|
Post by hazelireland on Nov 5, 2008 12:43:28 GMT
So Obama has been victorious and a Secular Theist is now the president elect of the USA.
This is a wonderful step forward for people of faith, reason or both. After all you do not need to be an atheist to be secular.
As Obama says, there is no problem in this world with religious faith or religious motivation. However all actions, regardless of their motivation, need to be amenable to reason and to people of all faiths and to those of no faith at all.
No longer do we have a president who will dictate policy based on the electorate evoking gods will or pointing to scripture for their sole reasons for acting.
Reason is being placed on a pedestal higher than faith at last. If a secular ideal is indeed realised then atheists will have nothing to complain about in the US anymore and those of faith no longer have the onus to prove their faith.
Everyone wins. I cannot contain my joy.
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Nov 6, 2008 8:52:52 GMT
I am afraid you are not "enlightening" me. You are, as usual, missing the whole point in fact.
I know he believes in god. As I said he is a secular theist. I know he uses the name. I know he talks about it.
However when it comes to setting policy he realises that he cannot invoke the will of god THEN nor point to scripture for his arguments. He realises his religious motivations MUST be translated into facts and reasons that are amenable to ALL.
This is the essence of secularism and you completely miss the point when you point out him using the name God etc.
You can have faith, and you can have religious motivations and agendas. However you CANNOT use religion to dictate to others those agendas. That is the essence and the point you are missing so completely.
These are also his words:
„Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.
Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice.
Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what's possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It's the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God's edicts, regardless of the consequences.”
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Nov 6, 2008 13:30:40 GMT
What a contradiction. You say Catholicism is universal when it is not. I do not accept it, nor do a few other posters here. If we were all made to live under it we would be, like you say of Democracy, "people with contradictory beliefs" having to "live happily ever after with unfair policies". The difference being that the unfair policies are unchangeable.
You even then change what you say from the stupid claim its universal to countering your own words with the clarification that it is only "universal for all who believe in Eternal Life". Clearly not everyone does, and those that do also do not believe in your version of it.
I do agree with you that belief in an eternal life is a contradiction. I am glad to hear you say it. "The major contradiction Catholicism presents is the belief in Eternal Life." Progress at last. There is no belief so devoid of evidence.
Democracy does have you sometimes live under policies you do not agree with. The difference is that in Catholicism the rules are absolute and unchangeable. This is not democracy this is a dictatorship headed by a power that not only can not be swayed, but who doesn’t seem to even show up to dictate his rules. People do it for him. Did god make man or did man make god I wonder.
In democracy this is not so. You have the chance to stand up against the policies you disagree with and show people what is wrong with them. Then the majority vote on this and maybe the policies change. You have this option. And if they still do not change and you are not happy with them you can leave and go to another country more suited to your views.
Again „Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values.".
We are not appealing to an invisible dictator who cannot be communicated with let alone changed, but instead we demand that all people, of all views, of all faiths and of no faiths come together and discuss the issues using reason and points that are amenable to study and argument and discourse. Real points in a real world.
Maybe it’s not perfect, but its a lot better that a dictatorship. It surprises me not at all to hear YOU of all people speak against democracy and for a dictatorship. It fits perfectly with your character to date. I have no doubt you would like to live in a Catholic Theocracy but I say “No thanks”.
|
|
dante
New Member
Posts: 2
|
Post by dante on Nov 7, 2008 0:47:16 GMT
(this is my first post, so i'll try not to overstep the mark)
Saintstephen,
I think your definition of "universal in belief" is that you believe you speak for everyone. This is simply not the case. Not only do you not speak for atheists. You also don't speak for the 35,000+ other Christian denominations, nor the 27,500+ other religions and their denominations. If i've missed the point, let me know. Perhaps you could better define what you mean by "universal in belief". Anyway, have a good one.
D.
P.S. I'm overjoyed about Obama's victory too. Not just because of the religion issue - it's just the whole "competence" thing. It's a welcome change.
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Nov 7, 2008 9:01:34 GMT
Thankfully Obamas secularism will not allow you to speak of "universal" concepts of this sort. Even his own Christian belief which differs from your own he will not attempt to enforce as universal.
He realises what you do not.... that he cant simply assume his faith is 100% correct (like you do) but instead translate the agendas his faith gives him into real world arguments and attempt to sway the democratic public to his way of thinking.
Which... if you assume god is rational and his desires are not totally nuts... should not be a hard thing to do if this god actually exists. Taking his will and translating it into reasonable arguments we can all relate to should not be a hard task.
Unless of course there is no god.... or his agendas are not rational.
|
|
|
Post by assisi on Nov 7, 2008 22:06:14 GMT
No longer do we have a president who will dictate policy based on the electorate evoking gods will or pointing to scripture for their sole reasons for acting. If that statement refers to Bush then I think it is wrong. I believe that Bush invoked God when it suited him, not because he believed in him but because he knew that it would go down well with a significant section of the US electorate. Ignorance and oil would be Bush's modus operandi.
|
|
|
Post by Inedifix II on Nov 7, 2008 23:14:28 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Inedifix II on Nov 9, 2008 23:21:37 GMT
What is contrary about George Bush's faith is that he believes in violence as a means to peace. Peace cannot be brought about by the destruction of human lives. Christ's message is forgiveness and Divine Mercy for all who will turn from evil and come to Him for forgiveness. George does not believe in forgiveness but that evil must be returned with evil. That is what contradicts his faith statements and makes himself contrary to peace. I agree. It happens all too frequently that people who believe in God, also believe that they have the right to pervert the very things they claim God stands for in order to defend their beliefs. I'm sure you believe that God is honest, for example, and that Catholics should be honest - yet you think nothing of lying to the members of this site to further the struggle you feel you are engaged in on his behalf. I
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 3, 2008 18:30:38 GMT
I am not sure what Hazel means by referring to Obama as a "secular theist" by saying religious believers must provide explanations for their favoured policies which do not rely solely on religious belief. I can think of quite a lot of believers who would agree with this view. I suspect however that Obama has in mind a very restrictive definition of what constitutes justification, and he means that he will invoke religion to justify his policies when it suits him and dismiss religious critiques of his policies as illegitimate no matter how many secular arguments are urged in their defence. He is definitely a more secular figure than Bush but I suspect the style is more similar than we might think - though the policies will be different. BTW I hope soon to start a thread on America in the Catholic-only section of the board. You are welcome to comment on it in this thread and I will try to respond both there and here.
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Dec 4, 2008 9:51:32 GMT
I see no reason to take what you said as truth. His 2006 speech said that if he wanted to bring in a law or policy that was motivated by his religion then he must use reasons amenable to people of all faiths and people of no faith at all in doing so.
I urge you to read the entire speech for clarification.
In other words if he is against abortion he cannot quote scripture or invoke gods will, he must in fact find real world reasons and arguments to justify his anti abortion policy.
All the signs are that he has done just that. He is Christian and his religion would motivate him to be against abortion. However since there is no real world arguments against abortion he has not moved to implement any policies against it.
To say therefore that he will invoke it when it suits him and dismiss it when it doesn’t seems, so far at least, to be unsupported by any evidence whatsoever. To say that he supports policies that go against his Christian motivation because he cannot translate those motivations into real world reasons amenable to all IS supported by evidence.
So like I say, you can suspect what you like, I see no reasons to grant your suspicions credence at this time. Maybe this will change, but right now it is speculation and no more.
|
|