Friday 30 September 2011

Agnosticism / Atheism: Philosophy Fundamentals: What are Ethics and Morality?

Agnosticism / Atheism
Get the latest headlines from the Agnosticism / Atheism GuideSite. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Philosophy Fundamentals: What are Ethics and Morality?
Sep 30th 2011, 15:00

The terms ethics and morality are often used interchangeably. Indeed, they usually can mean the same thing and in casual conversation there isn't a problem with switching between one and the other. Strictly speaking, though, morality refers to what we would call moral standards and moral conduct while ethics refers to any formal study of those standards and conduct. That's why the study of ethics is often called "moral philosophy."

Read Article: What are Ethics and Morality?

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.
If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Agnosticism / Atheism: You Can Get Out of Jail for Free in Alabama... If You're a Christian

Agnosticism / Atheism
Get the latest headlines from the Agnosticism / Atheism GuideSite. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
You Can Get Out of Jail for Free in Alabama... If You're a Christian
Sep 30th 2011, 12:00

Hands in Jail
Photo: Dick Luria / Photodisc / Getty

In Bay Minette, Alabama, Christians have created a program that will help other Christians not only avoid jail, but also avoid a criminal record entirely. Named "Operation: Restore Our Community," first-time offenders who have committed minor crimes are given the option to go to church every Sunday for a year. If their religious indoctrination is successful, their original criminal case is dismissed entirely and it won't appear on their record.

Muslims? Out of luck. Jews? Out of luck. Hindus? Out of luck? Atheists? Don't even think about visiting or moving there.

But the local police chief who is heading up the program starting Tuesday called "Restore Our Community" says no one is being forced to participate. ..."The biggest question or complaint we have had is about separation of church and state," Rowland said.

"Those issues won't come to the forefront because the offenders are not being forced to attend church, and what religion they choose is really up to them. We even have provisions for people who are from out of town to choose a place to worship in their own communities."

Source: AL.com

Right, because telling people "go to jail for a year or go to church for year" isn't "force" at all. Who's he kidding? He couldn't possibly be kidding himself because no one that dense could have obtained a badge and a gun, could they? Such a person would be a bigger danger to public safety than the criminals.

Whenever the government says "do this or go to jail," it's threatening the use of force in order to coerce people into doing something. That's one of the major reasons for putting people in jail for breaking the laws -- the government is saying "follow the law or go to jail." What kind of idiot would insist that that isn't threatening "force"? Sadly, this seems to describe many the people living in this town perfectly because so many of them are defending the program by arguing that it's merely an "option".

Yeah, it's just an "option" to get out of jail. No one is "forced" to pick the "option" that keeps them out of jail. No one is "forced" to pick the "option" that lets them keep working and earning money, lets them continue living with family, and lets them get away without a criminal record.

"Operation ROC resulted from meetings with church leaders," Bay Minette Police Chief Mike Rowland said. "It was agreed by all the pastors that at the core of the crime problem was the erosion of family values and morals. We have children raising children and parents not instilling values in young people."

Right, and the only place you can get "family values" or "morals" is from a church. This makes it clear what Bay Minette Police Chief Mike Rowland really thinks about non-Christians, never mind atheists who don't go to any house of worship. We'd better not tell him that atheists are incarcerated at much lower rates than Christians because that might be a bit too much for his intellect to handle.

Pastor Robert Gates of Christian Life Church leads one of 56 congregations participating in the effort. He predicted it would succeed.

"You show me somebody who falls in love with Jesus, and I'll show you a person who won't be a problem to society but that will be an influence and a help to those around them," he told the television station.

Source: Huffington Post

I'm not surprised that pastors like Robert Gates are excited -- they have convinced the local police to use their power to threaten people with jail it they don't attend church for an entire year. In fact, this was all their idea in the first place! They have convinced the government to use its power to coerce citizens to submit to Christian indoctrination in a local church. Can there be any more obvious violation of church/state separation and government neutrality towards religion? It's also pretty stupid given the fact that they are, in a sense, equating their own churches with a jail and church attendance witha time in jail.

The idea that someone who "falls in love with Jesus" isn't ever a "problem to society" and will instead "help" others simply isn't borne out by the facts. In fact, the data tends to show the opposite. Thus what pastor Robert Gates is preaching here is little more than self-serving bigotry. He's telling others that he personally is superior for loving Jesus and that if others just follow him they'll also be superior.

That's where Christian Dominionism often gets its start: the assertion of personal superiority due to one's religion, followed quickly by the desire to use the state to at least endorse that religion and possibly enforce that religion through coercive practices. And that's just what we see happening in Bay Minette, Alabama.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.
If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Agnosticism / Atheism: What is Critical Atheism? What is a Critical Atheist?

Agnosticism / Atheism
Get the latest headlines from the Agnosticism / Atheism GuideSite. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
What is Critical Atheism? What is a Critical Atheist?
Sep 30th 2011, 08:00

Critical atheism is the position that theism or belief in gods is irrational and should be rejected by all. A critical atheist is thus someone who has thought about theism, evaluated theism, and come to negative conclusions about the truth-value or utility of theism.

Read Article: What is Critical Atheism? What is a Critical Atheist?

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.
If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Agnosticism / Atheism: What's Hot Now: Memorial & Remonstrance

Agnosticism / Atheism: What's Hot Now
These articles that had the largest increase in popularity over the last week // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Memorial & Remonstrance
Sep 30th 2011, 10:01

Memorial and Remonstrance
Against Religious Assessments
[1785]

To the Honorable the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia A Memorial and Remonstrance

We the subscribers, citizens of the said Commonwealth, having taken into serious consideration, a Bill printed by order of the last Session of General Assembly, entitled "A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion," and conceiving that the same if finally armed with the sanctions of a law, will be a dangerous abuse of power, are bound as faithful members of a free State to remonstrate against it, and to declare the reasons by which we are determined. We remonstrate against the said Bill,

1. Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.

2. Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.

3. Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it. Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?

4. Because the Bill violates the equality which ought to be the basis of every law, and which is more indispensible, in proportion as the validity or expediency of any law is more liable to be impeached. If "all men are by nature equally free and independent," all men are to be considered as entering into Society on equal conditions; as relinquishing no more, and therefore retaining no less, one than another, of their natural rights. Above all are they to be considered as retaining an "equal title to the free exercise of Religion according to the dictates of Conscience." Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offence against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered. As the Bill violates equality by subjecting some to peculiar burdens, so it violates the same principle, by granting to others peculiar exemptions. Are the quakers and Menonists the only sects who think a compulsive support of their Religions unnecessary and unwarrantable? can their piety alone be entrusted with the care of public worship? Ought their Religions to be endowed above all others with extraordinary privileges by which proselytes may be enticed from all others? We think too favorably of the justice and good sense of these denominations to believe that they either covet pre-eminences over their fellow citizens or that they will be seduced by them from the common opposition to the measure.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.
If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Agnosticism / Atheism: What's Hot Now: Ah Puch, God of Death

Agnosticism / Atheism: What's Hot Now
These articles that had the largest increase in popularity over the last week // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Ah Puch, God of Death
Sep 30th 2011, 10:01

Name and Etymology:


Ah Puch
Hun Ahau
Hunhau
Hunahau
Yum Cimil, "Lord of Death"
Cum Hau

Religion and Culture of Ah Puch:


Maya, Mesoamerica

Symbols, Iconography, and Art of Ah Puch:


Mayan depictions of Ah Puch were either of a skeletal figure that had protruding ribs and a death's-head skull or of a bloated figure that suggested an advancing state of decomposition. Because of his association with owls, he might be portrayed as a skeletal figure with an owl's head. Like his Aztec equivalent, Mictlantecuhtli, Ah Puch frequently wears bells.

Ah Puch is God of:


Death
Underworld
Disaster
Darkness

Equivalents in Other Cultures:


Mictlantecuhtli, Aztec god of death

Story and Origin of Ah Puch:


Ah Puch ruled Mitnal, the lowest level of the Mayan underworld. Because he ruled death, he was closely allied with the gods of war, disease, and sacrifice. Like the Aztecs, the Mayans associated death with dogs owls, so Ah Puch was generally accompanied by a dog or an owl. Ah Puch is also often described as working against the gods of fertility.

Family Tree and Relationships of Ah Puch:


Rival of Itzamna

Temples, Worship and Rituals of Ah Puch:


Mayans were much more fearful of death than other Mesoamerican cultures â€" Ah Puch was envisioned as a hunting figure that stalked the houses of people who were injured or sick. Mayans typically engaged in extreme, even loud mourning after the death of loved ones. It was believed that the loud wailing would scare Ah Puch away and prevent him from taking any more down to Mitnal with him.

Mythology and Legends of Ah Puch:


unknown â€" please email me if you have any information to add about this.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.
If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Agnosticism / Atheism: What's Hot Now: Galilee: History, Religion

Agnosticism / Atheism: What's Hot Now
These articles that had the largest increase in popularity over the last week // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Galilee: History, Religion
Sep 30th 2011, 10:01

What is Galilee?:


Galilee (Hebrew galil, meaning either “circle” or “district”) was one of the major regions of ancient Palestine, larger even than Judea and Samaria. The earliest reference to Galilee comes from Pharaoh Tuthmose III, who captured several Canaanite cities there in 1468 BCE. Galilee is also mentioned several times in the Old Testament (Joshua, Chronicles, Kings).

Where is Galilee?:


Galilee is in northern Palestine, between the Litani River in modern-day Lebanon and the Jezreel Valley of modern-day Israel. Galilee is commonly divided into three parts: upper Galilee with heavy rains and high peaks, lower Galilee with milder weather, and the Sea of Galilee. The region of Galilee changed hands a number of times over the centuries: Egyptian, Assyrian, Canaanite, and Israelite. Along with Judea and Perea, it constituted Herod the Great’s Judean rule.

What did Jesus do in Galilee?:


Galilee is best known as the region where, according to the gospels, Jesus conducted the bulk of his ministry. The gospel authors claim that his youth was spent in lower Galilee while his adulthood and preaching occurred around the northwestern shores of the Sea of Galilee. The towns where Jesus spent most of his time (Capernaum, Bethsaida) were all in Galilee.

Why is Galilee important?:


Archaeological evidence indicates that this rural region was sparsely populated in ancient times, perhaps because it was susceptible to flooding. This pattern continued during the early Hellenistic era, but it may have changed under the Hasmoneans who launched a process of “internal colonization” in order to reestablish Jewish cultural and political dominance in Galilee.

Jewish historian Josephus records that there were over 200 villages in Galilee in 66 CE, so it was heavily populated by this time. Being more exposed to foreign influences than other Jewish regions, it has a strong pagan as well as Jewish population. Galilee was also known as Galil ha-Goim, Region of the Gentiles, because of the high Gentile population and because the region was surrounded on three sides by foreigners.

A unique “Galilean” identity was developed under Roman political procedures which caused Galilee to be treated as a separate administrative area, cut off from Judea and Samaria. This was enhanced by the fact that Galilee was, for quite some time, ruled by Roman puppets rather then directly by Rome itself. This allowed for greater social stability, too, meaning that it wasn’t a center of anti-Roman political activity and it wasn’t a marginalized region â€" two misconceptions many take from the gospel stories.

Galilee is also the region where Judaism acquired most of its modern form. After the second Jewish Revolt (132-135 CE) and Jews were expelled from Jerusalem entirely, many were forced to migrate north. This greatly increased the population of Galilee and, over time, attracted Jews already living in other areas. Both the Mishnah and the Palestinian Talmud were written there, for example. Today it retains a large population of both Arab Muslims and Druze despite being a part of Israel. Major Galilean cities include Akko (Acre), Nazareth, Safed, and Tiberias.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.
If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Thursday 29 September 2011

Agnosticism / Atheism: Parapsychology: Unreliable Eyewitness Testimony and Memory

Agnosticism / Atheism
Get the latest headlines from the Agnosticism / Atheism GuideSite. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Parapsychology: Unreliable Eyewitness Testimony and Memory
Sep 29th 2011, 15:00

Eyewitnesses reports play an important role in the development and propagation of both religious and paranormal beliefs. People are often believe personal reports from others about what they claim to have seen and experienced. So it's important to think about how reliable people's memory and their testimony really are.

Read Article: Unreliable Eyewitness Testimony and Memory

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.
If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Agnosticism / Atheism: Beware of Mormons on the Bus

Agnosticism / Atheism
Get the latest headlines from the Agnosticism / Atheism GuideSite. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Beware of Mormons on the Bus
Sep 29th 2011, 12:00

Have you ever had a stranger strike up a conversation with you on a bus or other public transportation? Be wary the next time this happens: it might be a Mormon who's participating in an organized effort to proselytize on buses. That's what's happening to the unfortunate riders of the Stagecoach bus company in Lancashire even though there's a policy against commercial or other viewpoint promotion to passengers.

Mr Seymour said that he had been "engaged" by Mormons on two previous occasions while travelling on a bus, and in a letter to Stagecoach Bus Company said: "I firmly believe that the Mormon Church is using your service as a place where the public cannot escape the attempt to indoctrinate them."

The 31-year-old, of Heysham, Lancashire, added: "Whilst I respect that everyone is entitled to their own beliefs or none, telling others that their beliefs are misguided or plain wrong is wrong in itself. Practice your own personal beliefs in your own home and do not ram it down others' throats. I hope that Stagecoach will write to the Mormon Church in Chorley and tell them their behaviour is unacceptable."

Source: The Guardian

It's not just this one person, by the way. The bus service says that a number of drivers have reported incidents like this recently. The company's policies only prohibit commercial solicitation, though, not religious conversations. This is, in principle, reasonable because you don't want to create a blanket prohibition on people talking to each other.

However, that's only "reasonable" insofar as we assume a context of individuals striking up causal, spontaneous conversations with each other. I'm not sure that it really applies when there is an organized effort by a large group to evangelize to bus passengers specifically because they are a captive audience.

And that's exactly what seems to be happening:

But Robert Preston, England Manchester Mission President for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, also known as the Mormon Church, said he considered the 140 young people in the north west of England actively engaged in trying to convert people as "persistent and courageous".

He added: "They will sit next to someone, and they will introduce themselves and try and have a good conversation to explain a point of view that someone might never have heard before. We do encourage this, but we would not want people to feel intimidated.

"If it becomes clear that someone does not want to hear that message they should move away."

Robert Preston's reaction here is utterly reprehensible. Why should I or anyone else have to move away from an unwanted and unwelcome evangelist? Just how far can I even go on a bus? No, I reject that completely.

First, it's wrong for a group like this to be organizing specifically to proselytize to a captive audience like this. It's inappropriately aggressive and arrogant in a way that setting up a table in a public area is not. These Mormons are deliberately making it harder and more uncomfortable for people to say no, to move away, or to otherwise avoid their unwelcome advances.

Second, it's wrong to put the onus on those who don't want to be approached. It's the evangelists who should have the responsibility of moving away when it's clear that their religious advances are unwelcome. I shouldn't have to change my seat simply because I don't want someone pushing their religion on me.

Finally, I wonder if they are even honest about their intentions. Do they state up front that they are only sitting there and starting a conversation because they want to proselytize, or do they keep that information to themselves in order to deceive the person into thinking that this was just a casual conversation that happened to stray into the subject of religion? Frankly, I doubt that they are that honest -- the entire program and set of tactics reeks of dishonesty.

Stagecoach has indicated that they would contact the organization and I hope that they make it unambiguously clear that such behavior is not welcomed by the passengers and is thus also not welcomed by the company either.

Why does it keep happening that we have incidents where religious believers fail to recognize that normal standards of decorum apply to them, even when it comes to their religious beliefs?

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.
If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Agnosticism / Atheism: Weekly Poll: How Certain Are You that God Does or Does Not Exist?

Agnosticism / Atheism
Get the latest headlines from the Agnosticism / Atheism GuideSite. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Weekly Poll: How Certain Are You that God Does or Does Not Exist?
Sep 29th 2011, 08:00

One of the things which religious theists try to allege is a sign of "militancy" among atheists is that we are inappropriately "certain" that God does not exist -- though theists being certain that God does exist is apparently OK. This is a bit of a myth because you don't need absolute certainty to be an atheist and there is a wide variety of views among atheists on the matter. Some are more certain and some are less certain

What about you -- how certain do you feel that God or gods do or do not exist? Do you feel completely certain, somewhat certain, or just aren't sure at all?

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.
If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Agnosticism / Atheism: What's Hot Now: Using War to Promote Peace & Democracy

Agnosticism / Atheism: What's Hot Now
These articles that had the largest increase in popularity over the last week // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Using War to Promote Peace & Democracy
Sep 29th 2011, 10:00

Can peace be achieved through war? Of course it can. Every war has been followed by a peace of some sort. It's not that unusual for aggressors to be defeated through war, thus ushering in a new era of peace and freedom -- or at least relatively more peace and freedom than before. At the same time, though, it's also not that unusual for wars to lead to eras of greater repression and brutality. Perhaps the more relevant question is whether peace can be imposed through war -- whether war can be used as an effective means for imposing peace, democracy, justice, etc.

That's the question which faces America today because the Bush administration has chosen to try to impose democracy in the Middle East through force of arms. Muslims who try to achieve their goals through killing and brutality are chastised as barbaric. Those goals include the "true" freedom under Islam and Islamic government. America's efforts to achieve its goals through killing and actions which the victims regard as "brutal" is only acting out of an altruistic desire to spread freedom.

The parallels between the two are not exact, but they are striking. Both regard the other as using violence to impose repression and immorality; both see themselves as the bearers of civilization, freedom, and order which justifies the need to use a bit of violence to promote. It's hard for Americans to see this because Americans tend to have a naive sense of innocence about themselves -- they feel that they are only ever acting for the sake of helping others, never out of self-interest, and this leads to very strong negative reactions when those actions aren't received (or perceived) in just that manner.

Even if it could be demonstrated that Americans were absolutely correct and just, it would help if they could see themselves as others see them and their international policies. It might instill a bit of humility, something that goes well even with the pursuit of truth. Of course, in cases where America is wrong, that humility would be even more important.

This image is based on a World War II poster saying that "It Can Happen Here," so people need to keep producing war materiel in the factories in order to keep it from happening.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.
If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Agnosticism / Atheism: What's Hot Now: A Fundamental Civil Right: Marriage is Regulated by Civil, Secular Law

Agnosticism / Atheism: What's Hot Now
These articles that had the largest increase in popularity over the last week // via fulltextrssfeed.com
A Fundamental Civil Right: Marriage is Regulated by Civil, Secular Law
Sep 29th 2011, 10:00

Are there secular reasons for thinking that gay marriages might undermine the institution of marriage? If there are, they should be taken seriously. If society’s goal is to support and encourage marriage, then of course it shouldn’t do anything that would harm marriage in the long run. Unfortunately for opponents of same-sex marriages, there are no valid secular reasons for thinking that allowing gay couples to marry will have any deleterious effects on marriage generally.

Mark Strasser writes in Legally Wed:

The right to marry is fundamental and it is a violation of Substantive Due Process for states to abridge fundamental rights without compelling reasons to do so. The Supreme Court has articulated several interests that are served by marriage, all of which apply to same-sex as well as opposite-sex unions. Thus far, states have failed to articulate the compelling interests that are served by same-sex marriage bans.

Some courts and commentators argue that there is no fundamental right to marry a same-sex partner. The test cited to establish that thesis, however, is not the appropriate test, since it might also be used to establish that there are no fundamental rights to contraception, abortion, or interracial marriage. ...The states’ refusal to recognize same-sex marriages and the courts’ complicity in upholding those refusals have implications that affect everyone. The law of domestic relations has to be turned on its head to justify such bans. Such fundamental changes in the law bode poorly for the protection of fundamental rights generally and numerous kinds of family specifically.

Marriage is a civil right that is not now and has never been dependent upon any one religion or even religion in general for its justification, existence, or perpetuation. Marriage exists because people desire it and the community, working through the government, helps ensure that married couples are able to do what they need to in order to survive. At no point is religion needed or necessarily relevant.

What this means it that religious arguments against gay marriage are, at best, beside the point. They are irrelevant. They don’t matter. Anyone trying to offer religious arguments against gay marriage are at best missing the point; at worst, they are deliberately evading the real issues because they know they can’t address those issues. Without secular arguments, though, they have no legitimate reasons for opposing civil marriage for gay couples.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.
If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Agnosticism / Atheism: What's Hot Now: Tyranny of the Majority: Christian Right Fights Limits on Government Power

Agnosticism / Atheism: What's Hot Now
These articles that had the largest increase in popularity over the last week // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Tyranny of the Majority: Christian Right Fights Limits on Government Power
Sep 29th 2011, 10:00

Anti-gay bigots often claim that it's anti-democratic for courts to rule that gays should be treated as equals when voters and legislatures have decided to treat gays as inferior. Saying that it is "judicial tyranny" when judges halt laws that were created via the democratic process represents a fundamental misunderstanding of how the American government works. It’s probably deliberate, too, because religious conservatives only make this argument in cases where they dislike the court decision.

If the objections of religious conservatives were principled, they would offer this argument even in cases where the outcome is what they personally prefer. Because they don't, we have to conclude that the argument is only offered because it sounds superficially appealing or because it appears to sway voters who don't otherwise think too deeply about what they are being told. It's an unprincipled argument offered by people who care more about "winning" than about sane, principled government.

The burden of "proof" lies with those who would govern. When the government passes a law to criminalize some behavior, the burden lies on the government to demonstrate that it has the authority to limit people’s freedom in that way, not on those who would be free to act and don’t want to be restricted by the laws. If a court strikes down the law, it is not “legislating” because it does not create something new; instead, it informs the legislature that is acted outside the bounds of its authority. If a court strikes down the law, it is not engaging in “tyranny” over the majority; instead, it is preventing the majority from engaging in tyranny over others.

If the argument made by conservative Christians were taken seriously, it would undermine an important part of the structure of America’s government. The Constitution describes many limits on the authority of the various branches of government and of government generally, but those limits are meaningless if there is no means of forcing the government to abide by them. If a majority of voters and/or representatives decide to pass a blatantly unconstitutional law, what's to stop them? Right now it's supposed to be the court, but the argument made by religious conservatives would invalidate that, leaving the people more open to a dictatorial state. Is that what religious conservatives really want?

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.
If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Agnosticism / Atheism: What's Hot Now: America as a Christian Nation, America as a White Nation

Agnosticism / Atheism: What's Hot Now
These articles that had the largest increase in popularity over the last week // via fulltextrssfeed.com
America as a Christian Nation, America as a White Nation
Sep 29th 2011, 10:00

Conservative, evangelical Christianity in America is not inherently or necessarily racist. However, there has been significant convergence between racism, White Supremacy, and conservative Christianity throughout American history. Not only have conservative evangelical Christians been leading defenders of slavery, racism, and segregation, but there are aspects of evangelical doctrine which encourage the continuation of racist outcomes.

Evangelical Christianity's development as a defender of racist social structures wasn't inevitable from a theological standpoint, but it was necessary from a political one: itinerant evangelical preachers in the South made little headway so long as they retained their revolutionary attitudes. In order to become more accepted socially, they had find acceptance by society's leading figures: the white gentry. This led to numerous changes, including a new emphasis on the supremacy of whites over blacks, pushing women to the margins, acceptance of sinful behavior like drinking and gambling, and stronger defenses of social order.

Southern evangelical churches ended up on the forefront of defending slavery against Northern abolitionist movements, also generally originating in evangelical churches. Southern churches framed the defense of slavery as a religious cause and the Civil War as a Religious War. They lost, but hateful theology never dies -- it just goes underground and waits for new opportunities. In this case, the same basic theology arose again in the fight over segregation a century later.

Today few conservative evangelical Christians are openly racist, but some doctrines encourage racist outcomes. Evangelical Christianity encourages conformity and discourages efforts that "rock the boat," even if to achieve justice. Sharing the gospel takes precedence over social justice for minorities. Evangelical Christianity also generally denies the moral agency of institutions -- thus institutional racism cannot exist and so long as individuals are themselves not racist, then social outcomes must be racism-free. If it appears that blacks are failing, it must be their own fault.

A few Christians do remain openly racist, and sometimes they justify their racism or White Supremacy on the basis of Christian doctrine, just as their ancestors did. Christian racism is also not limited to conservative evangelicals. We can find it across the spectrum of Christian denominations, including Catholicism.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.
If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Wednesday 28 September 2011

Agnosticism / Atheism: Davis v. United States (1990)

Agnosticism / Atheism
Get the latest headlines from the Agnosticism / Atheism GuideSite. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Davis v. United States (1990)
Sep 28th 2011, 15:00

Taking tax deductions for charitable contributions to non-profit organizations is common, but how far can a person take such deductions? Can a person claim such tax deductions for absolutely any money that allegedly benefits a charitable organization in some fashion?

Read Article: Davis v. United States (1990)

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.
If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Agnosticism / Atheism: Hotels Can't Discriminate Against Gay Couples

Agnosticism / Atheism
Get the latest headlines from the Agnosticism / Atheism GuideSite. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Hotels Can't Discriminate Against Gay Couples
Sep 28th 2011, 12:00

Gay Marriage Ceremony
Gay Marriage
Photo: Rob Melnychuk /
Photodisc / Getty

If you manage a large hotel, you can't refuse to rent rooms to a gay couple and you can't refuse equal access to your facilities to gay couples, like if they want to host a reception for a marriage or civil union. Shouldn't the same legal standards apply to smaller operations, like a bed & breakfast? Well, some Christians don't think so and now a couple of bed & breakfasts are being sued in Illinois.

The Beall Mansion in Alton told the Wathens via email that it "will just be doing traditional weddings." The owner of the Timber Creek Bed and Breakfast in Paxton wrote in an email to the couple: "We will never host same-sex civil unions. We will never host same-sex weddings even if they become legal in Illinois. We believe homosexuality is wrong and unnatural based on what the Bible says about it. If that is discrimination, I guess we unfortunately discriminate." ...

The couple filed a complaint with the Illinois Department of Human Rights, which investigated and found "substantial evidence" that a civil rights violation had been committed.

The August finding allows the Wathens 90 days to file a complaint with the state Human Rights Commission or take civil action in Circuit Court. The Wathens' attorney, Betty Tsamis of Chicago, told the Tribune that her clients have chosen the latter path and will file lawsuits against both businesses as early as next week.

Source: Chicago Tribune

I doubt it took very long for the Illinois Department of Human Rights to reach their conclusions. I will admit that the case involving the Beall Mansion is a bit less clear-cut -- especially since they have since evaluated the legal situation and decided against hosting civil unions generally. In principle that applies to heterosexual civil unions as well, though in practice it will only end up applying to gay couples. Adopting a policy that is superficially fair but which everyone knows will have a discriminatory effect isn't legitimate, though.

But at least the owners of the Beall Mansion had the sense to frame their position in a neutral manner, even at the start. The owner of the Timber Creek Bed and Breakfast responded with an egregiously self-incriminating statement. Imagine if the same response had been written about interracial unions or interfaith unions -- does anyone doubt that they'd be guilty of violating the law?

But some Christians just don't care -- they are convinced hat no matter what the law might require, if they have a religious objection to treating certain people like fully equal citizens then they should be allowed to discriminate.

Steven Amjad, an attorney representing Timber Creek, said the state constitution guarantees religious freedoms. "These are business owners that have strong religious convictions. The Legislature has created this (conflict), and the courts will have to sort this out," he said. ...

Illinois attorney Jason Craddock, a member of the Alliance Defense Fund, a national Christian legal organization that opposes abortion and same-sex marriage, also is representing Timber Creek. Craddock said cases such as this one involving the Wathens are critical for people of faith who believe their First Amendment freedom of religion is inviolable.

"I believe strongly that liberty of conscience, particularly religious liberty of conscience, is what our nation was built on and is something that goes deep to our souls," Craddock said. "Increasingly it's being pitted against the asserted rights of homosexuals. Now it's going beyond just asking for tolerance. Now we're getting into a situation where government is telling people of faith, 'You can't live out your faith if it happens to disagree with this particular group.'"

Jason Craddock isn't being entirely honest here -- but he's a lawyer and his livelihood depends upon misleading others, doesn't it? Key to all this is the manner in which Christian lawyers are trying to frame this as if it were a new development. The fact that it's not, that it's old standards and regulations being applied to new situations, is what these lawyers would rather use ignore or forget.

Do you think Jason Craddock would defend a Christian who wanted to discriminate against an interracial couple for religious reasons? Do you think he'd defend a Christian who wanted to discriminate against an interfaith couple for religious reasons? He should if he really believed his own rhetoric because those cases wouldn't be different in terms of basic legal principles. Of course, the courts would never allow it -- just as they shouldn't allow discrimination in this case, either.

But I'm sure that Jason Craddock and the Timber Creek Bed and Breakfast would prefer that the public not think about these obvious parallels. It makes them look bad by reminding people that homophobic bigots aren't really any different from racist bigots or religious bigots. They don't want the public to realize that putting a religious gloss on your bigotry doesn't sanctify either the bigotry or your discrimination. So long as the debate around faith-based discrimination is limited gays, it will appear "reasonable." As soon as it's applied to something like race, though, the injustice and immorality of it becomes unavoidable.

Be sure to watch how lawyers like Jason Craddock and other apologists for faith-based discrimination will emphasize the language of "belief" and "conscience" without ever mentioning action and behavior. This is because there is a strong tradition of protecting religious beliefs, but Craddock and others are trying to argue for a freedom of action which is quite different and which has never received the same level of protection.

Your right to believe anything might be inviolable, but your right to act on all your beliefs is not. It never has been, and never will be. Acting like freedom of belief and freedom of action are equivalent is dishonest -- and deliberately so. Acting like the first requires the second is also dishonest -- and, again, also deliberately so. That, however, is the sum total of arguments offered by people like Jason Craddock. It's all they have so they play it for all it's worth, which isn't much unless the audience isn't paying close attention.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.
If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Agnosticism / Atheism: Forum Discussion: What is Skepticism?

Agnosticism / Atheism
Get the latest headlines from the Agnosticism / Atheism GuideSite. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Forum Discussion: What is Skepticism?
Sep 28th 2011, 08:00

There's not nearly enough skepticism in America today -- or the world generally, for that matter. One place you're more likely to find skepticism in America today is probably in atheist communities. Not all atheists are skeptics and many atheists aren't skeptical enough, there's no denying this. Nevertheless, you're more likely to find people who are at least familiar with logic, fallacies, and how to evaluate claims among atheists than in the general population. Why?

A forum member writes:

I knew what an atheist and what an agnostic was when I came to this forum, but over the course of my time here I have been given the impression that part of the atheist or agnostic viewpoint is connected to the terms "skeptic" or "skepticism". It seems to be some sort of philosophy or viewpoint that is connected to atheism. How would you describe what being a skeptic means, and what is the connection to atheism?

Although skepticism and atheism are not automatically connected, it is true that many atheists are also skeptics -- skeptics of religion, theism, the supernatural, etc. If you are a skeptic and an atheist, how would you describe the manner in which the two are connected in your life and your beliefs?

Add your thoughts to the comments here or join the ongoing discussion in the forum.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.
If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Agnosticism / Atheism: What's Hot Now: Political, Legal Philosophy

Agnosticism / Atheism: What's Hot Now
These articles that had the largest increase in popularity over the last week // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Political, Legal Philosophy
Sep 28th 2011, 10:01

What are Political Philosophy & the Philosophy of Law?:


The Philosophy of Politics and the Philosophy of Law (jurisprudence) are often studied separately, but they both come back to the same thing: the study of force. Politics is the study of political force in the general community and jurisprudence is the study of how laws can and should be used to achieve political and social goals. Many religious theists believe that both law and politics should be based on a religious foundation, and in particular on the commands of some alleged god. Without that foundation, they argue, both law and politics will be illegitimate uses of force.

Why Should Atheists Care About Political and Legal Philosophy?:


Most atheists recognize that the separation of church and state are important to their ability to be free of having religion imposed upon them. Not all realize that separation is based upon a more fundamental political and legal philosophy which theocrats on the Christian Right don't accept. Debates over church/state separation are thus debates over political and legal philosophy and one reason why such debates often don't go anywhere is because, in not realizing all this, people fail to address the more fundamental disagreements that are really at issue â€" like the legitimate authority of government, for example.

What is Political Philosophy?:


Political Philosophy is primarily constrained to the workings of governments and nations â€" how they developed, why they developed, which systems are better than others, what the purpose of government should be, etc. All of this is closely related to Ethics, because so much is dependent upon what actions are right; but there is the added element of what actions can and should be constrained by outside human forces. There is much debate in America over how much separation there can or should be between politics and people's religious beliefs. Can people, for example, base public policy on private religious revelation?

What is Legal Philosophy or the Philosophy of Law?:


Legal Philosophy focuses on laws and legal systems: how laws came to be, what laws are better than others, what the purpose of law should be, whether or not laws should be obeyed, etc. Because political systems are dependent upon the law, legal philosophy is at the heart of political philosophy. Legal Philosophy is often studied in an effort to elucidate the way in which human nature and social nature need to be expressed and controlled through the law. There is significant effort from some Christians, especially Christian Reconstructionists, to re-make American law along the lines of Old Testament religious law.

What is an Atheist Political or Legal Philosophy?:


An atheist political and legal philosophy need not be secular because not all atheists are also secularists; in practice, though, atheists tend to favor secularism and a separation between religious and civil authority in society. They are most likely to support basing the authority of government and public institutions on the consent of the governed and the participation of the public in the political process. There are, however, great disagreements between atheists on specifics. Atheist may follow conservative, liberal, communist, socialist, libertarian, or any one of a number of different political philosophies.

Questions asked in Political and Legal Philosophy:


Why do governments and laws exist?
Why should we obey governments or laws?
Are laws created by humans, or derived from natural laws?
Should ethics and laws be the same or separate?
Is anyone above the law?
Should religious and civil authority be separated? What role should intention play in legal judgments?

Important texts in Political and Legal Philosophy:


On Liberty, by John Stuart Mill
Leviathan, by Hobbes
The Republic, by Plato
Politics, by Aristotle
Social Contract, by Jean Jacques Rousseau
Philosophy of Right, by GWF Hegel

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.
If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions