"Blessed is the mind too small for doubt."
I decided that this would be the title of my next LJ entry a few hours ago, while playing Dark Crusade. The Imperium of Man is insanely quotable, and I like it. It has a certain appeal to me. Seriously, I did not choose this particular quote to coincide with the argument I had later. It's just shockingly appropriate. More on that later.
There's not much going on right now. That's why my updates have been sparse. "Blah blah blah, still no job. Blah blah blah, still sexy. Blah blah blah, still looking like there's a big payday in the future due to training a pitcher." Not wasting the time or the electrons to remind you of it.
Anyway, I'm thoroughly agitated right now, so I'm going to rant about something. If you don't want to be pissed, don't read it.
What the hell is it about religion turning smart people into idiots? I swear, I try to have respect for religion and its traditions, even ones I don't believe in - except for Islam, because that's just dumb - but inevitably, I encounter a religious person, and it all comes crashing down. Oh, not all religious people are like this, but enough that it's an alarming trend. I've had the occasional period of faith-induced idiocity, I'll admit, but that just helps me make my point. To quote Michael Shermer, "Smart people are very good at rationalizing things they came to believe for non-smart reasons." The part that really pisses me off, however, is when people get to the point where they won't even discuss a position that isn't their own without hostility. How childish can you really get? It's not an uncommon attitude, but one of the most shocking and shameful. The discussion that sparked this wasn't even about the specifics of religion, but the laws pertaining to the exercise of it.
In this entry, a specific discussion is being used to springboard into a the general. Though I phrase things as if addressing someone, I am, but it's just because I was denied a chance to refute statements in the discussion that led to this entry.
If this argument was with you, and you're reading anyway, you have two choices: stop or be a fucking adult. I know you're just going to get pissed, even though you were the one pushing your opinion on me and then getting angry when I didn't agree, but I'd be delighted if you proved me wrong. Make your decision now, because now comes the actual content.
Your hypothetical situation revolved around an atheist in a Christian environment expected to participate in a "non-sectarian prayer." That refers to probably all Christian faiths. Possibly, at best, the entire Judeo-Christian faith family. Let's change it up a bit. What if the student was a Christian, expected to participate in Islamic prayer? Or Mithran prayer? Hindu prayer? Zoroastorist? Buddhist? Norse? Greek? Flying Spaghetti Monsterist? Whatever. Would that be different? Would that change your perspective? According to the law, it doesn't matter. The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom ofspeech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably toassemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. That's right - the very first part of the Bill of Rights addresses this. There will be no establishment of religion by the state. The Fourteenth Amendment extends that these to the governments of individual states. Therefore, logically (and supported by the Supreme Court), there is no difference to the law which religion is being practiced. All are either permitted, or not. In this case, not - requiring students to participate in religious activities as part of a public education is a violation of their individual rights. Christian and non-Christian alike are protected from government-sanctioned subversion. Equal protection under the law. This doesn't prevent a person or a student group from praying privately, if they so choose, but they are given a choice, unlike the student in your example. Which is great, because it leaves religion to be something pursued at home or in church, where it belongs. I'm sick and tired of hearing "Christians" pout and whine because they're not allowed to evangelize to young people via public institutions because they feel some absurd sense of entitlement, trying to use the very Amendment that prevents it to justify taking over the government.
The most offensive and blatantly absurd part of the discussion was the idea that the practice of exercising rights as inferred by the protections granted by the First Amendment "has ripped the moral base of this country to shreds and caused half the shit we have to deal with now." The first part, considering the context, is an attempt to link morality and belief in Christianity. Which is funny, because I know a lot of good people who don't consider them Christians, and lots of not-so-good people who do. And I know you do too. The second part, after establishing the first, is just scary. Do you know who Fred Phelps is? That's what he teaches. That God is punishing us for not being, as a society, exactly what He thinks we should be. Granted, the thought process isn't invalidated just because of other people who believed it, but I can't think of any other logical progression. The idea that society is doomed because we don't believe exactly what one subset believes is not just laughable, it's criminal.
The idea that religion holds value "as a moral foundation and base" is hilarious. See, I was raised a Protestant, and I made a decent go of it during my adult life too. Which means, I read the Bible, and I know what's in it. Anyone who bases their personal moral code on the Bible will be arrested inside a week, and/or fitted for a straightjacket. See, the truth is, societies influence religion, not the other way around. The way your religion is telling you to behave is due to modern societal norms, not any religious precedent. Morality as it exists in the Bible is a horrific thing, and there's no way you'd agree with it. It could be even worse - the things implied to be correct by the Bible might actually apply. Yikes. Granted, as a Catholic, you might agree that the Bible alone isn't a good source - it needs interpretation through priests. Who, you might remember, are men, whose beliefs are influenced by society. That, plus the fact that if religions don't mesh at all with the people who might convert to them, they don't survive because no one converts. So that seals it. Religions are based in society, not the other way around.
One funny thing about this is, this argument is basically "old Republican" vs. "new Republican," "personal liberty" vs. "Religious Right." Another is the quote from the title. I love Warhammer 40k. I find the setting awesome, particularly the Imperium of Man. In the 41st millenium, mankind is a devout society of fascists, worshipping the Emperor, eternally on the brink of death inside his throne. Doubt is invitation for xeno corruption or, worse, Chaos. But real life isn't like that, and I don't want it to be. In the grim dark future, there is only war.
So yeah. Pissed.
There's not much going on right now. That's why my updates have been sparse. "Blah blah blah, still no job. Blah blah blah, still sexy. Blah blah blah, still looking like there's a big payday in the future due to training a pitcher." Not wasting the time or the electrons to remind you of it.
Anyway, I'm thoroughly agitated right now, so I'm going to rant about something. If you don't want to be pissed, don't read it.
What the hell is it about religion turning smart people into idiots? I swear, I try to have respect for religion and its traditions, even ones I don't believe in - except for Islam, because that's just dumb - but inevitably, I encounter a religious person, and it all comes crashing down. Oh, not all religious people are like this, but enough that it's an alarming trend. I've had the occasional period of faith-induced idiocity, I'll admit, but that just helps me make my point. To quote Michael Shermer, "Smart people are very good at rationalizing things they came to believe for non-smart reasons." The part that really pisses me off, however, is when people get to the point where they won't even discuss a position that isn't their own without hostility. How childish can you really get? It's not an uncommon attitude, but one of the most shocking and shameful. The discussion that sparked this wasn't even about the specifics of religion, but the laws pertaining to the exercise of it.
In this entry, a specific discussion is being used to springboard into a the general. Though I phrase things as if addressing someone, I am, but it's just because I was denied a chance to refute statements in the discussion that led to this entry.
If this argument was with you, and you're reading anyway, you have two choices: stop or be a fucking adult. I know you're just going to get pissed, even though you were the one pushing your opinion on me and then getting angry when I didn't agree, but I'd be delighted if you proved me wrong. Make your decision now, because now comes the actual content.
Your hypothetical situation revolved around an atheist in a Christian environment expected to participate in a "non-sectarian prayer." That refers to probably all Christian faiths. Possibly, at best, the entire Judeo-Christian faith family. Let's change it up a bit. What if the student was a Christian, expected to participate in Islamic prayer? Or Mithran prayer? Hindu prayer? Zoroastorist? Buddhist? Norse? Greek? Flying Spaghetti Monsterist? Whatever. Would that be different? Would that change your perspective? According to the law, it doesn't matter. The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom ofspeech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably toassemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. That's right - the very first part of the Bill of Rights addresses this. There will be no establishment of religion by the state. The Fourteenth Amendment extends that these to the governments of individual states. Therefore, logically (and supported by the Supreme Court), there is no difference to the law which religion is being practiced. All are either permitted, or not. In this case, not - requiring students to participate in religious activities as part of a public education is a violation of their individual rights. Christian and non-Christian alike are protected from government-sanctioned subversion. Equal protection under the law. This doesn't prevent a person or a student group from praying privately, if they so choose, but they are given a choice, unlike the student in your example. Which is great, because it leaves religion to be something pursued at home or in church, where it belongs. I'm sick and tired of hearing "Christians" pout and whine because they're not allowed to evangelize to young people via public institutions because they feel some absurd sense of entitlement, trying to use the very Amendment that prevents it to justify taking over the government.
The most offensive and blatantly absurd part of the discussion was the idea that the practice of exercising rights as inferred by the protections granted by the First Amendment "has ripped the moral base of this country to shreds and caused half the shit we have to deal with now." The first part, considering the context, is an attempt to link morality and belief in Christianity. Which is funny, because I know a lot of good people who don't consider them Christians, and lots of not-so-good people who do. And I know you do too. The second part, after establishing the first, is just scary. Do you know who Fred Phelps is? That's what he teaches. That God is punishing us for not being, as a society, exactly what He thinks we should be. Granted, the thought process isn't invalidated just because of other people who believed it, but I can't think of any other logical progression. The idea that society is doomed because we don't believe exactly what one subset believes is not just laughable, it's criminal.
The idea that religion holds value "as a moral foundation and base" is hilarious. See, I was raised a Protestant, and I made a decent go of it during my adult life too. Which means, I read the Bible, and I know what's in it. Anyone who bases their personal moral code on the Bible will be arrested inside a week, and/or fitted for a straightjacket. See, the truth is, societies influence religion, not the other way around. The way your religion is telling you to behave is due to modern societal norms, not any religious precedent. Morality as it exists in the Bible is a horrific thing, and there's no way you'd agree with it. It could be even worse - the things implied to be correct by the Bible might actually apply. Yikes. Granted, as a Catholic, you might agree that the Bible alone isn't a good source - it needs interpretation through priests. Who, you might remember, are men, whose beliefs are influenced by society. That, plus the fact that if religions don't mesh at all with the people who might convert to them, they don't survive because no one converts. So that seals it. Religions are based in society, not the other way around.
One funny thing about this is, this argument is basically "old Republican" vs. "new Republican," "personal liberty" vs. "Religious Right." Another is the quote from the title. I love Warhammer 40k. I find the setting awesome, particularly the Imperium of Man. In the 41st millenium, mankind is a devout society of fascists, worshipping the Emperor, eternally on the brink of death inside his throne. Doubt is invitation for xeno corruption or, worse, Chaos. But real life isn't like that, and I don't want it to be. In the grim dark future, there is only war.
So yeah. Pissed.