Why We Should Attack Moderate Religiosity

[Vigile]

But did you know that Scandinavia has had an extremely cold winter?

 

Russia too. We had the largest snowfall in over 100 years. Usually it snows and melts, snows and melts all winter. This year we had over 4 months with at least 2 feet of snow, and up to 4 feet. We didn't get any melts during this time, just more new snow and the temp stayed well below zero C the entire 4 1/2 months or so. It was brutal. It only melted two weeks ago.

[Antlerman]

The extremes of religion do not exist without the so-called moderates. Extremists grow out of the moderate pool. Often as not the "moderates" simply lack the balls to expose themselves to ridicule, or danger, for their beliefs.

You will note I have not engaged in this conversation since the latest firestorm of controversy.

 

We began engaging in some substantive discourse. I'm hoping to return to that, along with my discussion with Vigle. I was enjoying that. It was meaningful conversation. As far as the above, this sounds reactionary to the latest round of discussions. It's full of assumptions, and laced with rhetorical language. I'll jump back in here when it gets serious again. I miss that.

Then post something you consider "serious" rather than simply passing judgment on the subjects others are discussing and their opinions.

I had opened with many substantive points which are now lost and buried somewhere underneath all this. I had a substantial post to Vigile which is still sitting back there. I generally don't care to engage in dog-pile discussions, so I'll bow out of this one (my in-box is being flooded with notifications of posts in this thread - I'm going to turn that off now). I mean no offense to the good members who are making good points, I just have a hard time participating in firestorm discussions. It's not my cup of tea, and I apologize if it came across as a judgment of others.

 

But my point to you above about the comment, "'moderates' simply lack the balls to expose themselves to ridicule, or danger, for their beliefs," that that is full of assumptions and passing judgment on wide-range of possible human motivations, stands. You can't make a statement like that and expect others to take it seriously. I don't.

[Ouroboros]

But did you know that Scandinavia has had an extremely cold winter?

 

Russia too. We had the largest snowfall in over 100 years. Usually it snows and melts, snows and melts all winter. This year we had over 4 months with at least 2 feet of snow, and up to 4 feet. We didn't get any melts during this time, just more new snow and the temp stayed well below zero C the entire 4 1/2 months or so. It was brutal. It only melted two weeks ago.

All you guys must be lying!!! And why? Because Canada is warmer.

 

[florduh]

. . . that that is full of assumptions and passing judgment on wide-range of possible human motivations . . .

The opinion was formed through my experience with two churches I spent a lot of time in. One a bit holy roller and the other rather conservative and scholarly. The mantra generally was, "Though I wouldn't personally (bomb an abortion clinic, picket a theater, fill in the blank) we must remember that these (radicals) are brothers and sisters in Christ and we must not judge them. They are serving the Lord as they see fit." No, I didn't interview or psychoanalyze individual members, but I was aware of their preaching and discussions among themselves. Many were my friends. I didn't claim that all moderates have the same motivation to refrain from the extremes.

 

As far as I know there are no large, organized atheist movements lobbying Congress to tax the churches, but the religious are making huge inroads into the political and legal system and just a small number of fringe people aren't capable of making that impact. It must be the "silent majority" of moderates that keep the agenda moving. Is that not a logical conclusion?

 

Some atheists who would be happy to live and let live now feel threatened by religious encroachment on secular society and thus fight back. To consider the quiet ones in the middle of the religious pack as good, positive and safe seems ill advised considering the current wave of godliness sweeping the nation. That is if one wants to safeguard against something akin to theocracy.

 

Is that not serious or worthy of discussion?

[Shyone]

As a doctor you might be interested in knowing that, what is considered to be the Bible of drug policy, The Ledain Royal Commission report on psychotropic drugs came down on the legalization side. It indicated that the more products were on the drug menu, the less addiction there would be because the habitual users could vary their drug of choice with others and that way reduce the physical part of addiction. This does not speak to the mental part of addiction but would reduce physical dependency. I tend to agree.

 

I hate trying to decide about drugs and availability (for adults). I am of two minds. One says adults should be able to decide for themselves. The other says that adults are irresponsible enough to get in over their heads, and society will suffer.

 

I don't think this applies to pot however, but until it's legalized and we can see the actual societal consequences, we can only speculate.

 

As to the lip service we give in the protection of our young.

If you ever want the best of any drug in town, just ask the young.

Trust me I know. I have 4 boys.

 

That is unfortunate. I'm not sure it's a new thing however. According to a news report for my high school in the late 1960s, "100% of the students are using illegal drugs." I was the only one not using them...

 

You speak of prohibition, LOL. What prohibition?

Pot has been California's biggest cash crop for 30 years with B C close behind.

When was the last time you heard of a drug king pin being arrested? Prohibition, ya.

 

Regards

DL

 

Just do a search for "kingpin and arrested". You'll find plenty of reports. There's one here, and here, and here, and here - and dozens more.

 

There are some places where there is tacit approval of the drug trade, or where the drug kingpins have sufficient power to avoid arrest, but these generally occur in places without a strong government (locally, at least). In the US, in 2007, there were 1,841,182 arrests for drugs.

[Shyone]

. . . that that is full of assumptions and passing judgment on wide-range of possible human motivations . . .

The opinion was formed through my experience with two churches I spent a lot of time in. One a bit holy roller and the other rather conservative and scholarly. The mantra generally was, "Though I wouldn't personally (bomb an abortion clinic, picket a theater, fill in the blank) we must remember that these (radicals) are brothers and sisters in Christ and we must not judge them. They are serving the Lord as they see fit." No, I didn't interview or psychoanalyze individual members, but I was aware of their preaching and discussions among themselves. Many were my friends. I didn't claim that all moderates have the same motivation to refrain from the extremes.

 

As far as I know there are no large, organized atheist movements lobbying Congress to tax the churches, but the religious are making huge inroads into the political and legal system and just a small number of fringe people aren't capable of making that impact. It must be the "silent majority" of moderates that keep the agenda moving. Is that not a logical conclusion?

 

Some atheists who would be happy to live and let live now feel threatened by religious encroachment on secular society and thus fight back. To consider the quiet ones in the middle of the religious pack as good, positive and safe seems ill advised considering the current wave of godliness sweeping the nation. That is if one wants to safeguard against something akin to theocracy.

 

Is that not serious or worthy of discussion?

Very well written, and certainly worthy of discussion. Changes in society come about not because the moderates change, but because moderates fail to oppose the radicals - and/or offer their tacit support.

 

Two quotes in juxtapostion illustrate what florduh is saying:

 

"I think that on the balance the moral influence of religion has been awful. With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil. But for good people to do evil -- that takes religion."

 

‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’

 

Being "nonjudgemental" towards radicals is exactly why radicals can transform society.

[Greatest I am]

Weather patterns are shifting for sure up here. Our northern natives must be wrong when they say that they see lands and seas where ice has always been.

And now YOU are taking my words too far since I never said Canada was not experiencing a record heatwave.

 

I know they do. And I didn't say they didn't.

 

But did you know that Scandinavia has had an extremely cold winter?

 

I guess, if I should exaggerate like you do, that the northern natives in Scandinavia must be wrong when they're freezing their butts of.

 

I read your post as refuting global warming.

 

Is it real or not?

 

Regards

DL

[Neon Genesis]

 

The opinion was formed through my experience with two churches I spent a lot of time in. One a bit holy roller and the other rather conservative and scholarly. The mantra generally was, "Though I wouldn't personally (bomb an abortion clinic, picket a theater, fill in the blank) we must remember that these (radicals) are brothers and sisters in Christ and we must not judge them. They are serving the Lord as they see fit." No, I didn't interview or psychoanalyze individual members, but I was aware of their preaching and discussions among themselves. Many were my friends. I didn't claim that all moderates have the same motivation to refrain from the extremes.

 

 

Are you only referring to conservative churches who are non-violent as moderates or including progressive liberals in this as well? I think there's some confusion here as to who do we define as moderate.

 

"I think that on the balance the moral influence of religion has been awful. With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil. But for good people to do evil -- that takes religion."

See the Milgram experiment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiments

[Greatest I am]

As a doctor you might be interested in knowing that, what is considered to be the Bible of drug policy, The Ledain Royal Commission report on psychotropic drugs came down on the legalization side. It indicated that the more products were on the drug menu, the less addiction there would be because the habitual users could vary their drug of choice with others and that way reduce the physical part of addiction. This does not speak to the mental part of addiction but would reduce physical dependency. I tend to agree.

 

I hate trying to decide about drugs and availability (for adults). I am of two minds. One says adults should be able to decide for themselves. The other says that adults are irresponsible enough to get in over their heads, and society will suffer.

 

I don't think this applies to pot however, but until it's legalized and we can see the actual societal consequences, we can only speculate.

 

As to the lip service we give in the protection of our young.

If you ever want the best of any drug in town, just ask the young.

Trust me I know. I have 4 boys.

 

That is unfortunate. I'm not sure it's a new thing however. According to a news report for my high school in the late 1960s, "100% of the students are using illegal drugs." I was the only one not using them...

 

You speak of prohibition, LOL. What prohibition?

Pot has been California's biggest cash crop for 30 years with B C close behind.

When was the last time you heard of a drug king pin being arrested? Prohibition, ya.

 

Regards

DL

 

Just do a search for "kingpin and arrested". You'll find plenty of reports. There's one here, and here, and here, and here - and dozens more.

 

There are some places where there is tacit approval of the drug trade, or where the drug kingpins have sufficient power to avoid arrest, but these generally occur in places without a strong government (locally, at least). In the US, in 2007, there were 1,841,182 arrests for drugs.

 

To me, your good information pales when compared to the last stats I read from the RCMP shat showed that world wide, only about 3% of the trade is being effected. Any major corporation would lave to have only a 3% lose on their businesses.

 

If prohibition was working, your anecdotal school story would have a much different slant.

P S. I do not trust anyone who has not inhaled.

 

You might also know that there are psychiatric reports out there that show that risk takers/drug experimenters are better adjusted than those who do not.

 

Regards

DL

[florduh]

I think there's some confusion here as to who do we define as moderate.

I consider moderates to be the do-nothing rank and file silent majority of the religious institutions. I'm not talking about religious authors and philosophers, but real people in the pews. The ones who vote, the ones who keep a low profile. The ones who will never elect an atheist president and the ones who block civil rights for gays. You know, "moderate."

 

The radical, or extreme, Fred Phelps gang is in your face about how their god hates fags. The moderates quietly support their philosophy at the voting booth. Which does the most real harm?

[Neon Genesis]

I don't consider those types to be moderates. Perhaps it's best if we had like a scale or something? Like on the far right of the spectrum of Christianity, you have people like the Hutaree and the Christian domnionists, then you have the ultra-conservative but non-violent fundamentalists like Focus On The Family and the ex-gay movement, then you have the ordinary pew sitting mainstream fundamentalists who are the Rick Warren fans. Then on the far left, you have progressive Christians who don't believe in biblical inerrancy and are vocal defenders of liberal social justice issues like Spong and .co. When I see moderate, I think of people like Spong and Marcus Borg etc. and Christians who are members of the liberal wing of the Episopocilians or might belong to the UCC or a UU church. I think of pew-sitting conservatives who might not be violent as mainstream fundamentalists.

[Vigile]

When I see moderate, I think of people like Spong and Marcus Borg etc

 

Then I think you are confusing moderate with liberal. And as far as I can tell this group isn't worth discussing as it doesn't make up more than, what, 1% of the xian population?

 

Christians who are members of the liberal wing of the Episopocilians or might belong to the UCC or a UU church

 

I think the Episcopals probably fall either in your Spong group or in the moderate camp, depending on the church. UU accepts atheists, etc... and is hardly a religion but more of a philosophy like Tao. Even that probably isn't a fair comparison as I don't believe they have any core beliefs other than universalism as long as it benefits humanity or something to that effect.

[NotBlinded]

I don't consider those types to be moderates. Perhaps it's best if we had like a scale or something? Like on the far right of the spectrum of Christianity, you have people like the Hutaree and the Christian domnionists, then you have the ultra-conservative but non-violent fundamentalists like Focus On The Family and the ex-gay movement, then you have the ordinary pew sitting mainstream fundamentalists who are the Rick Warren fans. Then on the far left, you have progressive Christians who don't believe in biblical inerrancy and are vocal defenders of liberal social justice issues like Spong and .co. When I see moderate, I think of people like Spong and Marcus Borg etc. and Christians who are members of the liberal wing of the Episopocilians or might belong to the UCC or a UU church. I think of pew-sitting conservatives who might not be violent as mainstream fundamentalists.

I also see moderates fighting for the rights of those that would be crushed under fundamentalism. There needs to be moderates in the churches if change will ever take place in the institution itself.

 

Life is a continuum and if there were no moderates, the ends would constantly be at each other's throats.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

Then I think you are confusing moderate with liberal. And as far as I can tell this group isn't worth discussing as it doesn't make up more than, what, 1% of the xian population?

Well, it's hard to know who's talking about who when people like Dawkins and .co and their loyal followers just lump moderates all-together in one basket and never properly define who they're talking about.

[NotBlinded]

When I see moderate, I think of people like Spong and Marcus Borg etc

 

Then I think you are confusing moderate with liberal. And as far as I can tell this group isn't worth discussing as it doesn't make up more than, what, 1% of the xian population?

That could be Vigile.

 

I bet defining these and coming to an agreement would serve us all.

[Ouroboros]

I read your post as refuting global warming.

 

Is it real or not?

The average temperature is increasing.

 

However, according to you, contradictory evidence is not allowed to be discussed in media. Any information, fact, or statistics opposing the global cataclysmic scare religion, must be silenced. That's honest and ethical reporting according to you.

 

So are you denying that there are places where they have record cold?

 

Are you telling me they are lying and they should shut up because you are divine and god's right hand?

[Neon Genesis]

Someone correct me fi I'm wrong, but I thought the idea behind climate change was that when the weather is cold, it'll be more unusually cold than it usually is, and when the weather is hot, it'll be more unusually hot than it usually is, which was why they changed the name from global warming to climate change to more accurately reflect the situation?

[florduh]

Well, it's hard to know who's talking about who when people like Dawkins and .co and their loyal followers just lump moderates all-together in one basket and never properly define who they're talking about.

Why such a hard-on for Dawkins? The distinction between "moderate" and "liberal" is valid. When one considers all religious organizations to be a threat, and their silent majority to be the driving force, there is no reason to separately label each school of thought or liberal vs conservative persuasion.

 

I don't consider those types to be moderates. Perhaps it's best if we had like a scale or something? Like on the far right of the spectrum of Christianity, you have people like the Hutaree and the Christian domnionists, then you have the ultra-conservative but non-violent fundamentalists like Focus On The Family and the ex-gay movement, then you have the ordinary pew sitting mainstream fundamentalists who are the Rick Warren fans. Then on the far left, you have progressive Christians who don't believe in biblical inerrancy and are vocal defenders of liberal social justice issues like Spong and .co. When I see moderate, I think of people like Spong and Marcus Borg etc. and Christians who are members of the liberal wing of the Episopocilians or might belong to the UCC or a UU church. I think of pew-sitting conservatives who might not be violent as mainstream fundamentalists.

Why so many neat little pigeon holes? The majority who identify as Christian don't think about that shit any more than atheists dissect and critique Dawkins and other atheist authors. You are entertaining an academic exercise, and virtually no one is so analytical and label conscious in the real world. People mostly just show up in church, check off the "Christian" box on questionnaires, and dust off their family Bible when there is a birth in the family to record. Then, they go vote for Jesus at their polling place.

[Neon Genesis]

In other words, anti-theists are just making up claims about what moderates believe even if they don't actually believe it?

[florduh]

In other words, anti-theists are just making up claims about what moderates believe even if they don't actually believe it?

Exactly. Religion good, atheist bad.

 

I hope I've condensed and labeled your position as well as you have mine.

[Neon Genesis]

But I don't see how one can seriously argue that Bishop Spong and Billy Graham are all the same thing. And yes, Christians do think about this sort of thing contrary to what you claim. That's why there's 35,000 different denominations out there which according to you are all the same apparently.

[Ouroboros]

Someone correct me fi I'm wrong, but I thought the idea behind climate change was that when the weather is cold, it'll be more unusually cold than it usually is, and when the weather is hot, it'll be more unusually hot than it usually is, which was why they changed the name from global warming to climate change to more accurately reflect the situation?

You're correct. My gripe with Telepathic-Apotheosis-Godhead is not global warming or not, but the idea that it would be better if media censored opposition and alternative views.

 

His answer to opposing views or conflicting information is: "so you don't believe in it then, huh, huh, you don't do you, huh huh!? You want everyone to burn then in the sun? Huh Do'ay!?"

 

And regarding Global Warming or Global Climate Change, I think they changed the name because "Global Warming" (even though it isn't wrong) is misleading or misunderstood. The average global temperature is increasing, which will cause extreme heat in some places and extreme cold in other places. What brought about the name change was that people did raise the question. But according to Godhead-telepath, we're not supposed to raise questions in media because it makes it too hard for scientists to tell everyone the Truth™. My view is that both sides should be presented, and it's the scientists responsibility to respond to the questions people have, regardless if they're dumb questions or views. But as I'm learning here, Canada would be better off if scientists had the right to shut the mouth on any kind of inquiry or debate. To me, that's unethical and really unscientific. People will not trust scientists unless both sides are presented in media, even if the other side is a stupid minority. If someone does raise the question about why the temperature is lower in one area of the world, the answer is not to tell them to shut up (Like Godhead tells us here). It was because people did raise the questions, they realized the name was misleading, and they changed it.

[Neon Genesis]

It's sort of like the name of the big bang theory. People think that means the big bang was an explosion when that's not really what it was and I remember hearing that the name of the big bang theory was misleading and not really accurate, but the name stuck so they still use it anyway.

[Ouroboros]

It's sort of like the name of the big bang theory. People think that means the big bang was an explosion when that's not really what it was and I remember hearing that the name of the big bang theory was misleading and not really accurate, but the name stuck so they still use it anyway.

That's right. That name is even worse than Global Warming. No space, no air, no "Bang!" And you're right, it wasn't an explosion at all. I talked to a scientist once about this. I had a problem understanding how the BB "exploded" faster than the speed of light, and his explanation was that the fabric of space itself expanded, not the energy/matter. The light speed is fixed in relation to the actual space-fabric, but space itself is not fixed to a set speed. Weird stuff. I think I got it right.

[Vigile]

But I don't see how one can seriously argue that Bishop Spong and Billy Graham are all the same thing. And yes, Christians do think about this sort of thing contrary to what you claim. That's why there's 35,000 different denominations out there which according to you are all the same apparently.

 

Who follows Spong? Who goes to church to study the guy's sermons? A handful of pot smoking, neo liberal, pro gay, anti abortion types I bet. Others are those on the verge of deconversion. It's purely academic as Florduh said. In the real world they aren't worth a discussion as they don't make an impact on politics, culture or mainstream xianity.