Draft Roy Moore?

I came across some encouraging news while browsing over at the Christian Worldview Network. (That's a sentence I never expected to write.) Someone named Coach Dave Daubenmire has written an open letter to James Dobson begging him to form a third party for conservative Christians and to draft Roy Moore, the disgraced former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama, to run for president in 2008.

Daubenmire's proposal, I'm sorry to say, is not likely to happen. Dobson, the founder and emperor of the Focus on the Family media conglomerate, is more than a bit batty, but he's not dumb, and he's not as politically naive as Coach Dave is. Dobson is capable of simple electoral arithmetic, so he knows what a right-wing Ralph Nader could do for his side.

But even if the coach's call for a right-wing Christian party isn't likely to get anywhere, it's notable for the anger and frustration it shows that many right-wing Christians feel toward the GOP:

Christian voters are disgusted. ... Many are standing on the sidelines waiting to help. They will never return to the Republican Party. Certainly you feel the frustration, the exasperation bubbling up in America.

These disgusted Christians are not going to mobilize to help Karl Rove win the mid-term elections in 2006, or to elect another Republican president in 2008. That doesn't mean, of course, that they're suddenly going to start voting along with "Tree huggin’, love makin’, pro choicen, gay weddin’, widespread diggin’ hippies like me." They might write in Roy Moore or some other god-fearing Confederate revivalist.* More likely, they won't vote at all.

Not voting at all would be the logical conclusion of Daubenmire's reasoning. "They say politics is the art of compromise," he writes. "Is that what Christ died for -- compromise?"** No compromising for Daubenmire. And therefore no politics. (And no citizenship, either, based on the way he reads 2 Corinthians 6:14, "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers ...")

Anyway, some highlights from Coach Dave's rant against the Republicans:

Dr. Dobson, it is time to build an ark. It is time to leave the Republican Party. Jesus will not ride into town on an elephant.

... it has become increasingly apparent that the core values of the Republican Party are not Christian values. It is time all Christian leaders ask ourselves if it is possible for God to bless a polluted party. Make no mistake, the Republican Party is polluted.

... the Republican Party has become a conglomerate of special interests. Christians are now standing shoulder-to-shoulder in a party that supports homosexual candidates, pro-abortion candidates, and those who support homosexual marriage.

... the Republicans Party is not interested in promoting Christian values.

... Christians, through the Republican Party, have supported the likes of Bob Ney, Mark Foley, Bob Taft, Duke Cunningham, and Arlen Specter. ... Do they represent the values of Christ?

Let’s look down the road two years. Who will the Republican Party nominate for president? ... Will we once again be forced to vote for a man who has a “form of godliness, but denies the power thereof”?

That last bit seems to be a direct shot at the man the Republicans nominated at their last two conventions. Interesting. Saint Dubya may be losing the confidence of the Worldview Network crowd.

"Republicanism is making Christianity look bad," Daubenmire writes. I wholeheartedly agree. Daubenmire's proposed alternative, however, is to make Christianity look even worse.

His idea of a "Christian" party seems wholly devoid of what I regard as essential Christian values -- justice, liberation, compassion, solidarity, magnanimity, stewardship, love -- and the formation of such a party would be Very Bad for American Christianity. But it would also cut off the party of corporate elites from the electoral base they have conned into supporting them for the past 30 years. Without the knee-jerk support of that bloc of voters, it would be impossible for those elites to maintain their grip on power. And that would be Very Good for America.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

* One of Daubenmire's goofier points is his claim that drafting Roy Moore to run as the "Christian" candidate for president would unite white and black Christians. He imagines that black Christian voters who "love Jesus, but ... don't want to be on the Republican team" would enthusiastically rally in support of a CHINO racist like Moore, who spent a good chunk of 2004 fighting to preserve segregationist, Jim Crow language in Alabama's state constitution.

** Daubenmire is correct here, sort of. Christ's death was not a "compromise." It was an unconditional surrender.

Comments

[pharoute]

As much as I'd like to I don't share your belief that the fundies won't vote; they'll convince themselves that by voting GOP they are at least putting up the last defense to the gay-islamo-fascist-lesbo-abortionist-atheist take over of America.

[ScottDaly]

I have to agree with pharoute. These are people that feel a deep need to "do something". Never mind that what they are doing is internally inconsistent, self destructive, and bad for the country. They feel that if they are not out there fighting the good fight they are surrendering to the godless athiest homosexual liberals that will turn their upright christian beacon of all that is good in the world nation into hell on Earth. So they will continue to delude themselves that by voting a straight party ticket for GOP canidates, regardless of their qualifications or lack thereof, they are at least slowing the slide into the abyss. That is until Christ will appear and raise them all up into heaven where they will engage in a collective chorus of "F**K you we are in heaven and you ain't". Which will be happening any day now... Honest... Any day now...

[LL]

I agree (with first poster). For the foreseeable future, I think fundamentalists will continue to vote Republican. But eventually (maybe in a couple more years?) they will come to see that being a successful politician (which is what the Republicans are) requires compromise, which, sorta ironically, Republicans have made into a dirty word. They're going to have to either take the other 260 million or so of us into account and ratchet back the nutsier items on their legislative wish list, or they're going to have to form their own nutjob Christian party, which will render them as irrelevant as, say, the Libertarian Party.

Either one would be fine by me. I'm so sick of hearing about what a bunch of scumbags they think we all are. Why can't they be more like the Amish?

[Kenneth Fair]

For those who are unaware, Sadly, No! has a regular feature on the wackiness of Coach Dave's columns. He's quite a character.

[Luke]

Man, it took me a sec to figure out what ole Arlen was doing on that list. The rest were corrupt, except Foley, who was a sexual predator(and a GAY, in Coach Dave's Mind. MOST IMPORTANTLY A GAY)

What strikes me is that Arlen gets included, presumably, because he is a Jew.

I would totally fund the Sam Brownback-Roy Moore Christian American Revival Party, if only to see it fall flat on it ass.

[Note to self; add "Take over hypothetical Christian Party" to gay agenda. Critical question: before or after the cosmos at lunch?]

[forestwalker]

Doesn't such a party already exist?

[forestwalker]

Specter is included because he's pro-choice and has been a minor speed bump to the president's supreme court nominations, not because he's a Jew. Jeez...

[Chuchundra]

The Republicans have been playing the fundie christian right for suckers for some time now. The GOP has had total control since '02 and abortion is still (mostly) legal, they're still teaching evolution in schools and nobody is even talking about rounding up the fags and putting them in concentration camps.

[Toby]

Christian voters are disgusted. ... They will never return to the Republican Party.

The disgust goes both ways, according to Tempting Faith

[mcc]

Toby, I was actually just coming into that thread to see if anyone had posted that.

I notice that book is coming out before the election. I wonder if it will make any impact on anything once it's actually out.

[Quinn]

I think the first few comments are on to something. I think there will still be a good number of Fundamentalist, Fox News watchers, who will still vote for the GOP ticket . . . because they believe the spin that it's all a vast Gay-wing conspiracy, all the way from Foley to Mr Kuo's book - and that the Publicans are still the best choice, they just have to get rid of gay ones.

[Scott]

Even if the evangelical right gives up on politics, the left will just bring them back w/ some overreach once the political field is clear (big new regulations on homeschooling, defining their beliefs as bannable "hate speech", etc). They won't just go away because the left can't just leave them alone, as it can't just leave anyone else alone. You're two sides of the same sick coin.

[Ray]

Damn, I had "but you can't complain because you think if people vote for it that makes it right". Who had "yeah, but the left are exactly the same"?

[J]

"Republicanism is making Christianity look bad," Daubenmire writes. I wholeheartedly agree. Daubenmire's proposed alternative, however, is to make Christianity look even worse. His idea of a "Christian" party seems wholly devoid of what I regard as essential Christian values -- justice, liberation, compassion, solidarity, magnanimity, stewardship, love -- and the formation of such a party would be Very Bad for American Christianity."

Yeah, fascinating, Fred. However, I'm afraid that I can't be bothered to tease apart Republicanism from Christianity.

[J]

Christianity is like a fairly unremarkable colored stone lying at the bottom of the second-deepest bucket of human feces in the world (the all-time deepest would be Islam, but only by a matter of inches). Fred and Anne Lammott (sic?), and Jim Wallis and all the rest keep chanting, "Go on: Reach in and grab it out."

Fuck that. I'd prefer cleanliness and atheism.

[NonyNony]

I hold out hope every day that the "no compromise" wing of the Republican party will either hold a purge, and throw out all of the unbelievers, or pick up their ball, walk out, and form their own party. There is the Constitution Party, which would be a nice fit for the "no compromise" folks. I doubt it will happen, but its a nice hope.

[mmack]

Did any of these people actually READ their Bible? I believe there was this line in Matthew 6:24:

"No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other; or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You can't serve both God and Mammon."

Um, if you actually LOOK at the world, instead of taking EVERYTHING on faith, you'll notice politicians, ESPECIALLY Republican politicians, LOVE to serve mammon. God is what you mention when you want to get elected and get more mammon.

It must be nice to be that naive.

[Ken]

That is until Christ will appear and raise them all up into heaven where they will engage in a collective chorus of "F**K you we are in heaven and you ain't". Which will be happening any day now... Honest... Any day now...

Don't be LEFT BEHIND (TM)!"

[Stentor]

Jesus will not ride into town on an elephant.

But he did ride into town on a donkey. Methinks the metaphors need a bit more work.

[straight]

Christianity is like a fairly unremarkable colored stone lying at the bottom of the second-deepest bucket of human feces in the world (the all-time deepest would be Islam, but only by a matter of inches). Fred and Anne Lammott (sic?), and Jim Wallis and all the rest keep chanting, "Go on: Reach in and grab it out."
Fuck that. I'd prefer cleanliness and atheism.

Except that in that analogy, the "feces" are your fellow human beings and I really doubt you smell a whole lot better just because you're not in the bucket. And the stone, when polished, is a priceless pearl.

Christian, atheist, whatever, it's a sad utopian illusion to think, "If I can just keep the wrong kind of people out, my group is going to be pure and unstained by the evils that the rest of humanity is prone to."

[Perry]

I think drafting Roy Moore is a GREAT idea. The only question is "Which branch of the armed forces?". I vote for Army.

[Stephen]

Christianity is like a fairly unremarkable colored stone lying at the bottom of the second-deepest bucket of human feces in the world (the all-time deepest would be Islam, but only by a matter of inches). Fred and Anne Lammott (sic?), and Jim Wallis and all the rest keep chanting, "Go on: Reach in and grab it out."

Fuck that. I'd prefer cleanliness and atheism.

The street preachers spewing hatred toward "unbelievers" do not justify the exact same level of hatred spewed toward them.

"J" is as warped and vile in his/her beliefs as the worst that either Islam or Christianity has to offer. If "cleanliness" is to be viewed as simple human decency, then this person has some work to do.

I would suggest that A-theism is not to be confused with hatred of religion. The first is a viewpoint, the second a pathology.

[ako]

So using ugly language to describe someone else's belief is comparable to the worst that Christianity and Islam have to offer? Like the Inquisition or the Taliban? Is describing a religion as a bucket of feces equivilant to witch burnings? Stoning people to death? The Crusades? Is that sentence even as warped and vile as the fact that some women in Pakistan are sitting in jail for adultery, because they got raped, filed charges, and didn't have the four male witnesses mandated by the Koran? As warped as a single nun telling an HIV-positive man not to use a condom with his wife, claiming that it won't work? Did J's remark contain a hidden coded message that "all believers should be killed," which I missed? Kind of like "Cut down all the tall trees,"?

Or is possible you're using hyperbole to undermine your own point? Cause I find it hard to take someone seriously when they're either lumping discourtesy in with atrocity.

If you think he's rude, fine. But get some perspective.

[b]

"And the stone, when polished, is a priceless pearl."

And if you still don't get a priceless pearl after polishing, it obviously means you've not polished it enough.

[Pleather Naugahyde]

And if it's not a pearl, if you keep working at it you might get a hikaru dorodango (shiny ball of mud)!

[Stephen]

I was comparing beliefs; J's comment contains the same hatred and fear that motivated the people you list. Since we have no idea just what J's actions in the real world have been, there is no way to judge whether they are on a par with your examples.

Regarding your examples, I wonder at what point do people like you finally become comfortable enough in your (lack of) beliefs that you no longer need to continually find new justification for them?

I am well aware of the atrocities committed in the name of various gods. But to blame religion for these things is like blaming ice cream for rape, to use the old sociological cliche. Correlation is not causation.

Religion has been a part of human experience always. It is a stretch, however, to declare that it is religion that is the problem, that human beings would just be so much better if not for that. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Kim Jong Il - all atheists, and responsible for millions upon millions of deaths in just the last century. However, I don't assume that all atheists are murderous scumbags intent on world domination.

As my old Christian History professor used to say, "make sure that the white horse you rode in on isn't really an albino jackass." Check your steeds, O Wise Ones.

[ako]

So you admit you have no way of judging J's actions in the real world. And you're also comfortable assuming that I'm a bitter atheist desperately trying to prop up my non-belief by memorizing horrors in the name of religion.

I am an atheist; you got that much right. But I'm not trying to justify my lack of belief: I just thought your previous statement was garbage. J called Christianity and Islam buckets of feces. That's ugly, but nowhere near on the scale of the worst parts of religion. It's not nearly as vile as the Bible's command that homosexuals be killed (also witches, disobedient children, women who lose their virginity before marriage, etc.), or some of the Koran's passages about how women are inferior, Jews are contemptible, and anyone who won't convert should be killed. Should I try to find citations, or would a ten-minute internet search just confirm your view of me as desperately scrambling for confirmation of my own atheism?

And before you get into a quote war, may I remind you of what you originally said?

"J" is as warped and vile in his/her beliefs as the worst that either Islam or Christianity has to offer.

The worst. That means even if I buy your view that how a religion affects the world is less real than one interpretaion of a certain translation of a holy book, the worst includes all of it. Not just Jesus on a good day hugging children. The smiting vengeful God who sends his followers to ravage cities, too. Is the "bucket of human feces" metaphor as vile as all of that?

If you have any interest in hearing what I think, instead of simply delcaring it; I don't think religion is evil. I don't think it's as bad as what J described. I think that any assembled collection of poetry, philosoply, mythology, and history will have some wisdom in it. It will also have some parts that are nonsensical, or warped. I think there are good and bad religious people, some of whom were inspired to be good or bad by their religion, and some of whom would have acted like that anyways. I think religion can be a particularly powerful tool of social control, because eternal torment is a bigger threat than anything one human can do to another, and because if believe "God, who is always right, said this," then your own internal moral objections would logically be wrong and evil. One of the best examples I've read of this was Huck Finn's, "All right, then, I'll go to hell!" line, pitting an individual's conscience against what they thought God wanted.

I also thing the relationship between claiming, even with graphic metaphors that someone's belief system is repellant and without value, and killing them for not sharing yours is so small as to be practically non-existant.

[Duane]

Don't run off the wingnut before he has a chance to share the gospel of Paul with us.

[J]

My, my; all this fuss over me.

"Since we have no idea just what J's actions in the real world have been, there is no way to judge whether they are on a par with your examples."

Since I haven't killed anyone or sliced up any child's genitalia out of solicitious concern for their sacredness or burned anyone or their books or commanded the demolition of all astronomical observatories or called for the deaths of any authors or determined that other people's love was wrong and that they needed to be "restored" to heterorightness . . .

...then I would submit that what I believe and the way I live is head, shoulders, and 10% extra better than religion.

Except that in that analogy, the "feces" are your fellow human beings..."

No, the feces would be the history of religion.

"And the stone, when polished, is a priceless pearl."

You have said as much. But I don't feel it is so.

[Stephen]

Don't run off the wingnut before he has a chance to share the gospel of Paul with us.

I guess this refers to me, so thank you! It's the first time in my life that I've ever been called a wingnut. I must say that it's a bit refreshing, after all the names like hippy, libtard, looney leftist, America-hatin', terrorist-sympathizing, Christian-basher. How fun.

Again, I was not talking about behavior, only quality of belief and rhetoric. You want to confuse the two, that's fine. You want to present Atheism as some sort of rational, peaceful and intelligent alternative to religion - without qualification - fine. But you're wrong. I don't have to hide from the things done in the name of various beliefs. Again, I probably have a better grasp on the evils perpetuated by "religious" folk than the most devoted religion-basher here.

But the things that others have done does not require that I ignore or accept repugnant things that are directed not at those who we can all agree are evil, but at people like Fred and commenters here at this blog who are simply trying to live their lives the best they can.

Or I can lump all the atheists here with Mao, Lenin, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh and other atheists who raped, pillaged, tortured and committed genocide in the name of no god at all. I'm sure that their atrocities pale in comparison to the accumulated sins of the religious. Since we are in this thread concerned only with the bottom line of who has killed more, or who has done the worst thing, I guess you all are quite correct with your accusations: Fred Clark is an evil human being whose beliefs are a bucket full of shit.

What a nice way to describe the person who is providing the bandwidth for your opinions.

[ako]

You do seem to like attributing statements to others. I don't think anyone here's claimed that all Christians are evil. Fred actually strikes me as a genuinely nice person. I'm not convinced of the validity of his belief system, and I'm not going to pretend it looks true or reasonable to me just to avoid offending him, but he strikes me as a good guy.

Lumping all atrocities commited by people who profess X together and arguing that whoever's got the biggest list of horrors is a bad person is a pretty stupid way to look at things. You're right about that. The only reason I even got into the whole 'which is worse' issue is that you explicitly equated one internet post calling a belief system a bucket of shit and the worst that two major religions have to offer. That's what I was disagreeing with.

And again, I don't think Atheism is the answer to the world's problems. Since Atheism, by definition is only one belief, I don't think that, by itself, it's much of a moral guide. There's still the question of how to live in the world. I think it avoids some of the problems of religious morality (having to do with inherent authority) but doesn't promise any kind of good results.

And if you can provide a more solid definition of "quality of belief and rhetoric," then we can address that. Would the doctrines of a religion be included? Presumably not statements, teachings, or writings, of believers, or "God wants us to do this" claims that originate from anywhere other than the holy book. Because the speech and writings of preachers and theologians is just behavior; and looking at that's the same as equating atheists with Stalin, isn't it?

Or, if you don't find the whole 'who's worst' argument relevant, you could find a different way to criticize someone's opinion, other than arguing, 'You're just as bad as the really bad ones!'

[Ray]

"I am well aware of the atrocities committed in the name of various gods. But to blame religion for these things is like blaming ice cream for rape, to use the old sociological cliche. Correlation is not causation."

Would you agree that the same applies to all the good things committed in the names of various gods?

[ohiolibrarian]

Fred,

You forgot humility. The problem with most of the worst Christians, Muslims or atheists, is that they know THE TRUTH ... the one and only TRUTH. No doubt enters their minds that what they think is THE TRUTH, is in fact, THE TRUTH. Therefore anyone who disagrees with them is also disagreeing with God or Reason or whatever. Seems kind of blasphemous to me. They essentially worship not God, but themselves and their interpretation of scripture or science or whatever.

Humility makes you doubt that you know THE TRUTH even if you think you do. Humility makes it harder to attack and brutalize others on the basis of the truth because you understand that what you believe to be the truth may not be THE TRUTH.

[Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little]

What makes me sad, but of course not surprised, is that, among this guy's list of "unchristian" planks he alleges are in the Republican platform, TORTURE does not show up. I suppose Coach Dave thinks that TEH GAY makes baby Jesus cry, but TORTURE is just fine by Our Lord 'n Savior.

[David Huff]

Oh please, PLEASE let this happen! Disentangling the evangelical nutjobs from the Republicans would be a blessing all around. Maybe we'd get more middle-of-the-road, traditional conservatives in the GOP, and it'd shine a bright, clear light on just how over-the-top wacko the Religious Right has become. A win-win situation :)

"Republicanism is making Christianity look bad," Daubenmire writes. Heh, Christianity doesn't need help with that - my co-religionists manage to look bad all by themselves...

[Jesurgislac]

Nicole: I suppose Coach Dave thinks that TEH GAY makes baby Jesus cry, but TORTURE is just fine by Our Lord 'n Savior

Logical, when you think about it. If Jesus hadn't been tortured to death by the Romans, where would the Christian Church be today?

[Duane]

Speaking of Christianity being our national religion, this excerpt from a MSNBC.com article on Denny Hastert blew me away:

"Denny Hastert was an unlikely politician, a mild-mannered country boy whose father owned a feed-supply store. He inherited a stolid Midwestern conservatism from his parents, and accepted Jesus as his savior in high school. His autobiography overflows with 1950s nostalgia, with Denny waking up at 3 a.m. to drive a milk truck, and operating on his own infected shoulder."

WTF??

Here is the full article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15282501/page/2/

[Stephen]

Would you agree that the same applies to all the good things committed in the names of various gods?

No. I see people's belief systems as ways for them to try and improve themselves, to be better than they are. Atheism is no different. My understanding is that Atheists see religion as being inherently illogical and many of them see religion as the source of all the evil that is present in the world. Atheism, then, is a way for these people to keep themselves out of the morass that is religion, and to better themselves.

So if a person tells me that Buddhism saved them from being in a gang in Los Angeles, which has happened, then I believe him. If another tells me that embracing Atheism has freed them from the repression, fear and hatred of their parents, which has happened, then I believe them too.

People like J and his/her defenders are happy to declare Christianity (and other religions, it seems) as buckets of shit. When challenged, they recite their laundry lists of atrocities to bolster their claim.

But when Atheism is blamed for the actions of Mao or Stalin, when it is Pol Pot's unbelief in a god that is declared the source of his inhumanity, do all of you, as Atheists, agree? Or do you say that no, you can't blame their Atheism for their actions?

I am willing to say that the genocidal Atheistic tryants who caused the deaths of hundreds of millions over the last century failed to live up to the ethich of Atheism, an ethic intended to free people from the excesses and dangers of religion. Why then would so many of you refuse to do the same for religion?

[wintermute]

> But when Atheism is blamed for the actions of Mao or Stalin, when it is Pol Pot's unbelief in a god that is declared the source of his inhumanity, do all of you, as Atheists, agree? Or do you say that no, you can't blame their Atheism for their actions?

I think the point is that Mao and Stalin never said "There is no god, therefore I'm going to kill lots of people". Their atheism was orthogonal to their atrocities. On the other hand, the Spanish Inqusition, or the crusades, or the murders of abortionists or gays happened explicitly and directly because of the religious beliefs of the perpetrators.

To put it another way:

But when vegetarianism is blamed for the actions of Hitler, when it is Pol Pot's meatless diet that is declared the source of his inhumanity, do all of you, as vegetarians, agree? Or do you say that no, you can't blame their vegetarianism for their actions?

Demonstrate that there's a causual link between any of these atrocities and the fact that the perpetrators believed in no god, and you might have a point worth making.

[Stephen]

My point, wintermute, is that there is nothing within a religion such as Christianity that allows for the atrocities you mention. The justifications for them were perversions of the Bible and theological tradition.

Since many of the people I've mentioned pursued pogroms against religious groups specifically because their Atheism did not allow for the existence of religious belief, it seems that there just might be a causal link between their Atheism and their actions.

However, I still would assert that it was not Atheism, but their perversion of it (and all else in their lives) that actually was the cause of their actions.

My secondary point is that if anyone really wants to do a body count comparison between the actions of Atheistic tyrants and religious, I'm willing to do that, since someone like Mao alone was responsible for more deaths than what was probably the total population of the world at the time of Jesus. We can even compare lists of atrocities if we want. The whole thing is a wash.

Human beings in their natural state can be pretty vile creatures. We need things that will help us to rise out of the swamp of our or barbaric heritage. For some it is religion. For others it is a rejection of religion. For many others, no matter what belief they claim to hold, escaping the swamp will prove impossible.

I don't understand why such a simple, reasonable point of view is so hard to take. It's certainly a better idea than simply declaring that those who don't believe as I do believe in buckets full of shit. That thinking, which is all I ever referred to, is the same type of thinking that the religious fundamentalists have. Again, the quality of belief is no different. All we need to do is change the position of the words Atheist, Muslim and Christian and such sentiments can be applied to the very worst thinking (so I can be clear) that any of the 3 belief systems has to offer.

[ako]

Are you at all interested in what I was actually saying? I don't think Christianity is a bucket of shit. I just don't see the connection between the thinking behind that opinion and the thinking that leads to "Kill them for disagreeing with me!"

Atheism, by the way, is not a belief system. It is one belief. It can be used to categorize belief systems, the same way "monotheism" describes religions, but isn't one. So there is no ethic of atheism. There's plenty of atheistic system of ethics, which incorporate Atheism in their world view, but no ethics of atheism.

And I don't think the distinction between the principles of a belief system and the practices of the followers are that absolute. In looking at Communism, for example, it doesn't strike me as any more reasonable to ignore Stalin and Mao, than it does to judge it entirely by their actions. What in that belief system allowed for that to arise? Who was granted the authority to dictate what was "real Communism" and what wasn't? How did well-intentioned people get persuaded to let that slide? These are fair questions about any belief system, religious or atheistic.

I also disagree that beliefs only influence people for the better, not the worst. If the Bible says, for instance, "Thou shall not suffer a witch to live," and people reading that verse go off and burn witches, can you really say it's completely unrelated to their belief system? Or that reading it and believing it is by definition a perversion or an excuse?

Or if they read, "Love thy neighbor as thyself," and go around being kind it's directly attributable to the beliefs they embrace? That reading and beleiving the good bits is necessarily correct, and reading and believing the bad bits is necessarily wrong? Because I don't see the reason for that division.

In a room with a group of gay Christian marriage-rights activists on one side, and Christian "reparative therapy" advocates on the other, you can get a fierce argument about who's really following the Bible, what the loving course of action is, and what parts should be interpreted in which way. And it isn't a group faking belief as an excuse against a group who's been led by their religion to wisdom and love. Both sides follow their belief system, both think they're doing what their god wants, and one of them is wrong. I'd say it's the reparative therapy folks pushing a lifetime of emotional damage, but that's what they'd say about people advocating gay rights. And either way, one side has followed their beliefs in what's right, leading them to cause a lot of harm. Because religions and other belief systems aren't just tools for self improvement, they're also capable of doing a lot of harm.

[Stephen]

Because religions and other belief systems aren't just tools for self improvement, they're also capable of doing a lot of harm.

Ah, but Atheism "is not a belief system." You claim that we cannot link together differing kinds of Atheism, but that we can link differing kinds of Christianity. And really, that's the only way that you can absolve Atheism of the crimes committed in its name while holding Christianity - all of it - responsible for all the crimes committed in its name. How convenient that you and Stalin, if placed in a room, have no connection whatsoever, but the gay Christians/reparative therapists - or St. Francis and a bunch of witch burners - do have connections, being merely differing sides of one integrated, coherent system. The only thing that ties all Christians together is an emphasis upon Jesus*. The only thing that ties all Atheists together is the idea that there is no god. Sounds like the same level of connection no matter which system or non-system one chooses.

You're being intellectually dishonest. You may have convinced yourself that this somehow works out, but the fact remains unchanged.

*There is no unanimity about the person of Jesus within Christianity, not his teaching, not his historical presence, not any of the events and not even his essence, whether God/man or just a man.

[wintermute]

> My point, wintermute, is that there is nothing within a religion such as Christianity that allows for the atrocities you mention. The justifications for them were perversions of the Bible and theological tradition.

Really? I mentioned the Inquisition, which was based on such religious ideals as Exodus 18:9, and killing gays, which is diectly sanctioned by Leviticus 20:13. What do these passages mean, if not exactly what they appear to say? Not to mention moer ambiguous passages, like the destruction of Sodom and Gommorrah, or Moses ordering that young girls be taken as sex slaves...

That aside, if I believe that I can hear the voices of invisible pixies who command me to kill everyone wearing green, and promise to punish me if I fail, then the fact that I believe this is a direct cause of me going out and killing people who wear green, even if there is nothing in "orthodox" pixieism to support such a belief. I don't believe the way in which people follow Christianity, or Buddhism, or Islam can be measured against some perfect "Platonic form", and found to be wanting, or true. If it were so, then how could so many varients proliferate and condemn each other?

How can "Christian behaviour" mean anything other than "the behaviour exhibited by Christians"? You may feel that these people aren't really Christians, but why is your judgement any more important than theirs?

However, If I choose to kill people who wear green for some other reason, the fact that I do not believe in the existence of pixies probably has very little to do with it.

> My secondary point is that if anyone really wants to do a body count comparison between the actions of Atheistic tyrants and religious, I'm willing to do that, since someone like Mao alone was responsible for more deaths than what was probably the total population of the world at the time of Jesus. We can even compare lists of atrocities if we want. The whole thing is a wash.

Mao killed half a million people for criticising his leadership. Some of those were religous groups, it's true. Other groups were happy to support his leadership, and were left alone. It's simply a lie to say that he deliberately hunted out people with any form of religious belief and had them executed.

Somewhere around 30 million more died as a result of his poor management of resources such as food. Are you counting these amongst the deaths that were directly attributable to his atheism?

Pol Pot killed about 750,000 people, with around another million dying as a result of his policies (a far greater proportion of Cambodia's population than Mao's 30,000,000 was of China's). Those 750,000,000 were made up of intellectuals, professionals, the literate, people who wore glasses, city dwellers, and (yes) the religious. Were all of these deaths the result of atheism, or just the last category? Or can the religious be considered another political powerbase who needed to be broken before they could topple him? I cannot answer this question, but I think it's simplistic to declare that his only possibly motivation must have been that he hated religion.

Stalin mostly kileld people for not being ethnically pure Caucasians (as in, from the Caucus Mountains, rather than white-skinned). Again, he did destroy religious structures, but in this case I have no hesitation in saying that he was motivated by politics rather than by hatred of religion. The churches were capable of motivating their congregations to resist Stalin. Or, actually, there probably was a religious component: people would not worship Stalin as the Father of the State while they also worshipped in churches, but in this he was forcing people to join a religion, not to become athiests.

And as for "someone like Mao alone was responsible for more deaths than what was probably the total population of the world at the time of Jesus": Well, I can agree with that, but so what? What does the population at the time of Jesus have to do with anything? Hitler (a Christian who killed Jews because they killed Jesus) probably killed more than your arbitrary benchmark.

> I don't understand why such a simple, reasonable point of view is so hard to take. It's certainly a better idea than simply declaring that those who don't believe as I do believe in buckets full of shit.

Again, there's a difference between doing something because your beliefs tell you it's a choice between eternal happiness and eternal torture (no matter how wrong someone else who uses the same word to describe their beliefs says you are), and doing something in spite of the fact that your belief system says nothing about it at all.

Yes, there are amoral atheists. The examples you gave are excellent ones that no-one (I hope) will deny. But it's simply false to say that it was atheism that lead them to that immorality. In the case of religion, the amoralists make it quite clear that their religion is directly and fundamentally to blame for their actions.

I disagree with the "bucket of shit" metaphore, and I agree that religion has done very well for many people; especially in the arts. But the point remains: for the greater part of the last two thousand years, murder has been officially and explicitly sanctioned by the major Christian churches. It has been justified, at every turn, by frequent and copious reference to the Bible, and therefore to the inarguable Word of God. Does this mean that every Christian who ever lived through this period is not a Real True Christian because they don't live up to the ideal you have created? How do you know that you are right about what God wants, and they were all wrong?

[ako]

Fine, you win. You broke my code. I'm not actually saying what it looks like in my posts; that belief systems can do good AND harm, or that lumping Existentialists, Objectivists, and Communists together in the belief system of Atheism is like lumping Mormons, Wiccans, and Zororastrians together in THE belief system of Religion, or that how a belief or set of beliefs are put into practice has some validity in judging their merit, or that it's legitimate to connect where written docrine commands a horrible act and connect that to horrible acts done in the name of the doctrine.

No, I've just been pretending to say all of that in order to conceal my bitter atheistic vitrol in wanting to blame all religious people for everything wrong in the world, while absolving myself for guilt in the actions of Stalin (who you REALLY like bringing up!) But you managed not to be blinded by my actual words, and divined my true meaning. And you managed to show me how my questioning other people's beliefs was hateful and intellectually dishonest, but your questioning my beliefs was noble and enlightend. Good for you. Have fun basking in the warm glow of your own rightousness.

[Stephen]

Have fun basking in the warm glow of your own rightousness.

Ako, that glow is your own reflecting off me.

Jeez, fundamentalists are all the same, no matter if they claim a religion or not. It's impossible to debate with them; if called out on their inconsistencies they merely move the goalpoasts or change definitions in order to make sure they are always right.

How sad, how small to not be able to completely own all aspects of one's beliefs.

[Duane]

Stephen, you are comparing apples and oranges:

Folks killed in the name of God versus folks killed by people who don't believe there is a god.

Apples to apples would be:

Folks killed in the name of God versus folks killed in the name of (No God??)

Oranges to oranges would be:

Folks killed by believers versus folks killed by non-believers.

If you go with the apples to apples argument, you have to explain exactly how the killing of others by atheists was to the furtherance of atheism (versus, say, a state apparatus) or was done in the name of Atheism.

If you go with the oranges to oranges argument, you have a lot more killings to explain away on the left side of the equation. As an example, all of the victims of the BTK killer, etc. etc.

You will pardon me for calling you a wingnut but in all the years I've been yelling at folks online, its exclusively wingnuts who try to portray organized religion as a mostly force for good by comparing it to the murderous POLITICAL statist regimes of tyrants.

Instead of using the NABA argument, you'd further your religious aims along a bit better by acknowledging the hideous and bloody history perpetrated in the name of God and then explain how your version has/will overcome this tendency.

-D

[ako]

Since I conceded, you get to define me. I am therefore an intellectually dishonest fundamentalist who's been spewing my hatred for a nice guy like Fred in order to bolster my own unbelief. Also a sad, small person. Happy now?

[Stephen]

You will pardon me for calling you a wingnut but in all the years I've been yelling at folks online, its exclusively wingnuts who try to portray organized religion as a mostly force for good by comparing it to the murderous POLITICAL statist regimes of tyrants.

So that I consider Atheism to also be a potential force for good is irrelevant to you. That I really don't require a religious belief for a person to be a moral person doesn't matter to you. Well, of course not, otherwise you would just be a jerk for writing the foregoing.

nstead of using the NABA argument, you'd further your religious aims along a bit better by acknowledging the hideous and bloody history perpetrated in the name of God and then explain how your version has/will overcome this tendency.

I don't think I've really posted any religious aims. And I have acknowledged the "hideous and bloddy history" of not only the Christian churches, but Hindus, Muslims, even Buddhists are not exempt from this. I've said several times that I know quite well the things that have been done in the name of one god or another.

I'm not the one who refuses to acknowledge both aspects of my beliefs. You're using a double standard, just like poor, wounded ako. When it is "Christians" who do it, it's because God told them to, no matter if it is really political/financial considerations and they are just using the religion as a cover for their real goals. When atheistic regimes target all religions and murder people for no crime other than having a belief in a god, then it's just "political" and has nothing to do with a possible Atheistic intolerance of the presence of religious belief.

I'm not arguing for the superiority of religion, or of Christianity in particular - though Christianity is obviously the bogeyman for a lot of you. I just want people to apply the same standards to their own beliefs that they do to others.

But then, fundamentalists are never willing to do that. And there is really no difference between the attitudes of a gathering of wingnut hardcore "Christian" fundamentalists and the comments expressed by so many here.

[Duane]

blah blah blah

Did you, then, want to revise your comparison?

[Chelsea]

My, my, all this namecalling and bickering over semantics. Belief versus belief system? Honestly. The questions are is atheism responsible for the actions of every bad atheist the same way Christianity(Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.) is? Is a bucket of shit comment equatable to the worst any religion or non-religion has to offer? Is the politics behind a leader responsible for his evils, or religious belief or non belief? Are all the crimes committed under a religious or non-religious brand equatable to the best and/or worst the belief or belief system has to offer? Hopefully I clarified the basics of almost everything being argued, and if not, I apologize in advance. These philosophical debates are why I enjoy this blog so much.