But the first amendment isn't there to allow churches to impose their beliefs on those that don't follow them.

Well, not to sound like I am speaking in circles, but it is there to prevent those who don't believe form imposing their veiws on those who do. So in this case it is intended to prevent those who believe in gay marriage from forcing it on those who don't.

Celestial Healer wrote:

But the first amendment isn't there to allow churches to impose their beliefs on those that don't follow them.

Well, not to sound like I am speaking in circles, but it is there to prevent those who don't believe form imposing their veiws on those who do. So in this case it is intended to prevent those who believe in gay marriage from forcing it on those who don't.

Right, but is secular marriage an imposition? As I said before, I'm not suggesting any clergy should be required to perform marriages they don't believe in, but I don't see how that's a case for the federal government not to recognize same sex marriages among those who do believe in them.

just so we are all on the same page:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

But as a religous ceremony, why should the governement be involved at all?

If it would remain totally secular then there would be no problem. The concern is that where gay marriage has been legalized there have been attempts to force religious groups to accept and perform gay marriage.Take the case of the United Methodist Church in New Jersey. A lesbian couple sued the church because they refused to allow the couple to hold their commitment ceremony at a campground owned by the church. In the end, the court in New Jersey ruled against the church, in clear violation of the First Ammendement. Now I know you are saying, but that is a campground, not a church, and they didn't want the church to actually perform the ceremony. All of this is true, but it establishes a precident that the rights of GLTB couple supercede the First Ammendment and it proves that there are those who will not be satisfied with a wholey secular marriage law.

I am not aware of any religion that teachs that interracial marriage is a sin.

Given the teachings of Brigham Young, that's a bit surprising.

In 1863, Young reported that he said, "Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, p. 110).[15]

After settling in Utah in 1848, Brigham Young announced a priesthood ban which prohibited all men of black African descent from holding the priesthood.[13] In connection, Mormons of African descent could not participate in Mormon temple rites such as the Endowment or sealing. These racial restrictions remained in place until 1978, when the policy was rescinded by President of the Church Spencer W. Kimball.[16]

Did you join the LDS after 1978?

Not meaning to be adversarial here, but within my lifetime, the Mormom church most definitely taught that interracial marriage was a sin (although I don't believe anyone was actually ever *killed* over it, no matter what Brigham Young decreed).

But as a religous ceremony, why should the governement be involved at all?

That would actually be ideal. If civil marriage and religious marriage could be separated from one another for all people, we would probably have fewer issues than we do now.

And David, it sounds like the issue you are raising is in the implementation, not in the concept itself. I would agree that some care should be taken in the implementation, with religious exemptions included. All too often, the issues you raise are brought up in order to bar same-sex marriage entirely (I know that's not what you're saying, only that that's how others have used those arguments), rather than as a way of saying "let's make sure we get this right." I wish it was more of the latter.

And David, it sounds like the issue you are raising is in the implementation, not in the concept itself. I would agree that some care should be taken in the implementation, with religious exemptions included. All too often, the issues you raise are brought up in order to bar same-sex marriage entirely (I know that's not what you're saying, only that that's how others have used those arguments), rather than as a way of saying "let's make sure we get this right." I wish it was more of the latter.

Exactly. I am all for the idea, just not the way it is being implamented in some places. I personally think that we should seperate marriage from the government altogether. Have a legal civil union and the marriage is entirely a religious institution. That way people who don't want to "be married" like a few of my friends, can still have legal rights along with their partners, both hetero and homosexual.

It's good to remember that, while we want things to be better, there are also places where they're worse.

That's basically what I was trying to get across. America may have its warts, and has its share of intolerant kooks, but it is a far sight better than many other countries, especially those following Sharia law.

Anecdotal story (spoilered for length):

I wonder. If Dawkins didn't feel it necessary to constantly defend evolution from religion by attacking religion then is it possible that a few more people might actually read his arguments?

Can i ask you this. Why should the fact that he has said something against religion, mean that you should not read his arguments?

PS. It isn't funny, i can't actually bring myself to go back to 'Has "balance" ruined D&D flavor?'. Since when did 'hey, look we clearly have different styles of play and different oppinions about whats important in a game, but thats okay. Now please try to alter a game i like, despite the fact you have a game you much prefer.' become such a lynching worth offence?

SHORT ANSWER (wrote this after all the blah blah below):

If his book is about religion, then arguing against religion is fine. If his book is about evolution, then arguing against religion is bad writing.

Here's the LONG VERBOSE ANSWER that came out first:

First off, it sure didn't stop me from reading. But I can think of a few people who might benefit from a guy selling evolution without making side trips into attacking religious belief. With religion, for me, we are talking about issues of sociology, psychology, and consciousness, and in this area I don't really consider Dawkins to be a useful voice. I think he just likes to get the press. There are better critics of religion out there.

Now it's well established on this thread that because creationism is offered as a competing explanation that it is therefore due for some good knocks by explanations of evolution, but as a person with a usually scientific mind I don't even even see creationism as being worth it.

If I may possibly disagree with myself the fact of the matter is that evolution is pretty reductive if boiled down to the empirically observable hard-wired structure of organisms, and with intelligent creatures we therefore also need to talk about culture and ideas... meaning the meme stuff, The Selfish Gene and all that. But from my side, although memes were a great idea, I don't think Dawkins is very good at the actual study of culture because quantifying it and reducing it does not work well at all... so back to point 1.

Actually, Samnell, despite the many hurdles you face, living in a Muslim majority country could be a lot worse for you than a Christian one:

Did I say it was? No. The progress of secularism in the US is far more advanced than it is in most of the Muslim world (or at least the Muslim-majority countries) and that has afforded me considerably greater protections. But go back two hundred and fifty years and there's no appreciable difference between the two. It's not Christianity that's spared me; it's Christianity's waning influence.

not all things should be equal.

Not to sidetrack the conversation But if I may ask Samnell I remember a thread awhile back on a friend of yours that was attacked. How is he doing may I ask?

You have me confused with someone else. I don't have any friends who were recently victims of violence.

The LDS Church's position is that you, as a gay athiest, should have the same rights as every other citizen. We support civil unions, but we believe that force anyone to recognize as marriage something that is contrary to their personal or religious beliefs is not tolerance but tyranny.

I'm not seeking the right to get married in your temples. In fact, I don't want it. I'm seeking the same access to civil marriage that you and every other heterosexual has. I want that civil marriage recognized and protected by laws identical to those that yours has. Saying you oppose marriage but then coming around and saying you support everything but and thus have to donate massive amounts to defeat the advance of the civil rights of others is obvious doubletalk.

If it would remain totally secular then there would be no problem. The concern is that where gay marriage has been legalized there have been attempts to force religious groups to accept and perform gay marriage.Take the case of the United Methodist Church in New Jersey. A lesbian couple sued the church because they refused to allow the couple to hold their commitment ceremony at a campground owned by the church. In the end, the court in New Jersey ruled against the church, in clear violation of the First Ammendement. Now I know you are saying, but that is a campground, not a church, and they didn't want the church to actually perform the ceremony. All of this is true, but it establishes a precident that the rights of GLTB couple supercede the First Ammendment and it proves that there are those who will not be satisfied with a wholey secular marriage law.

Precisely. If a church wants to run a secular business, it gets to follow absolutely 100% to the letter and without exception every single rule every other secular business follows. Anything else is crapping all over the Establishment clause by creating a privileged group of organizations based on their religious affiliation.

But thank you for sharing the news. It's always nice to get good news.

Patrick Curtin wrote:

Actually, Samnell, despite the many hurdles you face, living in a Muslim majority country could be a lot worse for you than a Christian one:

Did I say it was? No. The progress of secularism in the US is far more advanced than it is in most of the Muslim world (or at least the Muslim-majority countries) and that has afforded me considerably greater protections. But go back two hundred and fifty years and there's no appreciable difference between the two. It's not Christianity that's spared me; it's Christianity's waning influence.

Sorry, you kind of inferred in the post I replied to that you would face the exact same thing in a Muslim country as a Christian one, I was just pointing out that it would be worse in a Muslim country. Secularism is a good thing, separation of church and state is one of the smartest things our Founders did. The fact you have to cast back 250 years to find Christianity on a same footing is a win for secularism and democratic rule. All I was saying.

Patrick Curtin wrote:

Samnell wrote:

I do, but I'm gay on top of being an atheist. In fact, I feel mostly attacked by Christians of various stripes. Certainly not the Moff Rimmer types, but the LDS church and the Catholic church are very major offenders here. I don't feel attacked by militant Muslims because, well, it's not 9/11 anymore. Also they're vastly outnumbered by the ill-behaved Christians in my present experience. If I lived in a Muslim-majority country (or just an area) I'd instead probably get more attacks from them. It's the same stuff in different wrappers.

Actually, Samnell, despite the many hurdles you face, living in a Muslim majority country could be a lot worse for you than a Christian one:

Sharia laws dealing with homosexuality

Discussion of apostasy in Sharia judicial thought

Despite the many hurdles you face (and I do sympathize, having many family members who are gay and others who are atheists), our legal system is set up to protect you, rather than persecute you. The attacks you suffer would be much worse if they had legal backing by the State.

Naturally, the fact that it could be worse doens't make it okay (and I know that's not what you are suggesting at all, Patrick, just making the point that it IS an issue.)

But I have a friend who I have fallen out of touch with who is gay and is from Kuwait, and he has to walk a delicate line there. Because he's from a very high caste, the law has to give him the "benefit of the doubt" so to speak, so there can be a lot of nudge-nudge/common knowledge sort of thing going on, but if he says the wrong thing in front of the wrong people, he could be in all sorts of legal trouble, and a lower caste person would generally be executed.

It's good to remember that, while we want things to be better, there are also places where they're worse.

This is hypocrisy if you ask me. The law either applies to all equally or doesnt apply to anyone.

Celestial Healer wrote:

But the first amendment isn't there to allow churches to impose their beliefs on those that don't follow them.

Well, not to sound like I am speaking in circles, but it is there to prevent those who don't believe form imposing their veiws on those who do. So in this case it is intended to prevent those who believe in gay marriage from forcing it on those who don't.

The institution of marrage is three seperate institutions, which appear together with some regularity. One is the legal status of marrage, another is the social act of marrage, the last is the religious ceremony of marrage.

If two atheists get married, without ceremony, it is not called a civil partnership. So why should the terminology change?

The state allowing partners to undertake the legal act of marrage, does not constitute an attack on your first ammendment rights, unless it tries to force your church to recognise it with ceremony.

It's not Christianity that's spared me; it's Christianity's waning influence.

Some might see it as the result of lots of INDIVIDUAL Christians (and other religious people) becoming more enlightened and tolerant, the consequence of higher education levels and empowerment. Effectively becoming better Christians. :)

If it would remain totally secular then there would be no problem. The concern is that where gay marriage has been legalized there have been attempts to force religious groups to accept and perform gay marriage.Take the case of the United Methodist Church in New Jersey. A lesbian couple sued the church because they refused to allow the couple to hold their commitment ceremony at a campground owned by the church. In the end, the court in New Jersey ruled against the church, in clear violation of the First Ammendement. Now I know you are saying, but that is a campground, not a church, and they didn't want the church to actually perform the ceremony. All of this is true, but it establishes a precident that the rights of GLTB couple supercede the First Ammendment and it proves that there are those who will not be satisfied with a wholey secular marriage law.

I hate to say it, but i think your miss understanding the first ammendment.

There are two religion clauses in the first ammendment.

First is the establishment clause, which bans the formation of a state religion.

The second is Free Exercise Clause. It has been established since 1878 that "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices." Without this distinction, almost any activity from rape to human sacrifice would be legal, if a religion backed the action.

Discrimination based on sexuality is illegal when providing “goods, services, and facilities to the general public”. This is covered by president set in 1878 in Reynolds v. United States. The action your citing does not force the church to perform a religious service for the couple, does not force them to change their views on the couples marrage, does not force them to stop worshipping. All it forces them to do, is not discriminate, by refusing to provide the same service they would give any one else, based on the couples shared gender.

In short, it isn't an attack on Free exercise, because it has nothing to do with the church practicing its faith, only its business practices.

Because the First Amendment is there to protect religion from government. That is something that too many people don't understand.

That's half right, as I'm sure you know. Even a cursory perusal of the Framers' correspondence makes it clear that (a) government needs to be kept out of religion, as you correctly point out, AND (b) religion must equally be kept from temporal power (i.e., imposing government).

"But," you say, "the founders' correspondence isn't the Constitution!" No, it's not, but it can serve as a valuable guide for what was intended in the passages that aren't totally clear -- the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written by men, men who left behind records of what they were attempting to do; it wasn't handed down on a set of stone tablets from on high.

Pretending the Establishment Clause is a one-way street is patheric Dominionist propaganda, coming from people like the Discovery Institute. Coming from you, it's nowhere near that bad of course, but it's still a bit disengenuous, given how well-read you seem to be, David.

Kruelaid wrote:

I wonder. If Dawkins didn't feel it necessary to constantly defend evolution from religion by attacking religion then is it possible that a few more people might actually read his arguments?

Zombieneighbours wrote:

Can i ask you this. Why should the fact that he has said something against religion, mean that you should not read his arguments?

PS. It isn't funny, i can't actually bring myself to go back to 'Has "balance" ruined D&D flavor?'. Since when did 'hey, look we clearly have different styles of play and different oppinions about whats important in a game, but thats okay. Now please try to alter a game i like, despite the fact you have a game you much prefer.' become such a lynching worth offence?

SHORT ANSWER (wrote this after all the blah blah below):

If his book is about religion, then arguing against religion is fine. If his book is about evolution, then arguing against religion is bad writing.

Here's the LONG VERBOSE ANSWER that came out first:

First off, it sure didn't stop me from reading. But I can think of a few people who might benefit from a guy selling evolution without making side trips into attacking religious belief. With religion, for me, we are talking about issues of sociology, psychology, and consciousness, and in this area I don't really consider Dawkins to be a useful voice. I think he just likes to get the press. There are better critics of religion out there.

Now it's well established on this thread that because creationism is offered as a competing explanation that it is therefore due for some good knocks by explanations of evolution, but as a person with a usually scientific mind I don't even even see creationism as being worth it.

If I may possibly disagree with myself the fact of the matter is that evolution is pretty reductive if boiled down to the empirically observable hard-wired structure of organisms, and with intelligent creatures we therefore also need to talk about culture and ideas... meaning the meme...

I am actually quiet sold the idea of memes, they make a lot of sense to me as someone who studied a fair amount of evolutionary biology in his degree. I am now starting into a course of study that will hopefully leave me with a degree in pyschology at the end too.

I disagree that dawkins is bad at discussions of sociology, psychology, and consciousness, when he talks about ideas related to evolutionary psychology, i think he is often at his most interesting. Anyway, it is nice to get your feed back on it.

I do have to say that with creationism, it isn't about being 'worth it', it is something that has to be done, because of the political clout that section of christianity weilds, so very, very destructively.

David Fryer wrote:

Because the First Amendment is there to protect religion from government. That is something that too many people don't understand.

That's half right, as I'm sure you know. Even a cursory perusal of the Framers' correspondence makes it clear that (a) government needs to be kept out of religion, as you correctly point out, AND (b) religion must equally be kept from temporal power (i.e., imposing government).

"But," you say, "the founders' correspondence isn't the Constitution!" No, it's not, but it can serve as a valuable guide for what was intended in the passages that aren't totally clear -- the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written by men, men who left behind records of what they were attempting to do; it wasn't handed down on a set of stone tablets from on high.

Pretending the Establishment Clause is a one-way street is patheric Dominionist propaganda, coming from people like the Discovery Institute. Coming from you, it's nowhere near that bad of course, but it's still a bit disengenuous, given how well-read you seem to be, David.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their "legislature" should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

It seems pretty clear to me that in Jeffersons would not describe the example you have given as an attack on the constitution.

So I am with christipher hitchens on this one, "Build that wall higher Mr Jefferson."

Samnell wrote:

It's not Christianity that's spared me; it's Christianity's waning influence.

Some might see it as the result of lots of INDIVIDUAL Christians (and other religious people) becoming more enlightened and tolerant, the consequence of higher education levels and empowerment. Effectively becoming better Christians. :)

Some Christians might think that. I think they became better people despite their Christianity, and it happened by no coincidence at a time when religious domination over society cracked, fragmented, and failed against the power of increasingly secular governments despite the devoted opposition of the ecclesiastical authorities of the time.

Crimson Jester wrote:

not all things should be equal.

Not to sidetrack the conversation But if I may ask Samnell I remember a thread awhile back on a friend of yours that was attacked. How is he doing may I ask?

You have me confused with someone else. I don't have any friends who were recently victims of violence.

I suspect he may have been thinking of Jeremy McGillan, who did share with the boards when his boyfriend was the victim of a very serious attack.

(Quoted Jefferson's oft-cited letter to the Danbury Baptists)

If that's not enough, this one's even clearer, and from the "Father of the Constitution" himself:

During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. Enquire of the Teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest luster; those of every sect, point to the ages prior to its incorporation with Civil policy.

—Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, To the Honorable General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia (June 20, 1785).

Emperor7 wrote:

Samnell wrote:

It's not Christianity that's spared me; it's Christianity's waning influence.

Some might see it as the result of lots of INDIVIDUAL Christians (and other religious people) becoming more enlightened and tolerant, the consequence of higher education levels and empowerment. Effectively becoming better Christians. :)

Some Christians might think that. I think they became better people despite their Christianity, and it happened by no coincidence at a time when religious domination over society cracked, fragmented, and failed against the power of increasingly secular governments despite the devoted opposition of the ecclesiastical authorities of the time.

Sad POV. Though the saying 'those in power...' comes to mind. *sigh*

I do believe Christianity has evolved along with its followers. Not all of course.

I do believe Christianity has evolved along with its followers. Not all of course.

Christianity is at war with itself. Those who embrace the teachings of Christ end up being ostracized from the mainstream church, in my experience, because the words and actions of Jesus are antithetical to the goals of 'organized religion.'

IMO, the pursuit of secular authority (dominionists) and material wealth (prosperity gospels) are corruptions that are dragging Christianity down, and getting mud all over it, without even considering those fools who want to rewrite the teachings of Jesus over at Conservipedia to make him sound 'less liberal.' Those who would be faithful see this sort of nonsense and are disillusioned, turning to atheism, or agnosticism, or new-fangled 'old faiths' like Wicca or Asatru, instead of recognizing that the message of Jesus is valuable, even if those who most fervently call themselves Christians (while proclaiming messages of hate, exclusion, violence, the celebration of tragedies like 9/11 or Katrina as God's punishment, etc.) are without grace.

Far too many 'bad apples' are spoiling the whole faith in the eyes of a generation. And they, unfortunately, are the ones who get all the press (and the multi-million dollar programs and such).

Those with questions in their hearts seek, and find only slick and glamorous over-marketed product, with no soul to it, no real answers. Faith is about doubt. It's about finding a place for yourself in the world. Increasingly, it's about the scary, scary universe around us, which makes us feel tiny and insignificant, and being reassured that we do matter and that a single person can make a difference.

We look for a Joan of Arc, and all we find is an assemblage of Paris Hiltons, screaming at us from the television.

Emperor7 wrote:

I do believe Christianity has evolved along with its followers. Not all of course.

Christianity is at war with itself. Those who embrace the teachings of Christ end up being ostracized from the mainstream church, in my experience, because the words and actions of Jesus are antithetical to the goals of 'organized religion.'

IMO, the pursuit of secular authority (dominionists) and material wealth (prosperity gospels) are corruptions that are dragging Christianity down, and getting mud all over it, without even considering those fools who want to rewrite the teachings of Jesus over at Conservipedia to make him sound 'less liberal.' Those who would be faithful see this sort of nonsense and are disillusioned, turning to atheism, or agnosticism, or new-fangled 'old faiths' like Wicca or Asatru, instead of recognizing that the message of Jesus is valuable, even if those who most fervently call themselves Christians (while proclaiming messages of hate, exclusion, violence, the celebration of tragedies like 9/11 or Katrina as God's punishment, etc.) are without grace.

Far too many 'bad apples' are spoiling the whole faith in the eyes of a generation. And they, unfortunately, are the ones who get all the press (and the multi-million dollar programs and such).

Those with questions in their hearts seek, and find only slick and glamorous over-marketed product, with no soul to it, no real answers. Faith is about doubt. It's about finding a place for yourself in the world. Increasingly, it's about the scary, scary universe around us, which makes us feel tiny and insignificant, and being reassured that we do matter and that a single person can make a difference.

We look for a Joan of Arc, and all we find is an assemblage of Paris Hiltons, screaming at us from the television.

Wow that is a very cynical view. May I ask did you have a very negative encounter at a church once? Or was it just the growing number of televangilists who are partaking of large amounts of various degrees prostitution and or young boys?

Wow that is a very cynical view. May I ask did you have a very negative encounter at a church once? Or was it just the growing number of televangilists who are partaking...

Mostly the latter (although I've spent time in churches ranging from Catholic to Jehovah's Witness, during my 'looking for answers' phase). It seems to me that faith, like patriotism, is more truly felt by those that don't get up in front of crowds and brag about it. The harder they thump the Bible (or wave the flag), the less sincere they seem to be, in my experience.

...

I think the last book I read from Dawkins was Unweaving the Rainbow and I walked away from it a little disappointed and didn't read anything that followed. There is something about reading something from someone with one world view when they write about your own world view that doesn't sit right I guess. I hear The God Delusion is quite a romp for those with religious world views.

Again, the guy is a genius, I'll give him that. And dedicated, I'll give it to him double.

As for memes, I don't think the idea has taken off in sociology, psychology, and cultural criticism because it's just not possible to talk about memes in the reductive manner that we use to discuss genes--and this is pretty well covered ground in cultural studies--it's not my opinion. Yet there is no arguing that the term itself was a brilliant breakthrough and that it is extremely useful in broad cultural discourse--that I get and I certainly have no problem when people use the word in that kind of context.

As for my "brush them off my dinner jacket" attitude to literalist Christians: they are not threatening my way of life, they're not hijacking my government, and I've never had any troubles with them that weren't instantly solved by walking the other direction. This I have in common with Canadian atheists. It's just not necessary for us to have a trench warfare mentality about the religion debate up there in America's hat.

In regard to Unweaving the Rainbow (wish I had it here with me):

I do not think science and art are at odds at all, never have, and agree with Dawkins on that. Keats was a moron and his poetry sucks, I hated teaching him.

But I don't think science is poetic. Escaping the anaesthetic of familiarity through science, sure, that's cool. I like that. Science and art both offer this to us in different ways and I never needed Dawkins to show me. Sagan did that for me when I was a lad and was much better at it than Dawkins.

Zombieneighbours wrote:

(Quoted Jefferson's oft-cited letter to the Danbury Baptists)

If that's not enough, this one's even clearer, and from the "Father of the Constitution" himself:

James Madison wrote:

During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. Enquire of the Teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest luster; those of every sect, point to the ages prior to its incorporation with Civil policy.

—Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, To the Honorable General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia (June 20, 1785).

I haven't had the pleasure of reading that before. While i prefer Jeffersons turn of phrase in the letter, this really does spell out the meaning of the establishment clause with such clarity that non-should be able to ignore it.

Sad POV. Though the saying 'those in power...' comes to mind. *sigh*

Of course. Every religion that gained power has behaved the same way, even if some (say, Greco-Roman polytheism) were light-years better than others.

In regard to Unweaving the Rainbow (wish I had it here with me):

I do not think science and art are at odds at all, never have, and agree with Dawkins on that. Keats was a moron and his poetry sucks, I hated teaching him.

But I don't think science is poetic. Escaping the anaesthetic of familiarity through science, sure, that's cool. I like that. Science and art both offer this to us in different ways and I never needed Dawkins to show me. Sagan did that for me when I was a lad and was much better at it than Dawkins.

That Carl Sagan is the master, amongst all overs, of showing us the pure majasty of the universe, and the poetry of the knowledge, i think it telling that when you reach for someone to compare dawkin's discourse to, you must reach so high upon the tree.

Dawkins has a great deal of poetry to his writing, form the opening of The ancestor's tale "How shall we know the past, and how date it? What aids to our vision will help us peer into theatres of ancient life and reconstruct the scenes and the players, their exits and their entrances, of long ago?" to his discription of Middle World.

That's some pretty smooth prose. I'll give you that.

Thinking about this a little more... I suspect that we see art in different ways. And poetry.

I'll also give you this: you have aroused my interest in reading his stuff again.

Well, that we have different views on art and poetry is to be expected. People who's world views lay far closer together than you and I can have distances between their tastes which match the gulfs between stars. But that is pretty health really.

Wow that is a very cynical view. May I ask did you have a very negative encounter at a church once? Or was it just the growing number of televangilists who are partaking of large amounts of various degrees prostitution and or young boys?

Did you mean to imply that Set's feelings could only have been the result of a very isolated event? That is the way I took it.

Christianity has been at war with itself since pretty much the beginning. Or are we going to ignore Arianism, non-Jewish Christians, East–West Schism, ect.?

I was just looking up Christmas on Wikipedia, and I thought this was rather pertinent.

Crimson Jester wrote:

Wow that is a very cynical view. May I ask did you have a very negative encounter at a church once? Or was it just the growing number of televangelists who are partaking of large amounts of various degrees prostitution and or young boys?

Did you mean to imply that Set's feelings could only have been the result of a very isolated event? That is the way I took it.

Christianity has been at war with itself since pretty much the beginning. Or are we going to ignore Aryanism, non-Jewish Christians, East–West Schism, ect?

No, that was not my intention. I was just interested.

I have met a growing number of people who are, shall we say, distressed with organized religion. Not because of what that group believes or says or does. Rather from the actions of one individual involved with said group.

BTK was a president of the Lutheran Church which has since had a sharp drop in membership.

And though I don’t feel the same way I can sympathize with those feelings. Every hypocrite in charge just pushes people away.

One bad apple as the saying goes. Unfortunately there have been many.

I was just looking up Christmas on Wikipedia, and I thought this was rather pertinent.

In 2005, Wal-Mart was criticized by the Catholic League for avoiding the word "Christmas" in any of their marketing efforts."The company had downplayed the term "Christmas" in much of its advertising for several years. This caused some backlash among the public, prompting some groups to pass around petitions and threaten boycotts against the company, as well as several other prominent retailers that practiced similar obscurations of the holiday. In 2006, in response to the public outcry, Wal-Mart announced that they were amending their policy and would be using "Christmas" rather than "holiday". Among the changes, they noted that the former "Holiday Shop" would become the "Christmas Shop", and that there would be a "countin' down the days to Christmas" feature.

Oh yes the Catholic League:

Something else to chew on. Consider a primary school teacher in America was Muslim and wanted to wear a full niqab.

Oh yes the Catholic League:

More Catholic then the Pope!
All the controversy and twice the guilt!
Bringing back Hellfire and Damnation since 1973!

How about the American Family Association? I am not familiar with either organization. Are they both about equally zealous?

Let me make sure I have this correct, all of the so called 'attacks' from Christians do not count because you (the general you) are not those type of Christians.

Ah, well, then, I am not one of those atheists. So I guess there really are not any attacks at all. How about a group hug?

Let me make sure I have this correct, all of the so called 'attacks' from Christians do not count because you (the general you) are not those type of Christians.

Ah, well, then, I am not one of those atheists. So I guess there really are not any attacks at all. How about a group hug?

Huh?!?

How about a group hug?

It's a trap. You just want to hump everyone's legs, don't you?

CourtFool wrote:

How about a group hug?

It's a trap. You just want to hump everyone's legs, don't you?

Say what you like about akbar, the big fish guy knows a trap when he see's one.

Crimson Jester wrote:

Oh yes the Catholic League:

More Catholic then the Pope!
All the controversy and twice the guilt!
Bringing back Hellfire and Damnation since 1973!

How about the American Family Association? I am not familiar with either organization. Are they both about equally zealous?

Speaking only from personal experiance, they are not. But take that with a grain of salt, since I have not had much direct contact with AFA. From my few dealings with them, they are a much less proactive group. The state their opinions and try to back them up. Whereas the Catholic League states thier opinion and then tries to enforce it. That maybe a small quibble. but it is there none the less.

CourtFool wrote:

How about a group hug?

It's a trap. You just want to hump everyone's legs, don't you?

Gah! You found me out!