Fundamentalists desecrate the very idea of museums

[Samuel Dravis]

I would like to state that not every form of religious education that parents might indoctrinate their children with causes harm. My parents are rather religious themselves, but being free of the more "out-there" ideas of the fundies, what they told me was not hard to deal with intellectually by the time I was old enough to care about it. Considering that I was homeschooled as well K-12, I don't personally see any significant harm in this kind of teaching.

 

In cases of the fundamentalist tendency to actually distort or "creatively interpret" knowledge (aka lie), I agree there is harm being done. I've personally experienced some books that were quite literally lying outright, particularly from the publisher Abeka Now I'm not sure if they actually believed what they were saying or not - I could easily think they didn't really and just wanted to teach the kids religion - but it was easy enough to tell that they weren't interested in the student learning anything except doctrine. I'll be the first to point out that I have very limited experience with the other Christian's curriculum (mine was for the most part Catholic - I rarely had an issue with it), but what I've seen does appear to support Achilles' view. The fundamentalist's teaching things that are directly contradictory to known facts does not help kid's critical thinking abilities. Being informed about the idea of God and why your parents think you should believe it too, however, I don't have a problem with. Parents just want what is best for their children, and if they believe a religion then it's understandable they want their kids to be raised in it as well. My only trouble with it is the purposeful distortion of facts and reasoning that some engage in. Kids are smart. They can handle it if they have good info and know how to use it, but deliberately telling them lies is inexcusable.

[JediMaster12]

So by teaching religious affiliation is evil? Look at it this way: religion is part of this little thing we anthropologists like to call culture. Culture is defined as the learned behaviors and characteristics of a group. As a product of the public school education system, crappy as it is in California, I have not had the benefit like my cousins of being education in a Christian academy. Still I have had my fair share of the religious outlook and what my peers have learned from their parents at home. Religious indoctrination is a learned behavior. When a kid asks about the man with the kids around him in the picture the parent explains. It is called learning.

I am inclined to agree to Achilles' notion that fundamentalist extremes that contradict known facts does hurt reasoning skills. It never ceases to amaze me that kids come to school thinking that say the moon is made of green cheese because daddy said so and so so vehemently that even when you show them it is not they still believe what daddy told them. Sure kids are supposed to have some respect for authority but this sounds extremist of the authoritarian personality.

[SilentScope001]

I have to wonder if you're really attacking something else than the teaching of basic mathematics here.

 

Actually wasn't attacking nothing except how that kids has to rely on adults to tell them something. Anything. Kids should learn how to find out stuff by themselves.

 

 

Are you seriously saying that it's OK to tell a 5-year old kid about God and then expect him to 'think for himself'? Two problems:

1. Very many parents and schools are very inefficient when it comes to 'teaching both sides'. When I went to elementary school, the authorities had this idea that kids should be turned into Christians at school in mandatory Christianity Classes. It was also mandatory to attend church. And you know what? You can't have that and at the same time go, 'well, you don't have to believe it'.

 

I actually did that during my Sunday School.

 

You can say that didn't go well.

 

2. Children do not think for themselves.

 

Then why in the world is it okay to teach people about science and not about religion? The child wouldn't know either way. The only thing that matters is that the adults (aka you) think that one way is true and the other way is wrong. Of course, what if one question your judgement?

 

If Kids can't think for themselves, then they should learn how to think for themselves, by themselves. They cannot rely on anyone to tell them what is true, so they must figure out what is the truth and critically ask questions. If they cannot do such a thing, then they deserve their fate of getting themselves deluded.

[Achilles]

I would like to state that not every form of religious education that parents might indoctrinate their children with causes harm.

Can I assume that you're referring to moderately religious parents that only teach cherry-picked parts of their religion and do not subject their children to the regimens of religious tradition (i.e. weekly church attendance, seminary, etc)? If these parents are not conditioning their children with dogma, then I would agree that they probably aren't likely to cause their children harm.

 

My parents are rather religious themselves, but being free of the more "out-there" ideas of the fundies, what they told me was not hard to deal with intellectually by the time I was old enough to care about it. Considering that I was homeschooled as well K-12, I don't personally see any significant harm in this kind of teaching.

Is it safe to argue that your case is the exception rather than the rule, if we're discussing fundamentalism? If we're discussing moderation, then this is about what we should expect, correct? In other words, were you explicitly and repeatedly conditioned not to think for yourself, but rather to accept religious dogma as the one and only truth?

 

Being informed about the idea of God and why your parents think you should believe it too, however, I don't have a problem with.

As you point out there is a difference between being exposed to something and being indoctrinated into it. Unfortunately, I don't know many parents that actually practice this and the ones that I do know are atheists.

 

Parents just want what is best for their children, and if they believe a religion then it's understandable they want their kids to be raised in it as well.

I'm taking the position that one of the best things a parent can do for their children is to teach them how to think well.

 

My only trouble with it is the purposeful distortion of facts and reasoning that some engage in. Kids are smart. They can handle it if they have good info and know how to use it, but deliberately telling them lies is inexcusable.

Agreed.

 

So by teaching religious affiliation is evil?

Inherently? Not necessarily. How would you differentiate "religious affiliation" from "religious indoctrination"?

 

Look at it this way: religion is part of this little thing we anthropologists like to call culture. Culture is defined as the learned behaviors and characteristics of a group.

<snip>

Religious indoctrination is a learned behavior.

I'm not sure how to interpret this. Are you advocating that religious indoctrination is on hallowed ground because it is part of our culture? Weren't slavery and discrimination against women part of our culture for a long time?

 

When a kid asks about the man with the kids around him in the picture the parent explains. It is called learning.

There are ways to answer those questions that provide information without attaching baggage.

 

Thanks for reading.

[Samuel Dravis]

Can I assume that you're referring to moderately religious parents that only teach cherry-picked parts of their religion and do not subject their children to the regimens of religious tradition (i.e. weekly church attendance, seminary, etc)? If these parents are not conditioning their children with dogma, then I would agree that they probably aren't likely to cause their children harm.

 

Is it safe to argue that your case is the exception rather than the rule, if we're discussing fundamentalism? If we're discussing moderation, then this is about what we should expect, correct? In other words, were you explicitly and repeatedly conditioned not to think for yourself, but rather to accept religious dogma as the one and only truth?

I was told "this is what we believe, and these reasons are why we believe it." The belief was dependent on the evidence, in other words. Yes, I went to sunday services, along with my entire family. When I eventually found the evidence lacking, I had no further reason for belief, so... I think what my parents did was perfectly fine, developmentally-wise. It wasn't "believe or go to hell" it was "believe because x", which is as it should be, always.

 

I'm taking the position that one of the best things a parent can do for their children is to teach them how to think well.

I agree with that.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

So by teaching religious affiliation is evil?

No one called it evil. But it certainly is unfortunate.

 

Look at it this way: religion is part of this little thing we anthropologists like to call culture.

So are politics, yet we don't indoctrinate our kids to follow our favorite politicians from the age of two, do we? We don't have ceremonies akin to Infant Baptism in politics. Why? Because the kid's too young to think for itself on such important issues (of course the kid can think for itself, just not on important issues such as politics and religion).

 

When a kid asks about the man with the kids around him in the picture the parent explains. It is called learning.

And when the kid asks about the man wearing a coat and tie giving a speech behind a podium, you tell him it's George W Bush/Clinton/Reagen/Whatever, the greatest President ever, he who will lead your country out of whatever problems it's currently in and that those who do not believe in him are subject to eternal torture?

 

Or do you simply say he's the President, and that he rules the country?

 

I hope you see what I mean. There are many ways to answer simple questions. When the kid asks about the guy sitting at the table, you can perfectly well answer without making the kid a Christian.

 

Then why in the world is it okay to teach people about science and not about religion?

Once again: Science is neither a belief system nor a religion. It is about proving things right. Telling a kid that the Earth is round is not the same as telling a kid that the Earth was once flooded, and that a guy named Noah saved a few chosen animals and people with his big boat. The first is proven, the second is an unproven, absurd myth blatantly plagiarized from another people's mythology.

 

Teaching kids facts is not the same as indoctrinating them into religion.

 

The only thing that matters is that the adults (aka you) [...]

Groan... I'm only 21, already:p.

 

[...] think that one way is true and the other way is wrong. Of course, what if one question your judgment?

Nope, it's not all that matters. What matters is that there's a difference between teaching facts and indoctrinating them into political systems and/or mythological ideas.

 

If Kids can't think for themselves, then they should learn how to think for themselves, by themselves.

Of course. Doesn't change the fact that a four year old can't make big decisions on the War on Terror or the Second Coming of Christ.

[JediMaster12]

I'm not sure how to interpret this. Are you advocating that religious indoctrination is on hallowed ground because it is part of our culture? Weren't slavery and discrimination against women part of our culture for a long time?

No. I was implying that if you look say at the 'American' culture as a whole, treat it as a culture, you could see that like any other group it is a part of their groups of shared and learned behaviors.

 

So are politics, yet we don't indoctrinate our kids to follow our favorite politicians from the age of two, do we?

If you think about it, we subconciously do. Take the example of baseball players. Say a kid sees something in his dad's collection and asks who it is. Dad responds by saying that it is Babe Ruth the greatest batter or whatever. The kid asks why is that and dad explains. I know that's not the same as politics but believe it or not we do things that indoctrinate kids. Kids learn from their parents. That is the way of things.

[Achilles]

No. I was implying that if you look say at the 'American' culture as a whole, treat it as a culture, you could see that like any other group it is a part of their groups of shared and learned behaviors.

I'm not sure what I may have said that would have given you the impression that I wasn't already very aware of that

 

Ok, I'll be serious now. I know that it's cultural (I studied anthropology too), but I'm not really clear what that has to do with the merits of the institution. Per the examples that I provided, there are lots of examples of bad ideas that were parts of culture, passed down via enculturation. Thanks to changes in the zeitgeist, most of us look back now with disdain. It is my hope that someday we will do the same with religion.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Oh, and while we're at it: Has anyone else than me checked out the fair and balanced Conservapedia yet?

 

Sigh. Schools, museums and encyclopedias. Three objective tools of learning turned into biased political weapons. Disgusting.

[Achilles]

The funny thing about conservapedia is that it's completely unnecessary. If something on Wikipedia is incorrect, it can be corrected. If something is biased, it can be flagged. So instead of trying to have a free market place of information, we'll just go where we can make up our own rules and then call ourselves "intellectually honest". And a frightening number of people are perfectly ok with that.

 

Is it too much to hope that this is a sign that fundamentalists are realizing that there are no more gaps for their gods to hide in? Could it be that these are the death throes of superstition?

 

EDIT: HA!! Go to conservapedia. Click on Index. Scroll down a smidgen and admire the categories for World History (i.e. "Ancient History (Creation-500 AD)").

 

Also, if anyone would like an example of what an intellectually rigorous, bias-free conservapedia article looks like, check out the entry for "evolution".

[Prime]

Welcome [...] to the Creation Museum. Here, dozens of exhibits attempt to show the Bible as the literal truth and the theory of evolution as unsupportable by science.

This doesn't make any sense. The theory of evolution is supportable by science, because there is in fact evidence to support it. That's how the theory was arrived at in the first place. The theory came into being using the Scientific Method, which is itself science. What is the evidence that shows that the entire theory is false?

 

Creationists believe that the Garden of Eden did exist, that the world is 6,000 years old, that God created man and animals simultaneously, and that the flood wiped out every living creature that wasn’t inside Noah’s Ark.

Can someone explain to me how the majority of the 1,000,000+ cataloged species we see today fit on a 135m boat?

 

Free speech is something that should be protected, regardless of what ideas a person like or hate. I am against censorship in all ways, both private and public, both internal and external. Internal censorship would be having a bias that makes you believe that one idea is wrong and then curisng that idea. Everyone has an internal censorship of some sort, but it should be destroyed, because it infringes on Free Speech.

So you are proposing that advocating genocide of various peoples, child abuse, distributing child pornography, and attemping to incite violence are all worthy endeavors and should be protected and encouraged?

 

What's the point of the 1st Amendment, after all, IF you do not have the Right to be Heard?

 

Yes, I say that tiny little spiel. Why? Because I object to ED calling for censorship of an idea, regardless of what Idea it actually is. You hate it, fine. But don't go and start calling people evil or such or that they deserve to have this museum be shut down.

But according to you, I should be allowed to say I hate it and they are evil and the museum should be shut down, because the free speech lets me.

 

Remember: I someone has the right to say something, someone else has an equal right to call it bull****.

 

Little children are too young to understand politics

On the contrary, from what I've seen they tend to see through politics and call out adults on it.

 

Indoctration is part of every child's education. All childern have to be indoctrined to believe that 2+2=4, for instance. Of course, this is because the child is dumb, and needs to know that 2+2=4, because a long time of research has 'concluded' that 2+2=4, and the child should trust these authorites becuase they are smart and intelligent, yadda, yadda, yadda.

 

"Why does 2+2=4?"

 

"Because it does. Now shut up and your homework."

But seriously, what school teaches like that? From what I remember, and I hope it is the same today, the teacher would show the child why 2+2=4 is true, not just take it on blind faith.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

The funny thing about conservapedia is that it's completely unnecessary. If something on Wikipedia is incorrect, it can be corrected. If something is biased, it can be flagged. So instead of trying to have a free market place of information, we'll just go where we can make up our own rules and then call ourselves "intellectually honest". And a frightening number of people are perfectly ok with that.

It's not that Wikipedia is biased - it's that it does not push the ideas of the right-wing religious nutters.

 

Of course it's not a sign of 'liberal bias' to write an article on evolution and treat it as the observed and proven phenomenon that it is. However, to a rabid Creationist, this is blatant distortion of Divine Truth.

 

I also like how they pull a FAUX News and say 'OK, this site is allegedly biased, and we don't like that, so we're going to create a site that really is deliberate and overt in its biased representation of the world'. You don't combat bias with opposite bias. You combat it by being objective and down-to-Earth. If they really feel Wiki is liberally biased, which they do, they should take it to Wiki, as Achilles said.

[mimartin]

Can someone explain to me how the majority of the 1,000,000+ cataloged species we see today fit on a 135m boat?

 

Maybe the Dragon’s used their magic Dragon powers to shrink all the other animals.

 

I don’t have a problem with the museum. People are allowed to believe what they want. I’m a Christian and I believe in evolution. It is not one or the other proportion to me. I had a similar question as Ham as a child and thankfully got a different response from my step-mother. A response that allowed me to keep my faith while still accepting science and evolution.

 

As a human, I believe the $26 million could of better spent on the helping those that are less fortunate.

[Achilles]

Can someone explain to me how the majority of the 1,000,000+ cataloged species we see today fit on a 135m boat?

Don't forget that they would have needed to stock food for the animals as well. And an explanation for waste management would be handy. Lastly, some idea on how Noah was able to circumnavigate the globe in accordance with specialization so quickly (i.e. marsupials in Australia, safari animals in Africa, etc.).

[Totenkopf]

Don't forget that they would have needed to stock food for the animals as well. And an explanation for waste management would be handy. Lastly, some idea on how Noah was able to circumnavigate the globe in accordance with specialization so quickly (i.e. marsupials in Australia, safari animals in Africa, etc.).

 

 

Seems Noah may NOT have been the captain of his own ship. My guess is that Noah "built the ship" and that God gets the credit for everything else. Remember, though, if you DO take the Ark story literally, it's equally easy to answer your question with a simple...God willed it so.

 

Seems to me that some of you dogged athiests have overestimated the influence of "fundamentalists" in the USA. For starters, not everyone who believes the Roe V Wade decision was bad law is either necessarily religious or a fundamentalist. Last I heard about the fetal stem cell issue was that such a path would not get GOVERNMENT funding, not quite same as saying outlawed. If the benefits of said path are irrefutable and exclusive to fetal stem cells, private business will line up behind it. Hell, they'd probably sell their own mother's for a piece of that kind of bonanza. Also, beyond the abortion question, exactly which "rights" are Christians trying to deny women? Fact is, while the population of the US is not nearly as atheistic as current day Europe, it does not mean that the US is not a secular society. People here often seem more taken with worldly concerns, all the more so when you look at pop culture and academia and law. When the Pope chastizes the western world for being too materialistic (ie worldly), he doesn't exclude the US from his admonitions.

 

Fact is, most politicians play to their extremes to get their respective parties' nominations, then basically jettison the groups that got them there. Clinton did it with "don't ask, don't tell" and no doubt Bush has done similiarly with the "dreaded" fundamentalists. Now, if the Christian "fundies" used the same playbook as the islamofacists, you'd have some cause for concern. But to declare that the USA will become a YEC Saudi Arabia goes beyond hyperbole.

[Achilles]

Seems Noah may NOT have been the captain of his own ship. My guess is that Noah "built the ship" and that God gets the credit for everything else. Remember, though, if you DO take the Ark story literally, it's equally easy to answer your question with a simple...God willed it so.

a.k.a. "goddunit", a.k.a "goddidit".

 

Seems to me that some of you dogged athiests have overestimated the influence of "fundamentalists" in the USA. For starters, not everyone who believes the Roe V Wade decision was bad law is either necessarily religious or a fundamentalist. Last I heard about the fetal stem cell issue was that such a path would not get GOVERNMENT funding, not quite same as saying outlawed. If the benefits of said path are irrefutable and exclusive to fetal stem cells, private business will line up behind it. Hell, they'd probably sell their own mother's for a piece of that kind of bonanza. Also, beyond the abortion question, exactly which "rights" are Christians trying to deny women?

Please help me understand how your arguments support your premise. Also, please show me how your arguments are supported by evidence.

 

Lastly, I'm pretty sure we have threads for each of your arguments. If you would like to debate the merits of them, please feel free to post your points there and I'll be more than happy to address them.

 

Fact is, while the population of the US is not nearly as atheistic as current day Europe, it does not mean that the US is not a secular society.

Hmmm. IMO, this debatable. What is not debatable is that the U.S. government has been helmed by fundamentalists for the last 7 years.

 

People here often seem more taken with worldly concerns, all the more so when you look at pop culture and academia and law. When the Pope chastizes the western world for being too materialistic (ie worldly), he doesn't exclude the US from his admonitions.

Again, this is debatable. While you seem to see rock n' roll, Berkley, and Roe v. Wade, I see the growing influence of christian rock, Bob Jones University, and the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act.

 

I do think that the U.S. has some cultural problems, but I do not think that the "solutions" offered by the fundamentalist agenda are anything other than an alternative set of problems. They want to swing the pendulum the to one side when the real answer is to try to keep it somewhere in the middle.

 

Fact is, most politicians play to their extremes to get their respective parties' nominations, then basically jettison the groups that got them there.

I think you might be making an error with some of your word choices. I don't know that I would agree that it's a "fact" that "most" politicians do this.

 

Clinton did it with "don't ask, don't tell" and no doubt Bush has done similiarly with the "dreaded" fundamentalists.

I believe that I've adequately debunked this argument in this post. The only thing that Bush jettisoned was his pretense of being a uniter, not a divider.

 

Now, if the Christian "fundies" used the same playbook as the islamofacists, you'd have some cause for concern.

I'm only allowed to be afraid of fundamentalists if they fly planes into buildings? I'm not allowed to be concerned when the executive branch (comprised of fundamentalist christians) completely circumvents separation of powers and suspends citizen rights? In fairness to you on my last point, they didn't do it alone. They had the help of the other two fundamentalist-controlled branches as well.

 

But to declare that the USA will become a YEC Saudi Arabia goes beyond hyperbole.

Really? Why? Because no one in power here is trying to accomplish something like that?

[Jae Onasi]

I think everyone's getting wound up over a museum that's going to sit pretty idle and be visited only by those who believe in literal creationism in the first place.

 

In the US we are blessed with the right to believe what we want and support those beliefs how we want (for the most part). We have a Spam museum in MN, for heaven's sake.

 

If you don't like what the 'religious right' is doing, then it's your job to go out and convince voters to vote for the issues important to you. It's a free country. Christians organize because we want the issues important to us to be brought to the table. If you have issues important to you, then organize voters, talk to your legislators, and get involved.

 

How many of you know who your Representative in Congress is? Or the 2 Senators from your state? Or the relevant legislators in your area if you're not American?

How many of you have actually contacted them to express your concerns or to talk about the issues important to you? A lot of them really do care about hearing your concerns. I've contacted mine more than once, and have had some very interesting discussions with them on a variety of different things, all non-religious, actually. It's not fair to gripe about what's happening in government if you've never even gone to vote.

[Achilles]

How many of you know who your Representative in Congress is? Or the 2 Senators from your state? Or the relevant legislators in your area if you're not American?

How many of you have actually contacted them to express your concerns or to talk about the issues important to you? A lot of them really do care about hearing your concerns. I've contacted mine more than once, and have had some very interesting discussions with them on a variety of different things, all non-religious, actually. It's not fair to gripe about what's happening in government if you've never even gone to vote.

Wow, that's a lot of assumption wrapped up in one teeny-tiny little post, Jae

 

Considering that I think of myself as fairly politically savvy and that I view voting as one of my most important civic responsibilities, you can rest assured that I know who my elected representatives are.

 

The problem is that due to the political suicide which is atheism, there isn't much of a non-theist lobby. Not many politicians (read: no politicians) run on an atheist campaign platform. Therefore my only option in the voting booth is to choose the candidate the most accurately represents my views (or whose views I disagree with the least). Sometimes this means that I cast my vote for moderate republicans that happen to be be very religious, not because I want to, but because my other options are too extreme.

 

I'm glad to hear the political system works so well for you as a conservative christian in a conservative christian country, but your situation is not indicative of everyone's.

[Totenkopf]

Curious, but what exactly does an atheist platform entail? To what extent is it so radically different from others that you wouldn't be happy in the modern democrat camp, for instance? My guess is that if people of religious faith were as few in number as you atheists, your argument would apply for them as well. Point partially being that someone who clearly identifies himself in the minority as you do, is inevitably going to be unhappy (from a bit to massively) with his/her lot.

 

I'd say Jae is partially right. You can't have an impact if you don't make an effort. I'm also cynical enough to realize that $$ talks and BS walks. Your local/state/fed pol might lend you his ear from time to time, but I've no illusions that it's probably as much a function of good PR as anything. Anyway, getting late......

[Achilles]

Curious, but what exactly does an atheist platform entail?

Well, first, I imagine the candidate them self would need to be an atheist. That means they wouldn't be associated with any church. Considering that some politicians take a lot of heat for allegedly not being "religious enough", I don't think this is going to happen any time soon.

 

As for their stance on issues, I imagine it would look something like:

 

-Elimination of prayer in school

-Strengthening the Establishment Clause

-Eliminating tax exemptions for religious groups

-Eliminating government ties to faith-based initiatives

-Et cetera

 

Of course, they might actually want to do some work on more important issues, but again, policy based on reason rather than religiosity might not be that popular either:

 

-Eliminating gov't bans on funding for certain types of research

-Adding funding for comprehensive sex ed in public schools

-Re-establishing abortion laws that are considerate of womens' health.

-Legitimate education reform that actually improves public education rather than makes some attempt to cast ineffective alternatives in a favorable light.

-Et cetera.

 

I imagine it would look something like that.

 

To what extent is it so radically different from others that you wouldn't be happy in the modern democrat camp, for instance?

In some cases nothing. In other cases, quite a bit. I guess it would depend on the issue. Did you have a specific example that you wanted to present?

 

My guess is that if people of religious faith were as few in number as you atheists, your argument would apply for them as well.

That is true, however I would submit that a theist in a strictly secular society would not be forced-fed the morality of the majority, as seems to be the case when the opposite is true. For example, there would still be a law against killing people. If you choose to jump through the additional hoop of attributing the underlying principles to a deity of your choosing, then that's your business.

 

Point partially being that someone who clearly identifies himself in the minority as you do, is inevitably going to be unhappy (from a bit to massively) with his/her lot.

Depends on whether or not that group is truly being oppressed or if they are just bellyaching. I can't imagine any religious group having a legitimate case for oppression in a secular democracy. I suppose that there is some scenario that I am not imagining, but I don't know what it is off the top of my head.

 

I'd say Jae is partially right. You can't have an impact if you don't make an effort.

Correct, but making the assumption that will you definitely make a difference by making an effort is silly. I can't imagine that any politician is going to ignore 83% of their constituency to pander to the concerns of those that represent less than 8%...unless the smaller group has strong political capital.

 

I'm also cynical enough to realize that $$ talks and BS walks. Your local/state/fed pol might lend you his ear from time to time, but I've no illusions that it's probably as much a function of good PR as anything. Anyway, getting late......

And I'm cynical enough to agree with you

 

Take care.

[Totenkopf]

In some cases nothing. In other cases, quite a bit. I guess it would depend on the issue. Did you have a specific example that you wanted to present?

 

Actually, not so much. However, if you have the time (and/or inclination), perhaps you could cite a few examples in each case.

[Achilles]

As I've already said, it depends on the issue. If you're not going to pursue it further, then I'm not going to chase your point down for you

[Jae Onasi]

Wow, that's a lot of assumption wrapped up in one teeny-tiny little post, Jae

I broke my self-imposed rule of not writing anything too serious when I have a fever. I have written some truly spectacular things when I've had fevers and thought at the time that they were perfectly reasonable. Then a couple days later I re-read them and said to myself 'Oh, Lordy, I really was somewhere in a galaxy far, far away with that comment....' So I try not to post too much when I'm unwell.

 

It was meant as a general commentary more than anything else, and I actually didn't have you in particular in mind. In fact, if you had told me you didn't vote, I'd have been extremely surprised.

 

I just realized reading thru the thread that people were complaining about fundamentalists being active, but not doing anything about it. If someone's going to gripe about something, then they should consider possible solutions. All the complaints about ultra-conservative Christians being in power in the White House bothers me--where were these complainers 7 years ago in Ohio, Florida, and other states where the race was close, when their votes really could have made a difference? The fact is that Bush's supporters put together a great grassroots get-the-vote-out campaign at the state level and were very organized in getting people registered to vote, and that made a huge difference in some places.

 

Considering that I think of myself as fairly politically savvy and that I view voting as one of my most important civic responsibilities, you can rest assured that I know who my elected representatives are.

Most people couldn't name one. You're an exception, actually.

The problem is that due to the political suicide which is atheism, there isn't much of a non-theist lobby. Not many politicians (read: no politicians) run on an atheist campaign platform. Therefore my only option in the voting booth is to choose the candidate the most accurately represents my views (or whose views I disagree with the least). Sometimes this means that I cast my vote for moderate republicans that happen to be be very religious, not because I want to, but because my other options are too extreme.

Aren't we supposed to vote for the one who most accurately represent our views anyway? Religion is just one part of a person's life. When I evaluate someone's ability to do the job in Congress, religion actually plays a very small part for me, if it's an issue at all. I would not vote against someone for being atheist if they were more qualified for the job.

I'm glad to hear the political system works so well for you as a conservative christian in a conservative christian country, but your situation is not indicative of everyone's.

I don't actually think this is a conservative Christian country in the least. If it truly was, we wouldn't be seeing or hearing the crap we see/hear on TV/radio/other media, spectacular amounts of fraud in major corporations (Enron comes to mind), among many other things. This is a secular society that happens to have a lot of people who say they are Christians and darken the doors of a church maybe once or twice a year. Pelosi and Boxer are not conservative Christians, and most of the members of Congress don't bother with church except to make an appearance for some political reason. Clinton and Gore may say they're part of the Baptist church, but they certainly don't espouse traditionally Baptist views in the least or act in traditional Baptist ways. Many other politicians are the same way, and if the fundamentalists truly had as much power as liberals/atheists fear, then there would be many more fundamentalists in office, at least in Congress.

 

In terms of the museum, if we say 'you can't build a museum because of religion' we set a dangerous precedent, because then we could equally extend that to other free speech rights. I don't like the idea of a Satanic museum or a cult museum, but they have the right to express themselves (in appropriate ways). If we cut that off, we could lose too much and we'd find ourselves in the middle of a state-controlled communication situation. If there is a Satanic museum, I simply won't go visit.

[Prime]

Seems Noah may NOT have been the captain of his own ship. My guess is that Noah "built the ship" and that God gets the credit for everything else. Remember, though, if you DO take the Ark story literally, it's equally easy to answer your question with a simple...God willed it so.

Isn't that just a huge copout?

[mimartin]

How many of you know who your Representative in Congress is? Or the 2 Senators from your state? Or the relevant legislators in your area if you're not American?

 

I know who both my U.S. Senators are and I even know the useless Representative from Texas’s 14th district, The Honorable Ron Paul.

 

I have on occasion email both Senators and gotten the usually lips services answer saying they are concerned about the topic, but then they’re on TV saying the same thing about the other side. They make you give them your mailing address in order to communicate with them, now I’m on their fund raising mailing list and get a letter every week asking for money, junk mail that is paid for with our tax dollars.