The Blog of the Coalition for Secular Government

View the latest 102050100200 comments.

Comments Posted on Monday, March 8, 2010

Obama's "We Are the World" Atruism Is Not Just Good Christian Works Monday, March 8, 2010 at 14:59:45 mst Name: Gina Liggett E-mail: GLiggett(at)comcast.net Thanks for commenting. There should not be such a "cost" carried by those who do not consent to it. If people want to spend their whole lives being altuists (and hoping for whatever mystical reward that might come with it), then that should be voluntary. Mandated alturism is dictatorship, because that means some idiot like obama knows what sacrifices the country must make (and it's based on his religion). View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment

The Separation of Church and State Monday, March 8, 2010 at 12:59:41 mst Name: Mathe Just curious -- in what specific areas would you say that Locke is better than Aquinas? I think Aquinas is excellent, and would place him above Locke for intellectual brilliance. View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment

The Roots of Political Freedom Monday, March 8, 2010 at 9:10:12 mst Name: Jean If what you post is true, then this country has never had political freedom. The United States has, until very recently, been largely a nation of Christians. While it is true that a few of the Founders were Deists (notably Jefferson) and Unitarians (John Adams), the majority were Christians, mostly of various Protestant denominations. Washington was fairly ambivalent about religion, and though "officially" an Episcopalian, he could be thought of as a Deist. He valued the role of religion (and his Farewell Address makes it clear that he thought it very necessary for society), but valued the tolerance of its different forms just as much. Toqueville and other writers have remarked on the religiousity of the American people. So, it seems to me that you are proposing that we form a different kind of America than the one the Founders created, because, by your logic, we have had little if any political freedom. Like the previous poster, I have known many Christians who believe in political freedom and their religion. They apparently don't see a conflict -- neither do I. View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment

Obama's "We Are the World" Atruism Is Not Just Good Christian Works Monday, March 8, 2010 at 0:02:37 mst Name: Fareed E-mail: m.kadada(at)gmail.com I had a similar discussion on another board and one man suggested that altruism is just an opportunity cost that we pay the price for. View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment

Comments Posted on Sunday, March 7, 2010

The Roots of Political Freedom Sunday, March 7, 2010 at 18:17:19 mst Name: Martin L. Buchanan E-mail: MartinLBuchanan(at)gmail.com I am not contesting Diana's reasoning in this comment. I simply make the observation that I have known multiple Christians who were complete believers in political freedom. Those two beliefs, in Christianity and political freedom, seem inconsistent to me, given the many Old Testament laws that contradict political freedom, but these people that I know or have known maintained both sets of beliefs for many years. View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment

Conservative Deceit about Christian Liberty Sunday, March 7, 2010 at 18:12:50 mst Name: Martin L. Buchanan E-mail: MartinLBuchanan(at)gmail.com From my own long experience of attending church and being exposed to considerable Christian media and to many Christians with my family, I testify that what Ari is saying is completely true. American Protestant Christianity today is dominated by various literalist and fundamentalist groups, whether Pentecostal, prosperity-oriented megachurches, or the fast-growing Messianic Jewish movement. I have personally heard one preacher recite with glee the Old Testament scripture where two unbelievers are impaled on a spear and paraded around the camp of the Israelites. In working for school choice for several years in Oregon, I worked with many such Christians, including a Christian Reconstructionist who was very active politically. Such relationships can advance the cause of liberty so long as they are limited to our particular points of agreement and without submitting to the irrational and often anti-liberty broader agenda of those people or groups, and without pretending to any broader intellectual or political agreement. For a fictional view of a future Christian theocracy in America, see Robert Heinlein's novella "If This Goes On" in his book Revolt in 2100. View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment

Comments Posted on Saturday, February 27, 2010

Obama's Black Liberation Theology: Rescuing the World Saturday, February 27, 2010 at 15:17:07 mst Name: Gina Liggett E-mail: GLiggett(at)comcast.net Thanks for your question, Paul. I would like to respond to it in the form of my next post. View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment

Comments Posted on Thursday, February 25, 2010

Obama's Black Liberation Theology: Rescuing the World Thursday, February 25, 2010 at 11:30:26 mst Name: Paul Hsieh E-mail: paulhsiehmd(at)gmail(dot)com URL: http://www.WeStandFIRM.org Very interesting post! Do you know how much of this global altruism also tok place under white liberals (such as President Clinton), or under a white Christian Republican (like President Bush)? In particular, is President Obama's pursuit of this kind of "save the world" altruism significantly greater under his presumed guiding philosophy Black Liberation Theology than with those other Presidents? (I don't know one way or another, which is why I ask.) View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment

Comments Posted on Monday, February 15, 2010

Christianity and Totalitarianism Monday, February 15, 2010 at 15:53:54 mst Name: Ralph E-mail: rcs(at)usabig.com I have a single question. Do you believe that in practical terms, by which I mean, for those that consider themselves Christains, the principles of individual liberty are incompatible? I do not think even a Christian would argue that the principles of individual liberty could be based on Christianity (though most today have been led to believe it was "Biblical" teachings from which those principles were derived--a clear mistake I think) but the argument seems to be that Christians and individual liberty are somehow incompatible. I do not understand that view. The founding fathers were Christians of one flavor or another, to a man. Did that prevent them from understanding the nature of individual liberty? Thomas Jefferson was at least a Theist, if not a Christian in any generally understood way, and certainly had a grasp on the nature of individuality and the necessity of freedom. Some of the most prosperous and successful people in history were Christians. For example, Newton, John Locke, and perhaps the greatest mathematician in history, Leonhard Euler. These are just observations that do not seem to fit the almost fanatical hatred of Christianity exhibited by some of those who call themselves Objectivists, but was never exhibited by Ayn Rand. Seems very strange to me. --Ralph View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment

Comments Posted on Sunday, February 14, 2010

Christianity and Totalitarianism Sunday, February 14, 2010 at 21:35:10 mst Name: seine E-mail: seine44(at)gmail.com God doesn't scare me, it's his enforcers that I fear. "Doing God's work" when expressed by a strident believer, has caused the death of oh so many innocent people. View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment

Comments Posted on Tuesday, February 9, 2010

Finally: A Victory for Abortion Rights and Church-State Separation Tuesday, February 9, 2010 at 15:38:49 mst Name: M Frankly, though it was right to find Roeder guilty, I think that George Tiller was one whacked-out person -- I'm not sorry that bastard was killed. View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment

Comments Posted on Friday, February 5, 2010

Facebook Group: President Obama: Close the White House Office of Faith-based Initiatives Friday, February 5, 2010 at 18:27:19 mst Name: Rob Abiera E-mail: rob(at)robabiera.com URL: http://moralitywar.blogspot.com Thanks for the support! View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment

Comments Posted on Sunday, January 24, 2010

Deism in the Declaration Sunday, January 24, 2010 at 22:26:07 mst Name: William H Stoddard E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com There is a song by the group Echo's Children, called "The Word of God," that elegantly expresses a deist outlook: "There are those who name the stars, who watch the sky by night, Seeking out the darkest place, to better see the light. Long ago, when torture broke the remnant of his will, Galileo recanted, but the Earth is moving still. High above the mountaintops, where only distance bars, The truth has left its footprints in the dust between the stars. We may watch and study or may shudder and deny, Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the sky." I am not myself a deist or any kind of supernaturalist, but I find that view sympathetic—and far, far away from fideism. View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment

Comments Posted on Tuesday, January 5, 2010

In Defense of Secularism Tuesday, January 5, 2010 at 21:11:57 mst Name: Fuller Ming E-mail: fullerming(at)gmail.com Politically and as an American, I agree that keeping religion out of the U.S. Constitution was wise. This is a pluralistic society. However, the implications regarding the dole, abortion, and homosexuality can clearly be secular topics devoid of religion. As a theist I have my beliefs about such things, but I don't want to force them on you - Catholics and Protestants alike burned people alive for heresy and that was simply wrong. Neither Jesus nor his early followers would advocate such practices. View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment

What Have the Personhood Folks Been Up To? Tuesday, January 5, 2010 at 14:57:58 mst Name: anti_supernaturalist E-mail: anti_supernaturalist(at)rocketmail.com ** ‘Person’ is not a biological category . . . it is a cultural artifact • ‘Person’ won’t be found in a medical dictionary. A California law, untested by the courts, declares killing of a pregnant woman constitutes the killing of two individual persons. Obviously, the underlying concept of a person here is biologistic. Ayn Rand's use of the Aristotelian categories 'potential' and 'actual' buys into the same confusion. The illegitimacy of tying the concept of a person to biology becomes clearer when considering two different but widely accepted cultural practices. (1) Many otherwise rational people believe that incorporeal, invisible persons exist and influence daily life. Some examples: angels, spirits, souls, minds, ghosts, goblins, godlings, gods, God. These alleged entities are non-human persons. (2) Were all human beings seen as persons; then warfare would have ceased. The now infamous phrase ‘enemy combatant’ implies depersonalization common to wartime hysteria. Hence the right-wing refusal to stop using the mistaken label ‘war on terror’. Trying a terrorist in a civilian court amounts to recognizing him as a person. Considering newborns in traditional cultures, not all who are born get chosen to be persons. Any familiarity with fable and myth based on exposure of newborns should make clear that law and custom permit non-person humans. • A human being becomes a person when a culture bestows “membership” on that someone formerly outside the group. In contemporary state level cultures, established law, custom, religious dogma, political ideology clash and struggle to determine what a “reasonable person’s” membership criteria are for being a legal person. The real issue, however has nothing to do with contemporary biology. The real issue is social control -- By trying to extend the concept of a person backward to cover fertilized human eggs and zygotes, legislators illegitimately support right-wing moral absolutists who cannot ever win popular support in a secular and open society. Here we have rigidly enforced pro-birth customs: an androcentric, completely misogynistic, demand that no impediment whatsoever on births be permitted by law. The absolutists’ goal? To restore male domination of women, including dismissing their rights over their own bodies. Religious zealots who call abortion murder do not rise to the level of reasonable person. (Why? Because that presupposes the contentious point at issue, the concept of a person — a circular argument.) They hope to return control of reproduction and birth to the paternalistic “norm” promoted by so-called great monotheisms -- judaism, xianity, and islam. anti_supernaturalist View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment

Comments Posted on Saturday, January 2, 2010

The Mission of the Coalition for Secular Government Saturday, January 2, 2010 at 13:41:13 mst Name: Tom Hall E-mail: tom(at)hallserver1.com "When religion and politics ride in the same cart, the whirlwind is sure to follow" --Reverend Mother Ramallo from Frank Herbert's Dune View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment

Comments Posted on Friday, January 1, 2010

In Defense of Secularism Friday, January 1, 2010 at 19:59:57 mst Name: Gina Liggett E-mail: GLiggett(at)comcast.net Great Letter! I couldn't agree more! View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment

Comments Posted on Wednesday, December 30, 2009

What Have the Personhood Folks Been Up To? Wednesday, December 30, 2009 at 16:47:09 mst Name: Gina Liggett E-mail: GLiggett(at)comcast.net Interesting question, Madmax. The technology has changed quite a bit of course since Ayn Rand's time, so it is possible that late-term abortions were not medically feasible (I don't know on that point, I'm just guessing). But nevertheless, it doesn't matter! Up until the time of birth, fetal development is a process on a continuum that begins with fertilzation, implantation and progresses with development of all aspects of the biological form. It is still a "potential" life because it is still biologically attached to and dependent upon the mother for life and further development. At the point of birth, it becomes a separate entity (even if it requires medical care to support it if is a premie). It is only at the point of "individuation" that it acquires the rights of an individual. Even an old person on terminal life support has full rights (either by self or medical proxy). An embryo or fetus does not----until it is born. Up until birth: that pregnancy belongs to the woman! Even though the father, of course, participated, it is not of his body for survival. So any crime against a late-term pregnant woman is a crime against HER only, not against two people.(Hey! that would be a good blog post). Thanks for your question, Madmax, and Happy New Year! View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment

In Praise of Consumerism Wednesday, December 30, 2009 at 16:38:31 mst Name: Gina Liggett E-mail: GLiggett(at)comcast.net Nice counter to the "keep Jesus in Christmas" crowd, who of course evade the love they have for their SUVs that take them to the mall. I agree that christmas and Thanksgiving are a celebration of what's fabulous about how American capitalism--against so many odds--has built the wealthiest country in the history of the world! Happy New Year! View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment

Comments Posted on Monday, December 28, 2009

What Have the Personhood Folks Been Up To? Monday, December 28, 2009 at 13:27:09 mst Name: madmax I love that Ayn Rand quote. But it seems that Rand herself was non-commital about 3rd trimester abortions. She never, to my knowledge, came out and said "abortion should be legal straight through to pregnancy". Some Objectivists will argue that rights attach with heightened brain activity during the 3rd trimester, and they say this is compatible with Rand's view. How would you answer them? I ask because I am uncertain in this issue. View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment