improving mankind—I lost nothing and gained everything.

What if you’re wrong?

The difference between the two points of view is. Those without faith put all their hopes in their temporal existence; often embracing immediate gratification. I have faith that my true happiness lies elsewhere, but at the same time I rejoice now as well. To me it's the best of both worlds.

Wonders:

Go to the top of this page, click on 'Susan Jacoby Archives', then click on 'February 2008', and you will find it there.

Arminius

Hasn't one of jacoby's columns, the last one, disappeared, the screed against conservatives?

Is this more censure, or why is it gone. It was there last night.

Please someone explain.

Hasn't one of jacoby's columns, the last one, disappeared, the screed against conservatives?

Is this more censure, or why is it gone. It was there last night.

Please someone explain.

B-Man,
Can I join the posse?

Anonymous:
Know this: I am Christian, and I firmly support separation of church and state.

Arminius

Ask de moderate muslims in the west, are they happy with the ongoing law? the answer will be, yes. there allways people who want more. But Why? those men who wants more, are some people (who has no rational thoughts ) who are influenced by half imams, half mullah or what you name it and half religion merchants. who has aiming his own benefits(financial. Pitty enough these merchants are in every religion. Those people gives a wrong image of the Islam. But the merchant are getting more richer.

I wasn't expecting the Islamic Inquisition!

Well said Susan ..

Anonymous,

Most atheists could really care less about anyone else's religion. What we object to, and will always fight against, is when religionists take their dogma out of their own homes and churches and force it into our schools, our scientific research, and our governments.

Keep your bogus creationist myths our of our classrooms, keep your desire to institutionalize bigotry in our sacred Constitution by amending it to include a gay marriage ban out of our politics, keep your hypocritical attacks against stem-cell research out our science, when half a million blastocysts are destroyed by fertility clinics every year.

Believe what you want, let it inform your life, but keep it out of our public institutions.

Arminius,

"Translation: the state shall not make any law exempting any religion from the other laws of the state. Ought to be an amendment? Probably covered by the 1st.

Religions should be free to (try to) impose any religious laws on their congregations that do not supersede or contradict any law of the state. In other words, 'don't eat pork', 'come to church on Sunday', 'male children will be circumcised', etc. are just fine. 'Killing your daughter because she had premarital sex' and similar evils are NOT allowed.

Of course, this leaves open the grand theological question: what to do with the OT law, 'Thou shalt not boil a kid in its mother's milk'. Now that's a tough one....."

What about the card every atheist throws at religious folk..."separation of church and state." Thats Susan's favorite line, and she probably has is splattered all across her room. I agree with you that certain things like killing your daughter for no reason is wrong, but when does the state cross the line? If religion allows the state to begin to dictate to us what we can or cannot do, that train will never stop until they get what they want....total annihilation of religion, which would be contradictory to every slogan and claim they have made against religious folk. Hypocrisy comes to mind. If you are going to cry and scream "separation of church and state" then stick to it. Don't be a hypocrite. I'm not saying that the state should not intervene in a situation like this, but to what extent? I think all you atheists out there just need to take a chill pill. Sit back, relax, and just enjoy life. Yal are makin' a whole lot bigger deal out of religion. There is nothing you can do to stop religion, so fighting it is just wasting your energy and causing more strife. All that does is exacerbate the problems. Its ok if you aren't religious, but fighting against it is pointless...

Thanks Susan for your views and the views of your readers.

The Archbishop likely has read the writing on the wall. Protecting or accommodating the establishment of religion (Sharia) really is him saving his own franchise.
We have heard this also from the Vatican; the clash of civilization is really the clash of faith vs rationality in public.
Nothing like the specter of rational, logically correct and infinitely compassionate secularists banging their heads against the wall every time the establishment of faith or religion is interjected into the public conversation.
We need to get ahead of this nonsense instead of just being reactionary. Perhaps "truth in public discourse" laws or hyper-fast "shame" networks to put the burden of proof on religionistas or any other "fact" shaman would, in the long run, help us get past this stage of civilization.

Also-Interesting external links on this wiki page:

Taha Jabir Alalwani, Ph.D., is President of Cordoba University. He also holds the Imam Al-Shafi'i Chair in Islamic Legal Theory at The Graduate School of Islamic and Social Sciences at Corboda University and is an internationally known scholar in his field. Dr. Alalwani is considered an expert in the fields of Islamic legal theory, jurisprudence (fiqh), and usul al-fiqh.

Dr. Alalwani was previously the chairman of the Fiqh Council of North America.

Biography
Born in 1935 in Iraq, Alalwani attended and graduated from the College of Shari’ah and Law at al-Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt in 1959. He continued at the college and earned a Master’s Degree in 1968 and a doctorate in Usul al-fiqh in 1973. Dr. Alalwani then taught for 10 years at the Imam Muhammad ibn Sa’ood University in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Dr. Alalwani emigrated to the United States in 1983.

Thought and Ideology
Dr. Alwani wrote about the Islamization of Knowledge, the need for Ijtihad, and is the founder together with Dr. Qaradawi of fiqh al-aqalliyyat (Muslim minority jurisprudence) which stands for making fiqh easy in order to enable Islam to spread in the West.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taha_Jabir_Alalwani

An interesting case in point, and an apparent accommodation to religious practices, occurred in the United States during the 1990's regarding the use of peyote by Native American churches.

"Until recently, the legal status of peyote was a headache for church members. Congregants who wished to avoid being stopped for possession of peyote were obliged to drive through a loose patchwork of states in which church-sanctioned uses of peyote were legal. Then, in 1990, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment did not protect the religious use of peyote by the Native American Church.

Four years later, Congress--backed by the Drug Enforcement Agency and other federal law-enforcement officials--rebuked the high court by reaffirming the right to use peyote in religious ways, and by preventing states from cracking down on the transport of peyote." [1]

As I recall, one of the arguments made by the churches was that since the consumption of wine by minors during Christian worship services was not prohibited the prohibition against peyote constituted a double standard.

[1] http://peyote.com/peyote/index.html

Susan Jacoby:

I'd like to share several links with you-

Fiqh Council of North America

http://www.fiqhcouncil.org/Home/tabid/36/Default.aspx

MUSLIM AMERICANS AND SHARI'AH

http://www.islamicity.com/politics/SHARIAH.HTM

The point here is that the religious aspect of this debate is totally moot. It is a question of legal supremacy and the power to interpret law and pass judgment. It is absurd to suggest that any civil legal system could coexist side-by-side with a purely religious based one. Our legal code was indeed founded on religiously-inspired principles but has out of necessity become purely secular and will stay that way.

"The state should have no business providing any legal sanction for religious law. Period."

Translation: the state shall not make any law exempting any religion from the other laws of the state. Ought to be an amendment? Probably covered by the 1st.

Religions should be free to (try to) impose any religious laws on their congregations that do not supersede or contradict any law of the state. In other words, 'don't eat pork', 'come to church on Sunday', 'male children will be circumcised', etc. are just fine. 'Killing your daughter because she had premarital sex' and similar evils are NOT allowed.

Of course, this leaves open the grand theological question: what to do with the OT law, 'Thou shalt not boil a kid in its mother's milk'. Now that's a tough one.....

Arminius

"The state should have no business providing any legal sanction for religious law. Period."

Agreed! And this is implied: Anyone should have the freedom to walk away from their religion and its "laws" at any time, without fear of legalized retribution. (The idea of treating behavior as a legal contractual matter leaves me cold.)

For probably the only time in our lives Ms Jacoby we are in at least partial agreement. The limit of accomodation lies in thou shalt not murder and that shalt not steal. Beyond that is creating a religious state which I for one want no part of. Such things are inimical to individual freedom and the religion they supposedly champion.

I repeat: The state should have no business providing any legal sanction for religious law. Period.

I think it is safe to say we know more about the effects of religion on culture than we knew when the US Constitution was created. It is increasingly clear that church and state cannot be entirely separated. If this is true, then what we have intended by use of the word “secular” is not actually possible. Yet what we intended is still needed: a fundamental perspective on all religious activity that will insure that no particular religious dogma controls the state. Those with dogmatic views of religion will never be happy with this perspective, but we may hope more “enlightened,” not irreligious, views will prevail.

http://kengelhart.home.igc.org/religion.htm

Moin Ansari:

Here's the bulk of the 1st part of the 10 commandments:

2 I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery;
3 Do not have any other gods before Me.

4 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me,

6 but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.

7 You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.

8 Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy.

9 For six days you shall labour and do all your work.

10 But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns.

11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and consecrated it.

12 Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.

...doesn't appear that we really have much moral and societal guidance from these so far...excepting maybe the mom and dad thing, but that's certainly not unique to any culture.

Then:

13 You shall not murder.

14 You shall not commit adultery.

15 You shall not steal.

16 You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.

17 You shall not covet your neighbour’s house; you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour.

...not much inspirational here, either, as far as the almost constant commentary about how these commandments shape our secular law. Generally these are all well summed up by Robert Fulghum in "All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten." In fact, I think his rules are better:

Share everything.
Play fair.
Don't hit people.
Put things back where you found them.
Clean up your own mess.
Don't take things that aren't yours.
Say you're sorry when you hurt somebody.
Wash your hands before you eat.
Flush.
Warm cookies and cold milk are good for you.
Live a balanced life - learn some and think some and draw and paint and sing and dance and play and work every day some.
Take a nap every afternoon.
When you go out in the world, watch out for traffic, hold hands and stick together.
Be aware of wonder. Remember the little seed in the Styrofoam cup: the roots go down and the plant goes up and nobody really knows how or why, but we are all like that.
Goldfish and hamsters and white mice and even the little seed in the Styrofoam cup - they all die. So do we.
And then remember the Dick-and-Jane books and the first word you learned - the biggest word of all - LOOK.

Peace!

Jeff P writes "Conceding ANY secular law to the whims of a religious group is a very slippery slope--one I hope never ever happens in a western democracy."

I couldn't agree more. Individuals are already free to live according to whatever strict religious edicts they want to abide. The only reason for the law to become involved in enforcing strict religious laws is to force people to abide them who wouldn't otherwise choose to do so. That's something that a secular democracy should never, ever, involve itself in out of some misguided desire to be accommodating.

Your arguments do not make sense. The Rabbi may deny the marriage to a Roman catholic, but the woman does not have to follow that injunction and many don't. The Rabbis do not have a police force to enforce their decision. The Catholics also throw you out of the court if you divorce....but that is all.

An error by a German judge? You dont say. Is that reason enough the scrap the entire judicial system!

The US accepts a Muslim marriage certificate as legal proof of marriage. However it does not accept the legal papers for divorce. A shariah court of as it is called in India (personal law) would resolve these types of issues with ref. to the faith of the person.

Allowing Muslims to decide matters of halla, kosher, puberty, age of marriage, etc not only makes sense, it is about time....

...it is better that educated Muslims define shariah in Britain then in Iran or Somalia!

With all due respect, we disagree. You have taken the definition of "shariah" as defined by the "orientalists" and then defended yourself and your rights from their definition. Amazing.

We are one human civilization. Knowledge was transferred back and forth. British common law did not grow on the leaves of Sherwood Forest. Socrates could not have been an intelelctual without Egyptian knowledge. Thomas Acquinas would have been nothing without the research of Ibn Rushd and the Arab translations of Plato.

Imam Faisal says that "America is the most shariah compliant country in the world". We agree!

The Magna carta has Islamic origins. See research of John Maksudi. Trial by jury, "Qanoon" (cannon), judges, and many aspects of common law is based on the Quran. Many aspects of common law is based on the ten commandments of the Bible and hence also on the Quran.
http://www.Rupeenews.com
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing sister. Read up and God Bless you!

CHRIS EVERETT says:
"From a scientific perspective there is no clear line of demarcation beyond which abortion is abhorrent. It's a gray area..

those who say it's at birth are... actually, I don't know that anyone says it's at birth, the Constitution notwithstanding."

Jewish Law holds that a baby becomes a person when the head exits the birth canal. Up and until that point, the fetus is considered a "partial life."

Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_abor.htm

Agathodemon:
right on.

This whole thing scares me. Conceding ANY secular law to the whims of a religious group is a very slippery slope--one I hope never ever happens in a western democracy. My gosh this could look like the beginning of the end! What would be next?

If I moved to Saudi Arabia I would expect my wife to wear a head scarf in public, that's it. It would be about the accepted societal norms, as a courtesy. I have many friends who have served as educators in Saudi Arabia, and they were fine with the norms there. Why shouldn't we expect reciprocity, with someone moving from a theocracy into a free democracy? Leave your community rules at home, and if one misses them, move back.

I so totally agree with Susan here.

Readers please

CHECK OUT:

Rowan Williams in his own words:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4Wm_hSpCVI

And hear what Muslims in Britain are saying about "secularism- a western point of view" (a screed against separation of church and state):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLHdmaAoHjI

CHECK OUT:

Secularism is "sheer absurdity" 4:37

What is the enemy of the Muslim world? It not necessarily the person with white skin.. the enemy are people who are driven by this idea (secularism) 5:05

Matthew Joseph:

Strange. There are already non-binding religious courts in the UK. There are religious courts which routinely issue fatwas on family matters. UK law allows people to voluntarily abide by the rulings of these courts already. Was the Archbishop unaware of this? It seems to me that he was recommending an elevation of the status of these courts. This is the real issue.

Hypocrite says, "What about adults who make the decision to kill their unborn children through gruesome abortion procedures? Do you advocate the state stepping in there."

It's my understanding that that state DOES have a right to step in there, after the first trimester. From a scientific perspective there is no clear line of demarcation beyond which abortion is abhorrent. It's a gray area. Those who say the line is at fertilization are obviously aware of nothing except their own religious doctrine. Those who say it's at birth are... actually, I don't know that anyone says it's at birth, the Constitution notwithstanding. The current Supreme Court stance seems about as reasonable as it is possible to get.

Hypocrite, what is your position? What do you recommend? Are you against all forms of abortion? Do you consider fertility clinics to be killing fields (something like a dozen unused fertilized eggs are produced for every baby born)? Would you criminalize IVF? Do you think women's periods should be routinely collected and examined in order to give the children a decent burial (far more fertilized eggs are aborted SPONTANEOUSLY than make it to birth)? Do you consider the average life expectancy to be around 25?

Craig, you write "An Islamic family living in British or American society may not feel offended by the Christian bias, but that doesn't mean they feel welcome." I agree. I don't like the Christian bias myself. But over the long term it has been more and more equitable (Bush notwithstanding), and besides, the solution is NOT to ADD other biases or try to implement some kind of cafeteria-style law. That directly flies in the face of the first amendment.

Jerry Brown once advocated for the ability to put LAWs on trial without requiring a citizen to violate the law in order to get it scrutinized. Prudently implemented, this strikes me as a good idea, and would allow citizens to address religious bias without having to fall victim to it.

Dear Ms. Jacoby:

I'm tempted to ask if you actually read the entirety of the Archbishop's comments (and perhaps the followup interview he gave a day or two later).

I do not see much daylight at all between what the archbishop ACTUALLY proposed and standard choice of law or forum selection clauses found in thousands of legally binding contracts made in the United States every day.

Dr. Williams was not advocating a regime whereby British Muslim women would be subjected to legally sanctioned physical abuse at the hands of a shari'a court or any other such offensive and plainly illegal scenarios. Rather, he was advocating for the ability of Muslims, by their own choice, to agree to be bound in limited situations by shari'a law, the content and application of which would be carefully scrutinized and subjected to continual oversight.

This is not multiculturalism run amok. This is an acknowledgement of the rights of a free people to choose for themselves, in limited circumstances, what set of rules is best for them to play by. This is no different than you and I, for example, agreeing in the United States that any dispute arising out of our contract must be submitted to a neutral mediator, as opposed to a civil court. In all but the most egregious circumstances, a civil court is bound to enforce the mediator's decision, even if it was not based upon U.S. law. I suspect your reaction to the Archbishop's proposal is rooted more in its religious overtones than you care to admit.

In any case, this is an important discussion to be having, and I thank you for raising the issue.

Kind regards,

Matthew J.
Washington, DC

Craig:

I suspect that we are talking past each other. I actually don't care if some aspects of Sharia could be imported into existing law. We should be trying to cleanse our legal system of any religious taint, not increasing it so that someone feels more comfortable. I was for many years a member of an Ultra-Orthodox Chasdic Jewish Sect, and their laws are every bit as medieval and restrictive as Sharia. But no one - not one person in the sect - expected or even wanted the secular authorities to recognize their legality. They understood that separation of church and state protected them. They were free to impose their non-binding rulings, but their only actual authority was moral, and only for the members of their sect. Moral authority is fine for religion, but it should end there.

For Hypocrite:

I am really tired to the two tune screed which is cast up by many religious folks, no matter what the issue is. I don't believe anyone [or very few] think that abortion is a positive thing. We should all try to reduce the necessity for abortions. I find it ironic that the same folks that scream the loudest about abortion are the same ones who are against contraception and sex education - two factors which reduce the number of abortions. Abstinence programs DO NOT WORK. Let's roll up our sleeves and try to actually do something about the issue besides trying to impose a religious solution, whether it fits or not. By the way, the other tune is same-sex marriage.

Hypocrite.

“So does a child have the right to be protected from the killing inside of the mother advocated by parental secular fanaticism. How do you reconcile your position? Other than by the rationale of "I say so."

This is not so black and white. From an abortion standpoint the question is really about the women controlling her own body? If we go with the fetus is an entity unto it’s own and it lives inside of the women’s body it doesn’t end the debate. It is the women’s body so she would like this being out of her body. We could do a C-section and remove the fetus in tact and put it on the table to see if God keeps it alive. We all know what happens, the fetus dies on its own. We could put it in incubator and use our medical knowledge to try and keep it alive. We would fail. So we didn’t kill the fetus we simply removed it from the women. Kind of a silly example but I hope you get my point.

I am not for abortion and I would hope someone would keep the child and then give it up for adoption if they don’t want it. I am for working to educate people so we can remove the need for abortion. I find it hard to impose control on someone’s body regardless of my opinion.

Do we force a Jehovah’s witness child to take a life saving blood transfusion against his parents wishes? Against the child’s wishes? I would answer yes on the first question if the child wants it. No on the second question. Even this is not so black and white.

Let’s take this a step further. Assume we followed a Christian doctrine to the letter on the 10 commandments. Though shall not kill. War is therefore illegal. I am totally opposed to war but do we create a law saying it is never allowed? It is tempting, but no, can’t do it. Creating a world where war is not required, now that is something to get excited about.

It is said “Judge not, least ye be judged.” The call would then be up to God at the time of one’s death so is creating a civil law that imposes any of these commandments really up to us? We don’t need to worry about it since God and God alone will judge us. No need for laws now.

Hi AGATHODEMON,

You said: "I think a primary difference is that while secular law in both Britian and the US may be tainted with aspects of Christianity, the law is primarily secular. Sharia is by its very nature religious law - not just tainted, but overtly an expression of the religion of Islam projected into the legal arena. This is a huge difference."

Again, I agree. However, no one is suggesting that Sharia law just be transferred part and parcel over into civil law. Some aspects of Sharia can, though - if interpreted in such a way as to not countermand existing freedoms, laws, etc. - complement the existing laws, which currently do not meet the needs of all citizens in either the U.S. or the UK.

Craig

Hypocrite says:
"What about adults who make the decision to kill their unborn children through gruesome abortion procedures? Do you advocate the state stepping in there. Or is it only hyper-secularists who make these decisions of when it is OK for the state to step in when children are harmed or killed. The right to have a life is the most basic human right. That is unquestioned. So does a child have the right to be protected from the killing inside of the mother advocated by parental secular fanaticism. How do you reconcile your position? Other than by the rationale of "I say so.""

What if they did so to save their own life? Who are you to judge what you don't even know?

Regardless, the Constitution only applies to "persons born". Unborn children are not persons born and are not protected by the Constitution. You have falsely equated an unborn child who is inside and dependent on it's mother with a fully independent "born person" outside the womb. Maybe that's your particular religious opinion but religious opinions can never be the sole basis for laws that apply to everybody.

I agree totally with Susan on this one. Craig is being too liberal in his interpretation of what the Archbishop intends [imho]. I think a primary difference is that while secular law in both Britian and the US may be tainted with aspects of Christianity, the law is primarily secular. Sharia is by its very nature religious law - not just tainted, but overtly an expression of the religion of Islam projected into the legal arena. This is a huge difference. We need - as an increasingly global civilization - to be moving away from recognizing the authority of overtly religous legal doctrines. It's fine if someone [as Susan stated] wants to abide by a voluntary religous ruling, but it is wrong to recognize the authority of these religious courts. If someone is moving from a religiously dominated society [say Saudi Arabia or Iran] to a western liberal democracy, they should expect to have to live under the laws of that society. Can anyone imagine Saudi Arabia, Iran, or any Muslim state allowing non-muslims to have their own laws?

Hi FREESTINKER:

You said; " I would rather fight the good fight and lose today than concede for the long-term the notion that religious opinions are any basis for civil law and your well-intentioned pragmatism is just such a concession."

I suppose that is a concession...although I feel it is a concession to the realities of the situation. Once societies are at the right stage for the move to complete secularism, I'd loudly shout for that move. Maybe I'll call myself a "pragrealularist" until then, though ;)

Cheers,
Craig

Craig,

You said: "I'll concede this - IF the Christian bias can be completely erased from all aspects of civil laws, bylaws, regulations, etc...THEN I would argue against the incorporation of any religious ideas into the law. This is not reality, though. I just don't see it happening, in the U.S. or the UK."

Maybe not in our lifetimes but let's at least agree to hold the line. I would rather fight the good fight and lose today than concede for the long-term the notion that religious opinions are any basis for civil law and your well-intentioned pragmatism is just such a concession. IMO, it's better to argue for strict separation every day of the week and let the chips (no offense to Chip) fall where they may.

Hi HEWITT:

You said: "Government should be neutral on religion, not infinitely accommodating. Why stop at Islam? Why not parallel laws for every religious group that claims them? We all can see where that leads."

I don't think (if this is what you mean?) that we should have "parallel" sets of laws - some for Christians, some for Jews, some for Muslims, etc. Is this what you mean? What I am trying to say is that we have ONE set of laws. One set, which not only eliminates the bias, but also is inclusive of the entire society.

As I said, IF you can eliminate the Christian bias, then definitely also block any other religions from influencing civil laws. I just see the Christian bias as being too deep to dig out.

Craig

The archbishop’s suggestion is a nice olive branch in terms of making Muslims welcome, but it is a disruptive idea to any secular nation.

Craig makes some excellent points.

In America we say we have separation of church and state and we do. Separation of church and state is different than separation of politics and beliefs. As Craig points out there is a Christian influence to the laws on the books. I would even suggest that it is a strong influence.

And while we do live in a democracy we do not live in perfect state of majority rules. We use it to elect our government and for our officials to vote on matters of government but that is where the will of the majority of people is not always done.

As Gabe states so accurately “Hence widespread secular opposition to bans on gay marriage, administration-led prayer in public schools, etc. In fact, it is the rather secular values of freedom of speech and expression, social equality between men and women, and the separation of church and state that are the reason why we protect private activities that religious communities find objectionable.”

Some veins of Christianity do not support the equality between men and women.

We had a time when African Americans were salves and it was not that long ago that we wised up and decided they were even worthy of equal standing in society in terms of the right to vote, abolishing segregation etc. Legislation has not abolished racism and it still exists it is just not politically correct to show it in public. For those who care I am Caucasian. The idea is you can not legislate morality/belief.

Freedom of religion means my religion may condone pre marital sex and therefore we can not create a law against it. For the same reason civil unions between gay people seems to be unconstitutional. Now if my religion says I can take any women I want anytime I want against her will then we step in since I am then infringing on someone else’s freedom.

Whether you are religious, spiritual, a humanist or a secularist there is a core idea to remember. Life is not about you. You are part of something bigger and when you place yourself above everything else that is when problems arise. This does not say that being an individual is bad it means you need to share this planet with everything else.

Hi FREESTINKER,

You said: "It's never too late to remove religious bias from our civil laws. I would gladly give up a holiday or two (they aren't rights, they are just priviledges that favor Christians over others) in exchange for a completely secular and just system of laws. In this way, nobody's rights would be taken away but rather everybody's rights would be equally respected."

I understand what you mean...but it's never going to happen. "Christian" holidays are not just for Christians anymore...yet the basis for these holidays is Christianity. People would fight this to the end, Christian and non-Christian alike (and you're right, they are priviledges, but the point is the same).

Also, I do not advocate, as you say, "...that civil laws can (and should) have a purely religious underpinning."

I have not said that civil laws should have a purely religious basis, and if I give that impression I definitely apologize. What I am saying is that civil laws can (and should) give the same rights, priviledges, and opportunities to ALL elements of society.

I'll concede this - IF the Christian bias can be completely erased from all aspects of civil laws, bylaws, regulations, etc...THEN I would argue against the incorporation of any religious ideas into the law. This is not reality, though. I just don't see it happening, in the U.S. or the UK.

Miss Jacoby writes:

This is as it should be. If adults wish to die to uphold anti-rational religious beliefs, that is their right. But they have no right to make the same decision for their children. So too, if Muslim immigrant parents try to cut off their daughter's clitoris, the state should step in.....

and,

Liberty of conscience is now considered a basic human right (thanks to secular law, Archbishop Williams) but so too is the right of minors not to have their lives sacrificed to parental religious fanaticism......

What about adults who make the decision to kill their unborn children through gruesome abortion procedures? Do you advocate the state stepping in there. Or is it only hyper-secularists who make these decisions of when it is OK for the state to step in when children are harmed or killed. The right to have a life is the most basic human right. That is unquestioned. So does a child have the right to be protected from the killing inside of the mother advocated by parental secular fanaticism. How do you reconcile your position? Other than by the rationale of "I say so."

CRAIG

Looking at all your posts, you seem to be arguing that, since some laws are infected with a Christian bias, or at least lack a secular purpose, then those laws should be balanced by a parallel set of laws infected with an Islamic bias. Isn't the better solution elimination of laws that lack a secular purpose?

Government should be neutral on religion, not infinitely accommodating. Why stop at Islam? Why not parallel laws for every religious group that claims them? We all can see where that leads.

Craig,

"However, new laws or revisions to existing laws that still benefit (or at least do not harm) society as a whole - AND at the same time attempt to re-dress the balance of religious influence - would create a situation where all voices are heard but no religion would have undue influence over the general population."

Complete and absolute neutrality in the law is the best re-dress for the imbalance of religious influence.

But I understand what you are suggesting and I think that might just be a good way to start the process. Many people don't recognize the imbalance until they are faced with an imbalance to which they personally object. My buddy didn't understand why I object to a national religious motto like "In God We Trust", until I proposed changing it to "We Don't Trust in Any god". Then he said he prefered E. Pluribus Unum, as do I!

Hi CHRIS,

You said: "But I also think that our current system of elected legislators and the requirement of a secular basis for laws is sufficient to deal with any Christian biases that Muslims find offensive.".

I wish. I think the bias is so deeply embedded in many people's everyday lives to the point they don't even notice it.

Also, the point for me isn't to avoid offending a portion of society, it is to create a society where all groups can flourish. An Islamic family living in British or American society may not feel offended by the Christian bias, but that doesn't mean they feel welcome.

Craig

Craig,

Your Rx makes the problem worse because it concedes the premise that civil laws can (and should) have a purely religious underpinning.

You say:
"It is also too late and completely unrealistic to expect the existing Christian bias be completely removed. Doing so would take away freedoms and rights that many of us enjoy, and not just Christians. I like having Christmas as a national holiday. I like getting paid for those other "Christian" statutory holidays such as Easter while not having to work, even though I am not Christian. Again, these examples are just to illustrate the pervasive nature of the bias, and how totally removing it would be problematic."

It's never too late to remove religious bias from our civil laws. I would gladly give up a holiday or two (they aren't rights, they are just priviledges that favor Christians over others) in exchange for a completely secular and just system of laws. In this way, nobody's rights would be taken away but rather everybody's rights would be equally respected.

Hi FREESTINKER,

You said: "As a secularist, I certainly do recognize that religion has had an undue influence on many of our civil laws and I object, on Constitutional grounds, to any civil laws that are based soley on religious doctrine. Just because religion has encroached on civil law in the past doesn't make it permissible in this (or any other) case today."

Agreed. I am not making the case that an Islamic religious edict be copied word for word into British or American civil law. That is also not what Archbishop Williams means (in my opinion). As I said earlier, changes/revisions to laws should never be made solely on the basis of religion.

However, new laws or revisions to existing laws that still benefit (or at least do not harm) society as a whole - AND at the same time attempt to re-dress the balance of religious influence - would create a situation where all voices are heard but no religion would have undue influence over the general population.

Again, I am speaking of how these societies really are, not how I would like them to be.

Craig

Craig,

Do you really think the Archbishop was saying "Let's take this opportunity to review and eliminate overtly Christian bias from the law"?

That's very charitable of you but to me that's a real stretch.

Seems to me he is trying to justify the existing religious bias in the law by saying since it's ok for Christianity to be a basis for civil laws then let's have some laws based on Islam too. The problem is that it is not ok for any laws to be based on any religion.

Craig,

I agree with your assessment of a Christian bias in U.S. law. I grew up in Massachusetts where there were blue laws governing business on Sunday. You can't gen much more explicitly Christian than that.

But I also think that our current system of elected legislators and the requirement of a secular basis for laws is sufficient to deal with any Christian biases that Muslims find offensive. Like the rest of us, they will have to practice civil disobedience and violate the law, then, with the help of the ACLU, go through the appeals process all the way to the supreme court. If the law has no secular basis then it should be struck down.

Of course, if what is envisioned are Islamic laws that don't pass secular muster, that's an entirely different story. Even a nutjob like Huckabee would have a secular awakening if that were to happen.

All law has a moral basis. Religious law uses religious doctrine as a moral basis. Secularism uses individual liberty as a moral basis. There can be no compromise. Give me secularism, or give me death.

I agree with Craig to an extent, insomuch as the laws in the US and UK reflect a Christian bias. The answer to that is not to change them so that they better reflect other religious biases but to amend them to remove ANY religious bias.

Adherence to religious laws must be entirely voluntary. In the US that means that we should be eliminating blue laws, amending our drug laws to remove the influence of religious notions of sin, eliminating all laws which attempt to legislate sexual practices between consenting adults, eliminating laws that deny gays and polyamorists the right to form appropriate civil marriage contracts, removing all sabbath restrictions, removing laws that deny the right to assisted suicide, and so on.

A good legal code should allow people as much freedom as possible to live according to their own beliefs, in pursuit of their own happiness, and to protect people from being harmed by others. They should not in any way force individuals to live according to someone else's religious standards when how they would choose to live and behave causes no harm to others.

I will never understand people who feel it is their duty and right to dictate to others how they may or may not live their lives in pursuit of their own happiness. Our legal code is filled with nonsensical, arbitrary, and useless prohibitions rooted in bronze-age religious dogma.

Hi GABE,

You write: "The opponents of gay marriage may read from religious texts when they declaim from the pulpits, but when they enter the courts, their arguments turn to culture, tradition and the wishes of the community and even these have failed in more progressive states."

I agree, and this illustrates the bias nicely. These laws are NOT secular. These laws are religiously based, unfortunately. The basis of the arguments against, say gay marriage, may be made in the courts on other merits, but the real influence is religion, wouldn't you say? This may not be the best example as many other religions would also be opposed to this, but the bias is real, even in a secular society.

It is also too late and completely unrealistic to expect the existing Christian bias be completely removed. Doing so would take away freedoms and rights that many of us enjoy, and not just Christians. I like having Christmas as a national holiday. I like getting paid for those other "Christian" statutory holidays such as Easter while not having to work, even though I am not Christian. Again, these examples are just to illustrate the pervasive nature of the bias, and how totally removing it would be problematic.

With minor alterations, though, the bias wouldn't be so one-sided. It's a matter of fairness. We DO have a Christian bias in North America...but we're not all Christians (please note I am speaking of the reality of the situation, not what I wish it was, or what the intent of the founders was).

Craig

Craig said:

"Of course, I'm sure there will be secularists who don't want to admit that many civil laws were created to mirror aspects of religious doctrine. Bans on gay marriage, bans on pornography, abortion rights, Christian-related national holidays (any nationally recognized Islam-related national holidays in the UK or the U.S.?)...all of these are based in (or at the very least heavily influenced by) Christian religious doctrine."

As a secularist, I certainly do recognize that religion has had an undue influence on many of our civil laws and I object, on Constitutional grounds, to any civil laws that are based soley on religious doctrine. Just because religion has encroached on civil law in the past doesn't make it permissible in this (or any other) case today.

Hi HEWITT,

I'm not saying ALL laws are based in religion in the U.S. or the UK, only that a bias for Christian dogma exists in some existing laws, bylaws, etc.

Most laws are just common-sense, I think. However, some of the "common-sense" laws/regulations were created for the society of the time (predominantly Christian, in both the U.S. and the UK). Due to huge demographic changes, though, that old society is no longer indicative of the mindset of either country as a whole.

I am a secularist, and an athiest, so I would not want any one religion influencing laws in either country. I would also not want religious dogma, scripture, whatever, being the sole basis for any law.

This, however, is not what is being suggested. The suggestion seems to be (to me) that these existing secular laws be examined for this Christian bias. Where it exists, it needs to be balanced with a mind towards rectifying this one-sided view - PROVIDING that any new laws, regulations, or changes also meet the needs (or at least do not undermine the existing rights and freedoms) of the entire population.

Cheers,
Craig

Craig:

you wrote: "I'm sure there will be secularists who don't want to admit that many civil laws were created to mirror aspects of religious doctrine. Bans on gay marriage, bans on pornography, abortion rights, Christian-related national holidays (any nationally recognized Islam-related national holidays in the UK or the U.S.?)...all of these are based in (or at the very least heavily influenced by) Christian religious doctrine."

Secularists readily admit this. Hence widespread secular opposition to bans on gay marriage, administration-led prayer in public schools, etc. In fact, it is the rather secular values of freedom of speech and expression, social equality between men and women, and the separation of church and state that are the reason why we protect private activities that religious communities find objectionable. I would venture that in the United States, prohibitions against gay marriage are perhaps the most obvious exception among the vast majority of laws that, per a number of Supreme Court decisions, must have a secular rationale or else be struck down as violating the First Amendment to our Constitution. The opponents of gay marriage may read from religious texts when they declaim from the pulpits, but when they enter the courts, their arguments turn to culture, tradition and the wishes of the community and even these have failed in more progressive states. There is already enough debate and tears shed over the unfortunate historical Christian bias in some of our laws which have been used to abuse everyone from atheists and Unitarians to the Jehovah's Witnesses; I don't believe that the answer is to introduce a labyrinthine mix of additional legal biases that would further serve to stifle human freedom.

Craig doesn't get it. I suggest he pick up Susan's book "Freethinkers" and give it a read. Or, if he's pressed for time, a simple reading of the Constitution will do.

The mindset of this Archbishop should put to rest any doubts that "moderate" religionists are less dangerous than the religious extremists. The point of Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris in this respect couldn't be any clearer if the right-moderate Archbishop was standing outside your door with a religious posse in tow.

And, yes, Huckabee is in the same class as this Archbishop.

CRAIG,

Are you arguing that since all laws are religious-based, the only question is which religion does one establish? If so, then that is not an argument for accommodating Islamic law.

There is only one thing worse than having Henry VIII as the founder of your religion and that is having Mohammed that illiterate, warmongering, greed/lust driven, hallucinating Arab as your founder.

And "his" Shari'ah laws would be classified as the Dark Age "visions" of a bunch of "Sun poisoned" males from various sides of the sand dunes.

Susan Said: "The archbishop's bow to mulitculturalism run amuck is, in an odd way, a mirror image of Mike Huckabee's suggestion that the U.S. Constitution should be amended to conform to God's law. By which Huckabee means the God of Christianity, not the God of Islam.".

This is not the case at all. What the Archbishop was saying is that the "secular" laws of the land are steeped in a Christian bias, just as the laws of the U.S. are. That is not to say that U.S. laws are overtly Christian, only that the Christian mindset pervaded the thinking of both the UK and the U.S. for hundreds of years, and thus, a bias exists (whether you want to believe it or not, it's there).

So, if the laws of the land are steeped in Christianity, then where does that leave Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. who immigrate to the UK (or the U.S.)?

Laws change to reflect the values of society. British society has changed drastically in makeup (as has American society). No one is suggesting that existing laws be repealed to favour any one group over another. What the Archbishop is trying to express is that the existing laws WERE appropriate when they were created - to serve a predominantly Christian society. That society is now different.

Of course, I'm sure there will be secularists who don't want to admit that many civil laws were created to mirror aspects of religious doctrine. Bans on gay marriage, bans on pornography, abortion rights, Christian-related national holidays (any nationally recognized Islam-related national holidays in the UK or the U.S.?)...all of these are based in (or at the very least heavily influenced by) Christian religious doctrine.

It's well past time a Christian religious leader acknowledged this Christian bias in the secular laws of both countries.

Craig