Skip to main content

View Diary: I know you think praying at government events is normal, but it's really not. (302 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm sorry (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    guppymoo, Heiuan, mahakali overdrive, Smoh

    I felt impelled to HR your tip jar. I absolutely believe that there should be separation between religion and government, such that I would like to see "In God we trust" taken off American money that's minted after a certain date, for example.

    But to talk about orthodox religious belief as a brain disorder is disgusting, repugnant, and completely unacceptable. My godmother is a Modern Orthodox Jew. If something very strange happened and she were to become President, I am sure she would do as good a job as she could, and wouldn't be influenced in her decisions by any beliefs about an eventual apocalypse.

    There is a difference between believers and fanatics, and the difference is that fanatics seek to abuse the government to advance sectarian beliefs and screw everyone else who doesn't believe in them, whereas believers, while considering their religions part of their moral values and forces that motivate their work, can strive for the benefit of all. I don't think that Dr. King, a minister, was a fanatic, but he surely was a believer, and anyone like him could do a hell of a lot of good inside as well as outside the people's government.

    Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

    by MichaelNY on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 12:15:21 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  I agree with you completely (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY, Matt Z, mahakali overdrive

      And I would like to add that there's another reason that we shouldn't embrace speech like this on DK -- it is not productive. Of course we should promote true separation between religion and government, and the path to achieving this absolutely does NOT include insulting a significant number of Americans for their beliefs.

      •  Please open your minds a little and consider (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        isabelle hayes, BYw

        that the constantly alternating litany of praising and beseeching of God that comprises many of the Christian and Jewish services I have attended, this constant praising and beseeching is a very primitive behavior.

        It could be that someday, excessive religiosity will have it's own entry in the Diagnostic and Statistic Manual of mental disorders.

        Certainly the pressure put on children to conform, the stories of burning in hell for all eternity, these are a form of child abuse.

        Reaganomics noun pl: belief that unregulated capitalism can produce unlimited goods for unlimited people on a planet with finite resources and we the people can increase revenue by decreasing revenue.

        by FrY10cK on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 04:14:55 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The use of "primitive" to describe contemporary (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          guppymoo, Matt Z, mahakali overdrive

          human behavior is a form of unreconstructed prejudice, harkening back to the time when the pernicious pseudo-science of cultural evolutionism was dominant in Western thought and used to justify white domination in all its aspects.

          I will not debate about religion with you. I am a pretty secular person, but I judge people not by their religious beliefs or the lack thereof, but by their behavior. And I also know that if Democrats antagonize all religious people, we will never win elections nationwide, nor in most states.

          Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

          by MichaelNY on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 04:52:12 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  And what of pressuring children to adopt (0+ / 0-)

            an adult's chosen beliefs? And using stories of burning in hell for all eternity to induce conformity in children?

            Is this acceptable to you?

            Reaganomics noun pl: belief that unregulated capitalism can produce unlimited goods for unlimited people on a planet with finite resources and we the people can increase revenue by decreasing revenue.

            by FrY10cK on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 06:16:05 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Let's put it this way (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              guppymoo, mahakali overdrive

              Forbidding such practices is much more abhorrent to me than doing them. My religion does not believe in damnation, for the most part, so those kinds of stories were part of my childhood only inasmuch as missionaries tried unsuccessfully to convert me or I saw some fire and brimstone preacher on TV. I don't approve, but that's a far cry from conflating it with actions that fall under legal statutes as constituting child abuse.

              Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

              by MichaelNY on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 06:22:36 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  My hope is that someday those actions will be (0+ / 0-)

                covered by child abuse statues. Then the human race can grow beyond the mental virus that is religion.

                Not spirituality, not religious experience,  not faith, hope, charity, or any other virtues, but religion based on nothing but what one has chosen to believe or been coerced to believe: that is what the human race needs to grow beyond.

                Reaganomics noun pl: belief that unregulated capitalism can produce unlimited goods for unlimited people on a planet with finite resources and we the people can increase revenue by decreasing revenue.

                by FrY10cK on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 07:59:30 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Forbidding fire and brimstone preaching (0+ / 0-)

                  by statute is a step toward totalitarianism. It's precisely the forms of speech that we most hate that need the highest level of protection. Many atheistic members of the ACLU would and have said that exact thing.

                  Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                  by MichaelNY on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 12:46:02 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  No. Minors need protection from coercive (0+ / 0-)

                    speech, from coercion in general.

                    Once they reach the age of majority they're fair game for the proselytizers and hucksters.

                    Reaganomics noun pl: belief that unregulated capitalism can produce unlimited goods for unlimited people on a planet with finite resources and we the people can increase revenue by decreasing revenue.

                    by FrY10cK on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 01:37:32 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

        •  Context is important (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY, mahakali overdrive, Smoh

          I believe that I am better now, as an atheist, than I was when I was a believing Catholic. However, I didn't change my mind because people told me that my belief was 'primitive' or that my belief probably constituted a mental disorder. I changed my mind because I had conversations and experiences with some very smart, upstanding, and respectful atheists and had the opportunity to inspect religion philosophically. Insulting people isn't going to get them to change their mind -- in fact, it will probably do the opposite. Let's just be good examples of being respectful, moral, unbelieving individuals.

    •  Your disagreement is noted but your use (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Skipbidder

      of an HR inappropriate to denote disagreement. Should be reported to moderator/Kos.

      Reaganomics noun pl: belief that unregulated capitalism can produce unlimited goods for unlimited people on a planet with finite resources and we the people can increase revenue by decreasing revenue.

      by FrY10cK on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 04:09:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's not mere disagreement (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Matt Z, mahakali overdrive

        I accuse the writer of posting bigotry. Go ahead and report me and see how far you get.

        Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

        by MichaelNY on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 04:43:00 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Is it bigotry to name a destructive human behavior (0+ / 0-)

          (religion) as destructive?

          I'm not an atheist but I prefer no one religion over any other. Religion closes minds and causes violence. Human history is rife with it.

          Religion, not spirituality mind you, but hierarchical religion presided over by men in robes is something the human race needs to outgrow.

          Reaganomics noun pl: belief that unregulated capitalism can produce unlimited goods for unlimited people on a planet with finite resources and we the people can increase revenue by decreasing revenue.

          by FrY10cK on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 06:20:39 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Answer (0+ / 0-)
            Is it bigotry to name a destructive human behavior (religion) as destructive?
            No, definitely not.

            What constitutes bigotry is to consider orthodox belief as a mental illness and merely the product of mind control or something. Relegating all orthodox believers to the province of the sanatorium would mean jailing Dr. King again, this time for his Christian beliefs rather than his support for civil rights and opposition to war.

            Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

            by MichaelNY on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 12:51:20 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  This: (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BYw
      while considering their religions part of their moral values and forces that motivate their work, can strive for the benefit of all.
      is unacceptable to me.

      If a person's morals came from fantasy such as mystical religious nonsense (and I am atheist who attended hebrew school as a kid and had a bar mitzvah), then the likelihood that it is beneficial to all goes way down.  Decisions and morals based on the make believe are an invitation to calamity.  If a person's morals came from their religion, then they should be kept out of their political actions. That which is empirical is a good basis for public policy action.  That which isn't... isn't.  Ours is supposed to be a secular government.

      Regarding the physical impact of religion on the brain goes, there is data to be considered.  I am not saying it is conclusive, but it may not be so easily dismissed either.

      Picture a bright blue ball just spinnin' spinnin' free. It's dizzy with possibility.

      by lockewasright on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 07:54:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks for telling us (0+ / 0-)

        that Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. were likely to have been an invitation to calamity. Do you realize how silly this kind of stereotypical talk makes you sound?

        Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

        by MichaelNY on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 06:02:58 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site