Inauguration Day
When Barack Obama is sworn into office today it will be a truly historic moment worthy of unbridled celebration. The unfortunate part of the ceremony will be the mixing of church and state through the use of a bible and prayers uttered by religious leaders. These symbols unnecessarily alienate and divide us, leaving many tens of millions of citizens with different religious beliefs or none at all, feeling like we don’t quite belong. Someday a President will have the courage and common sense to break with these unjust traditions and begin new traditions that exclude no one on the basis of their belief or non-belief in invisible beings in the sky.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Fortunately those who govern us understand that embracing America's theistic history and the principle of separation of church and state are not mutually exclusive.
What a great day this is . . . God bless America!
Hi homesick - this was well said. However, I don't necessarily agree with you! First of all, when a politician is theist, it bleeds into beliefs, values, and ultimately policy. I don't think you CAN separate it.
Secondly, some of the most famous Americans were atheist. This includes American presidents. (It seems to me that we have BECOME far more fundamentalist in our politics in the past few decades - since the age of people like Francis Schaeffer and James Dobson - until Obama, people were voted in based on stated belief rather than merit or the most basic qualifications).
Anywaym here are some quotes:
"The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma."
- Abraham Lincoln, American president (1809-1865).
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution."
"In no instance have . . . the churches been guardians of the liberties of the people."
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."
"What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy."
During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution."
James Madison, American President and Political theorist (1791 - 1836)
"Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and whole carloads of other trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days?"
"The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity."
"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it."
John Adams, US President, Founding Father of the United States
"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religion than it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism."
"I do not believe in the immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it."
"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for a reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed."
-Albert Einstein, German-born American physicist
"You never see animals going through the absurd and often horrible fooleries of magic and religion. Only man behaves with such gratuitous folly. It is the price he has to pay for being intelligent but not, as yet, intelligent enough."
-Aldous Huxley, author "Roots"
"I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say that one is an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or agnostic. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect that he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time."
"Creationists make it sound like a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night"
-Isaac Asimov, Russian-born - American author
"All thinking men are atheists."
On page 144 of Paul Johnson's book Intellectuals, it states that despite being raised in a strict Congregationalist household, Ernest "did not only not believe in God but regarded organized religion as a menace to human happiness", "seems to have been devoid of the religious spirit", and "ceased to practise religion at the earliest possible moment."
Other's have pointed out that Hemingway used the non-existence of God as a theme in his books.
- Ernest Hemingway, American author (1899-1961).
"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life, I absenteed myself from Christian assemblies."
"Lighthouses are more helpful then churches."
-Benjamin Franklin, American Founding Father, author, and inventor
"My view is that if there is no evidence for it, then forget about it. An agnostic is somebody who doesn't believe in something until there is evidence for it, so I'm agnostic."
-Carl Sagan, American astronomer and author
"Religion is based . . . mainly on fear . . . fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. . . . My own view on religion is that of Lucretius. I regard it as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold misery to the human race."
"Fear is the parent of cruelty, therefore it is no wonder if religion and cruelty have gone hand-in-hand."
"I believe that when I die I shall rot, and nothing of my ego will survive. I am not young, and I love life. But I should scorn to shiver with terror at the thought of annihilation. Happiness is none the less true happiness because it must come to an end, nor do thought and love lose their value because they are not everlasting."
"I am myself a dissenter from all known religions, and I hope that every kind of religious belief will die out."
- Bertrand Russell, British philosopher, educator, mathematician, and social critic (1872-1970).
"The memory of my own suffering has prevented me from ever shadowing one young soul with the superstitions of the Christian religion."
"The Bible and the Church have been the greatest stumbling blocks in the way of women's emancipation."
"The bible teaches that woman brought sin and death into the world, that she precipitated the fall of the race, that she was arraigned before the judgment seat of Heaven, tried, condemned and sentenced. Marriage for her was to be a condition of bondage, maternity a period of suffering and anguish, and in silence and subjection, she was to play the role of a dependent on man's bounty for all her material wants, and for all the information she might desire...Here is the Bible position of woman briefly summed up."
She wrote of the Bible, "I found nothing grand in the history of the Jews nor in the morals inculcated in the Pentateuch. Surely the writers had a very low idea of the nature of their god. They made him not only anthropomorphic, but of the very lowest type, jealous and revengeful, loving violence rather than mercy. I know of no other books that so fully teach the subjection and degradation of women." [Women Without Superstition]
- Elizabeth Cady Stanton, American suffragist (1815-1902).
"They know that it is human nature to take up causes whereby a man may oppress his neighbor, no matter how unjustly. ... Hence they have had no trouble in finding men who would preach the damnability and heresy of the new doctrine from the very pulpit."
-Galileo Galilei, Italian astronomer
"I condemn false prophets, I condemn the effort to take away the power of rational decision, to drain people of their free will--and a hell of a lot of money in the bargain. Religions vary in their degree of idiocy, but I reject them all. For most people, religion is nothing more than a substitute for a malfunctioning brain."
"We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes."
-Gene Roddenberry, Creator of Star Trek (1921-1991).
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."
"At present there is not a single credible established religion in the world."
- George Bernard Shaw, Irish-born English playwright (1856-1950)
"There is so much in the bible against which every insinct of my being rebels, so much so that I regret the necessity which has compelled me to read it through from beginning to end. I do not think that the knowledge I have gained of its history and sources compensates me for the unpleasant details it has forced upon my attention."
-Helen Keller, American lecturer
Arthur Rubenstein, Polish-American pianist (1886-1982).
During a radio interview with Rubenstein the conversation took a sharp turn away from music when the interviewer suddeenly asked, "Mr. Rubenstein, do you believe in God?" Rubenstein calmly replied, "No. You see, what I believe in is something much greater."
Back to the topic of Obama, I think homesick would probably agree that the United States has turned a positive corner. From division to unity; from arrogance to humility; from bluster to real action. I'm not sure what the comedians are going to do with the absence of Bush & Palin - TV just won't be the same! But I'm willing to sacrifice that for a great president.
Love Arthur Rubenstein’s comment!
One of the reasons I became an atheist is that when I dared read the scriptures without wearing my True Believer Rose-Colored Glasses the biblegod shrunk into a small, petty, miserable creature. I don’t know that any Real God exists but know with all the certainty I am capable that no such absurd cartoon character God as that presented in the bible does.
So, John, are you saying your are an agnostic and not an atheist?
There is a big difference between claiming to know that no god exists and believing that one does not based on the lack of evidence.
Any reasonable atheist believes there is a possibility that some god exists but simply places that possibility at such a low point on the scale of probability that it is right there with Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. So I am an a-theist just as you are an a=santaist and a-easter-bunnyist.
Do you claim to “know” God exists or do you “believe” he does?
My understanding it that there are 2 kinds of agnostics; there are ones who do not know whether or not there is a god ("soft" agnostics) and those who believe that it is unknowable whether or not there is a god ("hard" agnostics).
My understanding of an atheist is someone who, based on the evidence available, BELIEVES there is no god.
Therefore, I am an agnostic atheist (I think it may be unknowable; certainly, at this point, NOBODY really knows whether or not there is a god); however, based on the evidence, and the likelihood of a conscious being having created the universe, I believe that there is no god. If strong evidence is presented that there is a god, I am willing to change that view.
This is the difference between christians and atheists. Christians have a preset belief system, and they must somehow fit all the evidence into that doctrine. It's getting harder and harder to do that.
Atheists generally are open and follow the evidence. They are not dogmatic. They are willing to change their minds as new evidence is presented.
As far as I am concerned, the more we learn, the more ridiculous and dated the bible seems. And literal interpretations of christianity are far more far-fetched than Santa Claus flying around the world on Christmas Eve.
1. So, if you both leave room for the existence of God, why do you give theists such a hard time?
2. Christians and atheists both have preset beliefs.
3. It's getting harder and harder to defend Christianity? I would say that Christianity has stood up to the test of time very well. If it is getting harder to defend it's only because Christians are widely more concerned about emotions rather than intellect. There has been all kinds of attacks upon Christianity and nothing has been able to topple it. Don't get your hopes up too high on this one.
4. Most atheists are not open and in some areas they are extremely dogmatic. Take a look at what the TEA did today in Austin with the Science TEKS. Teachers teach evolution, but CAN'T talk about the weaknesses of the theory.
There is much dogma built in atheism.
5. Willing to change their mind? Nietzsche once said that if he were provided ample evidence for the Christian God he still would not be a Christian. He decided ahead that he would not change his mind. I think many atheists function from the same presup.
1. I am trying to stay focused on criticising the bible not theists.
2. we have been over this.no comment
3. harder to defend in relation to what science tells us. and i have no illusion that it is going anywhere anytime soon.
4. i suggest you read an unbiased article about this. it was clearly the correct move and you are not representing it correctly
5. why do you bring up Nietsche time and again? He had some great thoughts and maybe some not so great ones as he was just a fellow monkey.
1. There have been a number of professed atheists who have turned to theism because of science. Bernard Russell was one such man. Science supports a theistic understanding of the universe and even Russell saw this. See the cosmological argument.
2. I have read both sides of the issue regarding the TEKS and evolution weakness. It is disgusting how dictatorial science is becoming because it is not focused on truth. There are weaknesses and they should be pursued. You can almost compare modern science to papal authority in the middle ages, given the agendas with evolution and global warming (I know this is loaded, but I thought you'd like to wrestle with this idea).
3. I love Nietsche! He shows where naturalism leads if taken to it's philosophical conclusions.
1. Your point? Others have done just the opposite.
2.AUSTIN — The State Board of Education tentatively decided to amend school science curriculum standards Thursday, dropping a 20-year-old requirement that critics say is used to undermine the theory of evolution.
The change in curriculum drops the mandate that science teachers address both "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific theory. It would be in place for the next decade.
A panel of science teachers had recommended that the language be dropped.
Kathy Miller, president of the watchdog group Texas Freedom Network, has argued that the word weaknesses "has become a code word in the culture wars to attack evolution and promote creationism."
Federal courts have ruled against forcing the teaching of creationism and the similar theory of intelligent design.
Education board member Cynthia Dunbar, R-Richmond, offered failed amendments to keep "strengths and weaknesses" or similar wording in place. Dunbar argued that changing the requirement could be potentially damaging.
"The language as it exists has gone without a challenge for more than two decades," she said.
But, the 15-member board overruled her.
"The language has not worked," said board member Mavis Knight, D-Dallas. "It has taken on a different meaning and I am opposed."
Critics of dropping the weaknesses mandate blame "left-wing ideology," for trying to stifle free speech.
"It's outrageous that our highest elected education officials voted to silence teachers and students in science class," said Jonathan Saenz, a lobbyist for the Free Market Foundation. "Despite being overwhelmed by e-mails and phone calls to keep strengths and weaknesses, the divided State Board of Education ignored constituents and sided with a small group of activists.
"This decision shows that science has evolved into a political popularity contest. The truth has been expelled from the science classroom."
The standards adopted also will dictate how publishers handle the topic in textbooks. The vote, which capped two days of heated debate, was part of a series of votes on the standards that is expected to be finalized in March.
A more specific challenge to evolution was approved, in an amendment by Republican board member Don McLeroy, a College Station dentist. The amendment involved challenging the ancestry of different species.
"Keeping 'strengths and weaknesses' out of the standards is a huge victory for Texas students," Miller said. "But it's astonishing that a dentist would presume to know more about evolution than the professional scientists and teachers who wrote the draft standards. What he did is a ridiculous way to craft education policy and simply complicates the standards."
3. Your argument is bad. Truth isn’t dependent upon our preferences for happy conclusions.
Post a Comment