luvluv

Mike, if you didn't get my last post, I am really at a loss. It is a personal insult to me, as an African American, to have anyone kick dirt on the name of MLK. For all your criticism of him, you haven't done anything to help humanity on the scale that he did, if you have helped humanity at all. Have you ever, or are you willing, to risk your death for the sake of justice? For the sake of love? After you have done such a thing, perhaps you would be worthy to criticize him. But you don't have that right just because you have read a bunch of books. I take deep offense at that.

I could certainly expose the personal failings of Marx, Confucious, Thoreau, Emerson... any and every man that has ever lived. We could go through page after page after page back and forth showing all the character flaws of all the great men throughout history. What would be the point of that, would you just answer me that one question? What, micheal, do we gain from attacking the character of people? What light does that shed on either side of our argument? If my argument were that religion makes men morally perfect, I would have to admit your argument. But again to the point of absolute naseua, that is not my point. Therefore, whatever dirt you can dig up on MT is not relevant, since I can dig up dirt on any human being that has ever lived. What in the world is the point?

As to your assertion that Christianity was necessary for slavery, I disagree. Slavery has existed in every part of the world under every sort of religion and irreligion. Certainly, every religion under which slavery has occured has justified it in some way. But if you think that if the people in the South had been Muslims or Hindus, that slavery would not have happened, I ask how you can justify that. Perhaps you can say that unless Christianity in the South had gone along with slavery, slavery would have been impossible. That may be true, but that would seem to be the fault of CHRISTIANS as opposed to Christianity. After all, scientists gave their support to the system as well, but that hardly makes slavery the FAULT of science. Science, at the time, said blacks were genetically inferior, and thus fully compatible with the slave system. Might we then assume that without science, slavery would not have happened?

And again, this has nothing to do with the fact that the bulk of the people who first directly and in large numbers opposed slavery were not scientists but Christians. I know there were some atheists involved in abolition (I am a fan of Thoreau, you'll remember) but there are also Christians who believe in evolution. Go to a reputable historian and ask him to describe the religious make-up of the abolitionist movement. Guess what he will tell you?

But yet again, and for the final time, this is not my argument at all. You folks seem to want to take this into a discussion into whether or not religion is good or bad. I simply asked whether it was necessary for Sainthood. If you guys can't stick to the point, I will assume you have conceeded the point.

[ March 10, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>

ex-preacher

I do not think you have established this at all. We have named many atheists/agnostics/deists who have done fantastic good. Among them:
Thoreau, Emerson, Paine, Franklin, Jefferson, Lincoln, Theodore Parker, Margaret Sanger, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, W.E.B DuBois. Other great individuals have been only marginally religious: Churchill, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Eleanor Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Aristotle, Socrates, Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington. 18 of the first 19 US presidents were not members of an orthodox Christian church during their presidencies.

Furthermore, some of those you cite as "religious saints" were (I think) more motivated by humanitarian concerns rather than religious dictates. This would include your two favorites: MLK and Gandhi.

<strong> From what I can tell, Forrest Church is not an atheist. About half of UUs are atheist. The rest are pantheist, deist, pagan, Buddhist, liberal Christian, etc. Hardly any UUs believe in a heaven or hell.

Here's how I define religious: "highly committed to a cause, principle or system of beliefs."

My UU minister is an atheist. He marched with MLK, fought for equal housing in Atlanta, and has fought for gay rights and against the death penalty in this community. Someone burned a pink triangle in his driveway to try to frighten him. It didn't work. Thousands of atheists have served their country in the military and many have died for their country. Please do not insult us by saying that atheists cannot do great things. Perhaps our "saints" aren't famous because we do not have massive organizations dedicated to proclaiming our wonderful deeds (and humility).

Please define the following terms, luvluv:

religion

morality

saint

luvluv

ex-preacher I've defined my definition of a Saint throughout this thread, and I've also mentioned why I believe all of the people you mentioned are not Saints. Scroll through it and you'll see that. I am not about to repeat myself on every point every time one person on this thread wants me to do so. There are too many of you and too few of me.

Sainthood requires transforming the moral relations of all men thereafter on the basis both of teaching and personal example. A Saint also has to have some sort of stature or has to have influenced a major humanitarian or religious mission. He has to have advanced mankind morally. He has to meet all of these criteria and do it on a scale which deserves historical mention. (So your pastor, for instance, doesn't rank). Now can you go through your list and realize why none of them pass the mustard?

I just can't do this anymore folks, if I answer the same question again I am going to vomit. It's been nice debating with you.

Vorkosigan

[QUOTE]Originally posted by luvluv:
Mike, if you didn't get my last post, I am really at a loss. It is a personal insult to me, as an African American, to have anyone kick dirt on the name of MLK.

Look through my posts. I haven't kicked any dirt on MLK, a man I deeply admire. Please withdraw this personal attack.

For all your criticism of him, you haven't done anything to help humanity on the scale that he did, if you have helped humanity at all. Have you ever, or are you willing, to risk your death for the sake of justice? For the sake of love? After you have done such a thing, perhaps you would be worthy to criticize him. But you don't have that right just because you have read a bunch of books. I take deep offense at that.

I'll repeat: I haven't criticized MLK.

As for my risking death, I was two years living in a guerilla war in Africa with the Peace Corps. And I spent a few years working in the Taiwan Independence movement, back when the risk was real. So the answer to your questions is "yes." BTW, I have also done volunteer work at churches. I will work with any organization I conceive to be liberatory.

...question? What, micheal, do we gain from attacking the character of people?

First off, I have only attacked Mother Teresa. I had hoped that since you were a decent person you could see the light on her.

What light does that shed on either side of our argument? If my argument were that religion makes men morally perfect, I would have to admit your argument. But again to the point of absolute naseua, that is not my point.

We never took it to be your point, so once again, a strawman. You put your saints at risk when you made them part of an argument.

Therefore, whatever dirt you can dig up on MT is not relevant, since I can dig up dirt on any human being that has ever lived. What in the world is the point?

The point is that she consorts with dictators. She admires human suffering. She supports the most conservative elements of the RCC. The money she is given goes to build convents in other parts of the world, not to help the people in India for whom it was given. She lets people die who otherwise might have lived. There is nothing worthy of respect in her personal moral and social behavior. That is why we objected to your inclusion of Mother Teresa.

As for critics of MLK, they have a right to wonder how you can consider him a "saint" given his womanizing. Since I do not consider him "holy" in any way, I am free to see him as a great man, with flaws. You are also free to negotiate with your critics to get them to change their minds. However, engaging in personal attacks, utilizing strawmen, and accusing people of making criticisms they have not, is not a practical way to bring people around to your way of thinking.

As to your assertion that Christianity was necessary for slavery, I disagree.

I did not assert that Christianity was necessary for slavery. I asserted that it supported that peculiar institution, and that its support of that institution necessitated the existence of a man like MLK.

occured has justified it in some way. But if you think that if the people in the South had been Muslims or Hindus, that slavery would not have happened, I ask how you can justify that.

Note: neither Islam nor Hinduism claims to be a religion of love. So when a religion of love supports slavery, I wonder what is wrong. In any case, Hindus and Muslims keep slaves.

Perhaps you can say that unless Christianity in the South had gone along with slavery, slavery would have been impossible.

That IS what I said. Had Christianity been implacably opposed to slavery, it would not have lasted very long in the Americas, I suspect.

That may be true, but that would seem to be the fault of CHRISTIANS as opposed to Christianity. After all, scientists gave their support to the system as well, but that hardly makes slavery the FAULT of science.

Science is not an ethical system where love of others is a central element. Science was not, in the first half of the 19th century, a major social force like it is today.

Science, at the time, said blacks were genetically inferior, and thus fully compatible with the slave system. Might we then assume that without science, slavery would not have happened?

Since slavery in the US long predates the rise of western science in the US (especially in Alabama, where it has not yet risen ), the answer to that is no. When ordinary people justified slavery to themselves, they did so on religious and economic grounds. It might be interesting to learn the extent to which "scientific" data was brought into the discussion. Have you done any research?

And again, this has nothing to do with the fact that the bulk of the people who first directly and in large numbers opposed slavery were not scientists but Christians. I know there were some atheists involved in abolition (I am a fan of Thoreau, you'll remember) but there are also Christians who believe in evolution. Go to a reputable historian and ask him to describe the religious make-up of the abolitionist movement. Guess what he will tell you?

It was composed of Christians, secularists and others. The mainline denominations, as I wrote above, did not oppose slavery in any way.

What does evolution have to do with anything?

But yet again, and for the final time, this is not my argument at all. You folks seem to want to take this into a discussion into whether or not religion is good or bad. I simply asked whether it was necessary for Sainthood. If you guys can't stick to the point, I will assume you have conceeded the point.

I already answered that question. The answer is "yes," in order to be a saint, one must be religious, because sainthood is a specific title conferred by the Catholic Church and Buddhist religions (and a couple of others) after death.

However, your claim is not that, but that to be a great human being devoted to others, one must be religious. And that is absurd. Many great human beings, devoted to the welfare of their fellows, have not been religious.

Michael

David Bowden

What is the best definition of "Sainthood?"

If it means "having performed moral acts the vast majority of the time" or "having a high level or morality," then certainly many among the nonreligious qualify, and therefore religion is not necessary for Sainthood.

If "Sainthood" means "as a result of religious beliefs, performing moral acts the vast majority of the time" or "having a high level of morality as a result of religious beliefs," then an unbeliever cannot qualify, since having religous beliefs and being an unbeliever are mutually exclusive traits.

(This doesn't mean that unbelievers do not have a high level of morality; it just means that their high level of morality is not the result of any religious beliefs.)

I personally think that religion is necessary for someone to be properly called a "saint," since that word seems to be tied up with such concepts as "sacredness" (dedication to a deity) and the approval of religious leaders.

If the definition of "sainthood" is essentially "very moral person" plus "religious believer", then that's an admission that we don't need religion in order to be very moral, and that morality is a completely separate thing from one's religious convictions.

As to whether religion increases morality, it seems to me that the answer is no.

The moral expectations of any given religion can be shown to have evolved over time. On moral questions relating to slavery, tolerance of minority faiths, women's rights, and polygamy, western religion has adapted its positions numerous times(fundamentalists excepted). This doesn't testify to eternal moral truths within religion, but instead to the ability of humans to decide for themselves what is moral and immoral, and to change their religious institutions to reflect their moral convictions.

Such changes in the moral code are frequently justified in the language of religion, but that does not mean that the 'increase in morality' was caused by the religion in question. Quite the reverse: the religion is improved by the people who have increased in moral stature.

Today, I think, religious ideas of morality can be seen to evolve pretty much in parallel with secular moral expectations. Believers and nonbelievers have been all over the civil rights map, for instance, and the slavery issue divided atheists as well as Christians.

But we tend to wind up in the same place. Nowadays, neither atheists nor religious believers would advocate slavery. The moral questions regarding slavery or other issues may have been answered - but not by divine revelation, but through the exercise of human reasoning.

So there does not appear to be a one-to-one correlation between religious belief and increased morality in general, and on certain moral issues, it seems that the religious beliefs themselves have to be changed in order for the religion to line up with the moral standards of an age.

That's my $0.02.

-Wanderer

ohwilleke

Originally posted by luvluv:
<strong>Mike, if you didn't get my last post, I am really at a loss. It is a personal insult to me, as an African American, to have anyone kick dirt on the name of MLK. </strong>

Never consider something tendered as the truth to be a personal insult. Good people do bad things some times. Even good people to whom you feel a personal debt and reverence, do bad things sometimes. This doesn't mean that they haven't done good things. It may be that what is said is false. It may be that what is said is true, and overshadowed by good things. It may even be that what is said is true and overcomes the good that was done. Whatever the state of the truth, however, it doesn't reflect on you.

Of course, as a moral subjectivist, I understand that you may feel a duty to protect another person's honor, if they are important to you, is greater than your duty to determine what is or isn't the truth. Many of us feel this way about family, and it is understandable that you might feel this way about a personal hero. But, at least, recognize that the pointing out of what someone believes to be a real fault of someone you consider a hero, is certainly not meant as an insult to you, even if it is done knowing that you esteem this person very highly.

When you put someone up on a pedestal as a "Saint" they are judged by a higher standard than an ordinary person, particularly when part of the definition of "Saint" you are using is the type of personal example that this person provided, rather than merely what they said. Just about any flaw is relevant if that is your definition, even if it may not ultimately win the day.

In a similar way, a Senator who always proclaims that "Family Values" are important, is going to be held to a higher standard when his own indiscretions are discovered, then a Senator who has always championed the decriminalization of adultery, the legalization of prostitution, the weaking of sexual harassment laws, and tolerance towards unusual sexual arrangements. Saints whose personal examples are to guide us get more scruitny than mere ordinary folk whom we don't expect to be personal examples.

ohwilleke

How about a few more examples? Examples often speak louder than defintions. By my count, you've listed four or five people who are "Saints" and quite a few who you think are not. Who else qualifies?

ohwilleke

Religions do good things. They sponsor beautiful art, music and architecture. They give some money to help the needy. They provide a context in which to develop a community of people (something many atheists envy). They sometimes provide day care, schools, and elder care. At other times in history, it has provided medical care, a European system of lodging houses (much like the gas-food-lodging strips along highways today), and the sole source of preservation of books. You can hardly be a well considered atheist who acknowledges that religion has existing for so many hundreds of years, without recognizing that it has had some functional purposes. Morality is not one of the strong points of religion, however.

What many atheists, including myself, do argue, is that institutions don't have to reference God to serve those purposes. Some institutions that reference God do in fact serve those purposes, but belief in God is not necessary to achieve those purposes.

Furthermore, religious institutions are uniquely posed to be bad at morality, because they can transmit a sense of righteousness that can justify evil acts since God says according to some religious leader, that those acts are good.

ohwilleke

Have you ever considered the notion that perhaps Stalin did some pretty fantastic good as well as evil?

Eudaimonist

Let me explain an important reason why I object to this standard. It does not focus on the personal virtue of the "Saint" as much as the popularity of that "Saint". And not just popularity as seen by a small number of others, but by practically everybody.

Christian groups will go to great effort to popularize their "Saints", but will they go to the same effort to popularize a virtuous atheist? Will the majority of Christians accept a virtuous atheist as a moral example to emulate, knowing that person to be an atheist? The deck is stacked against an atheist "transforming the moral relations of all men thereafter on the basis both of teaching and personal example", at least in modern America where the atheism of that individual is evident.

You should drop your requirement of popularity and focus on what good the "Saint" has done instead.