Starboy

Rufus, I have considered the possibility that I am over reacting. But the current crop of elected officials and their actions makes me pessimistic rather than optimistic. You are trying to paint me as a reactionary with no cause for alarm. I think it is you who are deluded.

Starboy

seebs

I don't think that "ignorant" and "irrational" are very useful ways to talk about people. There is no objective reason for me to believe that Joe Baptist is either more ignorant, or more irrational, than Joe Atheist. The difference between believing in sky pixies and not is lost in the noise of most peoples' irrationality, and the difference between thinking the moon is made of cheese, and thinking it's made of rock, is likewise lost in the noise of most peoples' ignorance.

So... The question is not whether people are "irrational and ignorant" - they are. The question is whether or not they are harming me, and for 95% of people, theists and atheists alike, the answer is "no".

I am not, in general, more worried that my religious neighbor will do something irrational and violent based on his religion than I am that my atheist neighbor will do something violent because he's "rejected the basis of morality"; it's not a realistic concern, and on the whole, I'm better off looking at things that will have stronger predictive ability than religious belief.

seebs

I just don't see the connection here. Imagine, if you will, a hypothetical world in which 90% of Christians have no interest in "imposing" their religious beliefs, and 10% wish to impose their beliefs.

What will happen in this "hypothetical" world? The 10% will go about trying to impose their beliefs; the 90% will not. Occasionally, the 90% will find that details of their beliefs are being attacked, and fight back. Often, they may not even notice, or may not care enough to do anything.

That, my friend, is the world we live in. Most people don't really care until it affects them... but that doesn't mean that anything like a "majority" is trying to impose things.

Let me offer a trivial point: Do you believe that "a majority" of atheists are actively trying to restrict private expression of beliefs? I don't, but this doesn't mean that *some* atheists haven't occasionally crossed the line in trying to eliminate religious expression.

Starboy

There are several possibilities:

1. Christian would be civic if they were conscious, but because they are not conscious they do not speak up.

2. Christians are conscious but they implicitly agree with the sentiments of those "few" uncivil Christians and support them indirectly.

3. Christians are oblivious. They either do not know or they do not care.

4. Christians are robots, they vote as they are told. It is the few power hunger leaders that lead them to support uncivil actions.

Someone has to be voting for these officials and policies that must be opposed in the courts. I am pretty sure it is not the atheists. So then how exactly do they get voted for if 1 and 3 are the case?

The explanation that explains the facts IMO is 2 and 4.

Perhaps you could give me a better explanation.

Starboy

[ December 22, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]</p>

seebs

I think it's a combination of all of them. For instance, I mostly vote based on economic policies, historically, although I am leaning towards voting based on freedoms... but that's hard to balance. I would guess that a substantial majority of voters in any given election have no strong opinions on a lot of issues.

Note that we vote people, not issues, in the U.S.; if I am given a choice between someone whose every opinion disgusts me, except that I like his position on separation of church and state, and someone I agree with on a number of topics, but who has a pushy attitude, I may end up picking the latter.

A few possibilities may have escaped your notice:

5. For any given Christian, there are likely more important issues; for instance, many people vote based on the abortion issue, or crime policies.

6. Many people haven't thought the issue through much.

7. Politicians may do things like this without asking or consulting the voters, having been elected on an unrelated platform.


I think your 2 and 4 are bad explanations. None of the Christians I know automatically follow *anyone* on earth. Most of them are opposed to enshrining religion in law. However, keep in mind, I may think something is a good law *anyway*. I have religious reasons for opposition to murder, and I support laws against murder, but I may not see this as a "religious law".

Mostly, though, remember that a small group of people who care about an issue are disproportionately represented. How often do you write your representatives to tell them about things that aren't on the list of your top two or three issues you'd like to see addressed? Out of a large population of Christians in a state, if five thousand are ardent supporters of a stone statue of Moses holding the 10 Commandments, and the rest have never even heard such a thing, the state legislature sees letters in favor leading by 5,000 to 0.

So... "majority of those politically active on this issue" I'd grant. Anything beyond that is hard to support. Most Christians I know don't vote for people *because* they think those people will merge church and state, and many sometimes vote *despite* believing that people will try to do that.

Starboy

Seebs, there is no doubt we are of two minds on this. My anecdotal evidence is my sister in-law, who I learned this last Fourth of July has been indoctrinated by her pastor to think that this “is a Christian country and that the majority rules", and that as a Christian she was for imposing biblical law on society through government. She wanted prayer and religion in the schools, and opposed teaching evolution and so forth. If you look at my address you will see that I live in a part of the country where this sentiment is common. Also you may recall that in the last presidential election it was the state of Florida that decided the outcome. You may say it is a fluke. I hope you are right but it doesn’t look that way from where I am sitting. My experience of Christians is that they are uncivil.

Starboy

seebs

Hmm. Anecdotes, anecdotes, on both sides.

Perhaps, then, the solution is this: Rather than opposing "Christians", oppose "integration of church and state". Then, no matter how many Christians agree with your new position, you will gain *some* allies, at least - and you will be strengthening one of a couple of competing beliefs within Christianity, which, in the long run, increases the chances that my optimistic belief will eventually be a true one, even if it isn't now.

Basically, even if "tolerant" Christians were a tiny minority, it would be useful to cooperate with them. Conveniently, we find that the exact proportion doesn't matter that much... and in fact, your current course, if anything, will *decrease* the number of tolerant Christians, as people who are experiencing the same kind of opposition to their right to hold personal beliefs that you are become reactionary - as you are.

Turn back! It's not too late! We can still all get along.

Starboy

That is the thing, where I live to oppose "integration of church and state" IS to oppose Christians. I don't know where you live, but there are parts of this country where perhaps freedom would be better served if Christians were banned. Remember this is the part of the country that perpetrated segregation for so long. Get the picture? Banning Christianity is a wacky idea. Perhaps a better but even wackier idea would be to take a page out of the playbook of the 60's. Have a number of tolerant Christians come to this part of the country and infiltrate the churches and show the locals how to be both civil and Christian. But be prepared because in Jefferson County there will be shootings.

Starboy

seebs

I don't think that's true at all. You're just not seeing the guys who don't care.

Seems unlikely; I mean, at a bare minimum, we must assume they're a majority, and banning the beliefs of a majority sounds like a piss-poor way to serve freedom.

That's not a bad idea at all, actually, and I think it would do a lot more good. I've found that most Christians, once you show them a better example, start thinking real hard about it.

[ December 22, 2002: Message edited by: seebs ]</p>

pz

I made no claim that anyone is either all-knowing or immune to irrationality. That does not mean we should simply accept nonsense of any degree because we all have our little quirks.

If you were to point out some weird little superstition to which I hold, I might admit to it, I might acknowledge its wrongness, and I might try to overcome it. I wouldn't try to say it's OK for me to cling to a correctable stupidity because it's mostly harmless.