5 of 8
5
911: Religion did this
Posted: 17 September 2011 10:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 61 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  582
Joined  2010-04-19
ohio204 - 17 September 2011 08:38 AM
Cloak - 17 September 2011 07:49 AM

I’m a little lost as to why this is so difficult to understand, Ohio. There is no apparent “difficulty” in “explaining” it unless you separate it from the mission statement as a whole. They are not talking about obliterating religion. They are talking about moving it out of a place where it doesn’t belong. Why are you so fixated on individual words when the context clearly clarifies their intended meanings?

This issue of “supplant” has turned into folly.
defined
1. to take the place of (another), as through force, scheming, strategy, or the like.
2. to replace (one thing) by something else.
ref; http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/supplant

*note, recently I have only posted on this issue as to answer a question or remark made to me.
If we do not wish to tackle the issue as to why “supplant” is used in the mission statement, then let it go.

I’ve never disputed the meaning of the word “supplant”. I know exactly what it means. They want to REPLACE all the stuff I mentioned above in my last post with a more reasoned approach. This does not apply to one’s right to practice religion, but to whether or not religious preconceptions determine decisions on public and foreign policy. I have no problem with them using that word in the mission statement, because the context is the key in determining what exactly they are talking about.

What Doug was saying was perfectly valid. Its not like he couldn’t “explain” the use of the word supplant like you are making it out as. The issue of “supplant turned into folly” when you decided to zero in on it and separate it from its original context. Until then, nobody was confused about its meaning or intent.

 Signature 

Don’t get set into one form, adapt it and build your own, and let it grow, be like water. Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless — like water. Now you put water in a cup, it becomes the cup; You put water into a bottle it becomes the bottle; You put it in a teapot it becomes the teapot. Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend.

- Bruce Lee -

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 September 2011 11:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 62 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15305
Joined  2006-02-14

Exactly so, Cloak. To spell out the obvious, any advocacy organization exists to advocate that their view “supplant” the contradictory view. Once again let’s work to discharge the malevolent insinuations, since they’re false.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 September 2011 03:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 63 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  156
Joined  2010-10-14
Tradition Of Progress - 15 September 2011 08:34 PM
Nelson - 11 September 2011 06:04 PM

I know there are Christians, Jews and Muslims who say that agnostics and atheists like me must likewise take responsibility for the atrocities of Hitler and Stalin, since both were atheists.

Hitler was not and atheist.  Atheists do not make their soldiers wear belt buckles inscribed with “God with us.”

buckle.jpeg

Atheists do not make deals with the Vatican that they and their preists will be in charge of education.
concordat.jpg

If he had been an atheist, would he appoint someone to the position of “Reichbishop”?
b5-bex1-4739.jpg

Hitler was a Roman Catholic
hitler_cardinal4.jpg

http://nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm
http://ahquotes.tripod.com/

That of course, does not mean that Roman Catholics are Nazis.  After all, the Reichbishop was actually Lutheran, so the Nazis had plenty of Protestants on board too.  Some say that Hitler was actually inspired by Martin Luther too.

You do realise that religion plays a major role in politics and government?

Hitler was not a theist…and he used the church like every other leader…you can justify almost anything in the name of god…look at Bush who says God told him to go to war…

It’s the same reason why America for the forseeable future will never have a atheist president because in order to get anywhere you need to embrace or atleast pretent to care about the religious majority…“One nation under God”.

 Signature 

As I look back on my life, If I could have the glorious moment
The wondrous opportunity to comprehend
The chance to see my younger self
One time, To converse
To hear his thoughts

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 September 2011 08:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 64 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2291
Joined  2007-07-05

So religion and politics are often about turning people into brainwashed dummies.

Leaders are people who want followers dumber than they are.

So the Internet should be about distributing information and knowledge to make people smarter.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 September 2011 01:03 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 65 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2591
Joined  2011-04-24
psikeyhackr - 18 September 2011 08:20 AM

So religion and politics are often about turning people into brainwashed dummies.

Leaders are people who want followers dumber than they are.

So the Internet should be about distributing information and knowledge to make people smarter.

psik

Not all leaders.

 Signature 

Raise your glass if you’re wrong…. in all the right ways.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 September 2011 01:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 66 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  113
Joined  2009-10-17
Affluenza - 17 September 2011 03:00 PM

You do realise that religion plays a major role in politics and government?

Of course I do, and like many others, I am also aware that the greater a role it plays in politics and government, the worse government gets.  Many religious people, for example, Reverend George Mason, and Reverend Roger Williams, have made the case that it is also bad for religion.  Do you realize that because of this, the first clause of the First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution attempts to discourage this?  Are you aware that the last clause of article 6 attempts to do the same?
I am old enough to remember when even Republican conservatives like Barry Goldwater supported the Separation of Church and State.  Now, we even have Democrats who do not support it.

Hitler was not a theist…and he used the church like every other leader…you can justify almost anything in the name of god…look at Bush who says God told him to go to war…

It’s the same reason why America for the forseeable future will never have a atheist president because in order to get anywhere you need to embrace or atleast pretent to care about the religious majority…“One nation under God”.

Hitler was not a theist…

You seem certain of this, without providing any evidence.  Repeating this statement does not make it true and none of the other statements you include support this.  The first paragraph of this article http://ahquotes.tripod.com/ states that there is no evidence to support the statement that he was an atheist, and has evidence to support contrary.

...and he used the church like every other leader…you can justify almost anything in the name of god…

First, where do you think much of the anti-Semitism and Nazi ideals came from? They did not just create them out of thin air.  At least one article (maybe more) that I have read in Free Inquiry makes the case that these ideas came from Christianity in the first place.  Who was it who decreed that Jews had to wear the Star of David, and who enacted laws prohibiting them from owning land?  The Nazis were not the first.  Shadia Drury wrote a piece on the Dominicans: http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=drury_28_4

Second, let’s revisit your statement:

...and he used the church like every other leader…you can justify almost anything in the name of god…

Of course he did.  Usually before convincing others that one is acting on the authority of some deity or some transcendent force, a person first convinces himself of this.  Or if it is a group of people, they first convince themselves that they are on this authority.  Convincing one’s self of this is a rather common delusion.  For example…

...look at Bush who says God told him to go to war…

Thank you.  Do you honestly think that George W. Bush himself did not buy into the myth that the Abrahamic god chose him leader of the U.S?  What evidence suggests that he is a clever enough manipulator to have been an atheist while projecting the image that he is a devout Christian?  If he were that clever, he would have a good idea about whom he could not convince.  He would not have attempted to convince Jacques Chirac to join him to fight Gog and Magog in Iraq http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=haught_29_5  This is more likely the behavior of someone who has deluded himself into believing that he is chosen by a god, who has bought into the myth himself and using religion to rationalize his actions to himself before using religion to convince others.

It’s the same reason why America for the forseeable future will never have a atheist president because in order to get anywhere you need to embrace or atleast pretent to care about the religious majority…“One nation under God”.

It is because of this fact, and the need to change this, that the Center of Free Inquiry exists in the first place.  If you do not think that there is any hope in changing this, then tell Tom Flynn that it is a lost cause and that the CFI should call it quits and shut down this website.

It is interesting that you mentioned the 1956 adoption of “One Nation Under God” as the US motto and the insertion of it into the U. S. pledge of Allegiance.  These changes were made a little more than a decade after the U.S. and its Allies defeated the Nazi’s who had “God with us” inscribed on their belt buckles.  It was as if certain parties within the U.S. saw that and said: “Great idea!  Let’s do that in our country!”  Of course, it is more likely that this is a case of those not remembering the past being condemned to repeat it.

 Signature 

I Don’t Want My Country Back, I Want My Country Forward

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 September 2011 04:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 67 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9284
Joined  2006-08-29
Tradition Of Progress - 24 September 2011 01:18 PM

First, where do you think much of the anti-Semitism and Nazi ideals came from? They did not just create them out of thin air.  At least one article (maybe more) that I have read in Free Inquiry makes the case that these ideas came from Christianity in the first place.  Who was it who decreed that Jews had to wear the Star of David, and who enacted laws prohibiting them from owning land?  The Nazis were not the first.

No, the Nazis were not the first nor the last. The Jews under communism (which had obviously nothing to do with Christianity) suffered as much as they always did during their long existence in Europe. Europeans never accepted the Jews, and religion was far from being the major cause of it. Religion did play a role here, but it was used as a pretext why the already hated Jews needed to be punished. I could tell you why the Europeans never accepted the Jews but I think you better look for it yourself—I am not in the mood to be accused of antisemitism. (I know how things usually turn out on this forum.)

And to imply that the Nazis’ ideals were derived from Christianity is simply nonsense. I am not sure what else to add here.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 September 2011 05:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 68 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  202
Joined  2011-09-02

TP; I’m considering the idea that the words “one nation under God” was inserted into the Pledge of Allegiance by “certain parties” after seeing the inscription “God with us” on Nazi belt buckles.
If this is to be true, wouldn’t these “certain parties” have mandated that the Bellamy salute to be continued as well? Or was it simply that someone remembered the past and discontinued the B salute and that the “belt buckle theory” for the insertion of words “under God” is amiss.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 September 2011 09:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 69 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  89
Joined  2011-09-20

“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” (At-Tauba, 29).

Just a quick note… trying to characterise Islam from a cherry picked verse from the koran would be rather like thinking you know all about America and Americans from ‘Turn the other cheek’ or ‘It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven’.  I haven’t been to America, but I am willing to be bet that the impression of meek indifference to worldly materialism I get of your wonderful country from those verses is not going to last long if I did!

If you want to understand Islam and Muslims the best way is to go out and make some Muslim friends, or do what I did…. marry one!

[ Edited: 24 September 2011 09:28 PM by keithprosser2 ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 September 2011 10:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 70 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  156
Joined  2010-10-14
Tradition Of Progress - 24 September 2011 01:18 PM

Affluenza - 17 September 2011 03:00 PM

You do realise that religion plays a major role in politics and government?

Of course I do, and like many others, I am also aware that the greater a role it plays in politics and government, the worse government gets.  Many religious people, for example, Reverend George Mason, and Reverend Roger Williams, have made the case that it is also bad for religion.  Do you realize that because of this, the first clause of the First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution attempts to discourage this?  Are you aware that the last clause of article 6 attempts to do the same?
I am old enough to remember when even Republican conservatives like Barry Goldwater supported the Separation of Church and State.  Now, we even have Democrats who do not support it.

Good for you?

Tradition Of Progress - 24 September 2011 01:18 PM

You seem certain of this, without providing any evidence.  Repeating this statement does not make it true and none of the other statements you include support this.  The first paragraph of this article http://ahquotes.tripod.com/ states that there is no evidence to support the statement that he was an atheist, and has evidence to support contrary.

I didn’t repeat the statement I said it once. Meh.

Nor did I say Hitler was an atheist. Infact I never stated an opinion of Hitlers actual beliefs other than crossing out theism. If you want my opinion he was a deist.

Tradition Of Progress - 24 September 2011 01:18 PM

First, where do you think much of the anti-Semitism and Nazi ideals came from? They did not just create them out of thin air.  At least one article (maybe more) that I have read in Free Inquiry makes the case that these ideas came from Christianity in the first place.  Who was it who decreed that Jews had to wear the Star of David, and who enacted laws prohibiting them from owning land?  The Nazis were not the first.  Shadia Drury wrote a piece on the Dominicans: http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=drury_28_4.

lolwut? Jews have been persecuted prior to the formation of Christianity…read a history book.

Also…in my opinion that piece is utter garbage.

Tradition Of Progress - 24 September 2011 01:18 PM

It is because of this fact, and the need to change this, that the Center of Free Inquiry exists in the first place.  If you do not think that there is any hope in changing this, then tell Tom Flynn that it is a lost cause and that the CFI should call it quits and shut down this website.

I don’t take sides with groups of people…I’m here because I enjoy participating in discussions…

[ Edited: 25 September 2011 10:55 AM by Affluenza ]
 Signature 

As I look back on my life, If I could have the glorious moment
The wondrous opportunity to comprehend
The chance to see my younger self
One time, To converse
To hear his thoughts

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 September 2011 05:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 71 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  113
Joined  2009-10-17
ohio204 - 24 September 2011 05:01 PM

TP; I’m considering the idea that the words “one nation under God” was inserted into the Pledge of Allegiance by “certain parties” after seeing the inscription “God with us” on Nazi belt buckles.
If this is to be true, wouldn’t these “certain parties” have mandated that the Bellamy salute to be continued as well? Or was it simply that someone remembered the past and discontinued the B salute and that the “belt buckle theory” for the insertion of words “under God” is amiss.

I did state:

Of course, it is more likely that this is a case of those not remembering the past being condemned to repeat it.

So, it was not so much a theory of some people getting the idea from the Nazis as just pointing out some irony.  The suggestion that anyone said: “Great idea! Let’s do that!” was meant to be seen as absurd.  So please stop considering the idea any more.*

Anyway,  it is much more likely that those who lobbied to put those “God” references into the Pledge of Allegiance and other places, never even saw the belt buckles or photos of them, or if they did see them, had no idea what the belt buckles said.  It is more likely that if they ever did, they forgot about it, and in their efforts to be as unlike the Soviets as possible, did not realize that taking steps in the direction of theocracy was another direction that should be avoided.

[edited to add the part marked with *]

[ Edited: 25 September 2011 05:55 PM by Tradition Of Progress ]
 Signature 

I Don’t Want My Country Back, I Want My Country Forward

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 September 2011 05:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 72 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  113
Joined  2009-10-17
Affluenza - 25 September 2011 10:43 AM

I didn’t repeat the statement I said it once. Meh.

Nor did I say Hitler was an atheist. Infact I never stated an opinion of Hitlers actual beliefs other than crossing out theism. If you want my opinion he was a deist.

You stated:

Affluenza - 17 September 2011 03:00 PM

Hitler was not a theist…

Often Deism, is considered to still be theism, because it still includes a belief in the existance of a deity.  But, I can see now that you when you used the term “theist”, that you did not mean simply believing in the existance of a deity, but a belief in an active deity.  I can see now that you meant “theist”  as mutually exclusive of “Deist”.  So, since that is what you meant, you were sctually not to repeating a claim that was previously stated by someone else, that Hitler was an atheist.  I acknowledge that I misunderstood you.

So, in this case, we agree that Hitler was not an atheist.

 Signature 

I Don’t Want My Country Back, I Want My Country Forward

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 September 2011 08:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 73 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  156
Joined  2010-10-14
Tradition Of Progress - 25 September 2011 05:52 PM
Affluenza - 25 September 2011 10:43 AM

I didn’t repeat the statement I said it once. Meh.

Nor did I say Hitler was an atheist. Infact I never stated an opinion of Hitlers actual beliefs other than crossing out theism. If you want my opinion he was a deist.

You stated:

Affluenza - 17 September 2011 03:00 PM

Hitler was not a theist…

Often Deism, is considered to still be theism, because it still includes a belief in the existance of a deity.  But, I can see now that you when you used the term “theist”, that you did not mean simply believing in the existance of a deity, but a belief in an active deity.  I can see now that you meant “theist”  as mutually exclusive of “Deist”.  So, since that is what you meant, you were sctually not to repeating a claim that was previously stated by someone else, that Hitler was an atheist.  I acknowledge that I misunderstood you.

So, in this case, we agree that Hitler was not an atheist.

Yep!

 Signature 

As I look back on my life, If I could have the glorious moment
The wondrous opportunity to comprehend
The chance to see my younger self
One time, To converse
To hear his thoughts

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 March 2013 03:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 74 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  207
Joined  2012-09-14

Of course I do, and like many others, I am also aware that the greater a role it plays in politics and government, the worse government gets.

Isnt that a bit of an exaggeration?

Take islam for example.  Granted there is no country in which shariah is fully implemented.

Former CIA agent Phillip Giraldi mentions.

              There are more than 50 predominantly Muslim countries in the world, and, while most have elements of Shariah in their civil and family law, only two have it as their criminal codes. They are
              Saudi Arabia and Iran

              http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2012/04/03/the-islamophobia-excuse/


So studying these countries will let us know about how religion affects crime. What do we notice about crime in these countries?

 

“Most scholars attribute the low Saudi Arabian crime ratemainly to the strong influence of Islam in various spheres of life in Saudi society, particularly to the implementation of Shariah
After…the implementation of Shariah law throughout the country, crime rates decreased dramatically while apparent feelings of personal safety and social order improved (Mourad, 1980 pp504-14) Other studies broadly support these conclusions. (Basha, 1979; Basanawi, 1984)
Comparative conducted by Western criminologists are largely consistent with the conclusions….Adler (1983) lists Saudi Arabia among her 10 low crime rate nations….
These studies are in accord with the overall high sense of security and personal safety among Saudi citizens. (El-Sendiony, 1981)

          Transnational and Comparative criminology,
          by Prof Sheptycki & Prof Wardak
            Page 93-95
            (read at books.google.com)

This is NOT to say that these countries are absolutely perfect. But where they follow religion in their government, they seem prosperous

 Signature 

Say: He is God, the Unique.
God, the Self-Sufficient.
He does not give birth, nor was He born.
And there is none equal to Him.

Quran (112: 1-4)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 March 2013 07:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 75 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  637
Joined  2012-04-25
I.J. Abdul Hakeem - 01 March 2013 03:13 PM

Of course I do, and like many others, I am also aware that the greater a role it plays in politics and government, the worse government gets.

Isnt that a bit of an exaggeration?

Take islam for example.  Granted there is no country in which shariah is fully implemented.

...

This is NOT to say that these countries are absolutely perfect. But where they follow religion in their government, they seem prosperous

I’m guessing you’re a male, drive a car, and have a great high paying job, don’t need a guardian wherever you go, and you enjoy voting. Yep, very prosperous.

Profile
 
 
   
5 of 8
5