Pope John Paul's Beatification ....

[flacaltenn]

So multiple people here are telling me that a belief in Natural Law and an absolute moral code was NOT the primary justification for America's Civil Rights movement. That the folks marching in the streets and getting jailed didn't claim their rights on the same Divine concept of dignity and freedom that our Founders did in the Declaration of Independence when THEY mentioned God? Must really hurt the simplistic notion of religious folk being stupid dupes of your right-wing political enemies. That's easier I suppose..

Here --- chant a few Birmingham marching hymns while you read MLK -- Letters from a Birmingham Jail for the first time since your public school obviously didn't require it. http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html

One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality.

That's the legal argument. Rooted in a FAITH in God's law. Not man's law.. That's EXACTLY what the protesters in Birmingham heard before they faced the dogs and fire hoses..

Don't look at me. I'm not religious. But I am PRO-choice on everything. And I believe that MY RIGHTS are secured by a higher power than man's law..

Sorry you can't or won't acknowledge that this makes sense to a LOT of people..

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by flacaltenn

So multiple people here are telling me that a belief in Natural Law and an absolute moral code was NOT the primary justification for America's Civil Rights movement. That the folks marching in the streets and getting jailed didn't claim their rights on the same Divine concept of dignity and freedom that our Founders did in the Declaration of Independence when THEY mentioned God? Must really hurt the simplistic notion of religious folk being stupid dupes of your right-wing political enemies. That's easier I suppose..

Here --- chant a few Birmingham marching hymns while you read MLK -- Letters from a Birmingham Jail for the first time since your public school obviously didn't require it. http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html

That's the legal argument. Rooted in a FAITH in God's law. Not man's law.. That's EXACTLY what the protesters in Birmingham heard before they faced the dogs and fire hoses..

Don't look at me. I'm not religious. But I am PRO-choice on everything. And I believe that MY RIGHTS are secured by a higher power than man's law..

Sorry you can't or won't acknowledge that this makes sense to a LOT of people..

Yes, religion did play a big part in getting people to stand up for themselves and getting others to support their cause. I think we all know that. It's interesting to note that it HAD to be employed. I would think that people would see a terrible wrong and simply want it to be righted. But, alas, there often has to be some external motivation.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go trim the Jasmine before God damns my soul to hell for committing "sloth". Or, maybe I just want to do it, because it's the right thing to do.

Dave

[flacaltenn]

FinBow:

I just don't buy into the notion that blind allegiance to this mixed bag is in any way more enlightened than not buying into it.

But buying whole-hog into a mixed bag say ..... like the Dem party.... well now that's a diff story.. That's more of a limited choice problem isn't it? where you HAVE TO choose between 2 mixed bags that might both have rot in them..

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by flacaltenn

FinBow:



But buying whole-hog into a mixed bag say ..... like the Dem party.... well now that's a diff story.. That's more of a limited choice problem isn't it? where you HAVE TO choose between 2 mixed bags that might both have rot in them..

You may have gotten the impression from my posts that I'm a Democrat. I'm not. However, I've just become thoroughly disgusted with the GOP since ~2002/2003 and they seem to be getting crazier by the minute (and one of their particularly loathsome aspects is their fealty to the Religious Right, a group that lacks a shred of the dignity you've referred to in other religions).

I would love for the GOP to get its head out of its ass and become a viable, reasonable and sensible party and stop catering to the cavalcade of angry, barking fools that has become its base.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by finnbow

You may have gotten the impression from my posts that I'm a Democrat. I'm not. However, I've just become thoroughly disgusted with the GOP since ~2002/2003 and they seem to be getting crazier by the minute (and one of their particularly loathsome aspects is their fealty to the Religious Right, a group that lacks a shred of the dignity you've referred to in other religions).

I would love for the GOP to get its head out of its ass and become a viable, reasonable and sensible party and stop catering to the cavalcade of angry, barking fools that has become its base.

Hear, hear! I feel much in the same way.

Dave

[flacaltenn]

JonL:

You should ask yourself why Atheists dont' have much of an infrastructure.. They have several magazines, websites and orgs.. Including some that exist solely to poke fun at people of faith. I have no problem with protecting their rights. They should not be forceably coerced by religion doctrine. But I think the poking fun part is obnoxious.

I support the Institute for Justice instead of the ACLU.. Same deal, less partisian. Tends to take the cases that the ACLU ignores because of its political bent.

FinBow:

My sincere sympathies on your dilemma. It's really hard to find a political home nowadays.. However, I've done the math and I feel FAR less threatened personally by the "religious right" than I do by the "pestering left". The leftists are not in my bedroom, but they are in everyother room of my house and my wallet. What I eat, what I drive, what I earn, what I buy, what I say, how I raise my kids, how green i am, ect.. Much more intrusive into my life than an occasional well-dressed Mormon boy showing up at my door. Or folks who don't want their tax money going to a medical procedure where a life could be (arguably) terminated. I can deal with that. So from a THREAT standpoint --- I give a slight edge to the GOP. HOWEVER, I will never fund or support EITHER party.

Had to consider all that before I moved to the Bible Belt from California. THey are not influencing me here. they are not shunning me here because I'm not in church on Sundays. Because they know I'm supportive and interested in their beliefs. The only crimp is not being able to buy liquor on Sunday until after noon...

[JonL]

Originally Posted by flacaltenn

JonL:

You should ask yourself why Atheists dont' have much of an infrastructure.. They have several magazines, websites and orgs.. Including some that exist solely to poke fun at people of faith. I have no problem with protecting their rights. They should not be forceably coerced by religion doctrine. But I think the poking fun part is obnoxious.

First I'll say that I don't agree with anybody or organization that relentlessly ridicules others. A little satire or hyperbole is understandable on any subject, but offensive ridicule should be avoided IMO.

I think atheists don't have much of an infrastructure because most atheists don't view atheism as a defining characteristic. I don't believe in god or religion but I don't need to join a group to maintain or express my lack of belief. I'm an audio enthusiast, so I joined Audiokarma. If I was disinterested in audio I don't think I'd join a forum where everyone made all sorts of posts expressing their disinterest in audio. I imagine that would be a pretty quiet group.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by flacaltenn

FinBow:

My sincere sympathies on your dilemma. It's really hard to find a political home nowadays.. However, I've done the math and I feel FAR less threatened personally by the "religious right" than I do by the "pestering left". The leftists are not in my bedroom, but they are in everyother room of my house and my wallet. What I eat, what I drive, what I earn, what I buy, what I say, how I raise my kids, how green i am, ect.. Much more intrusive into my life than an occasional well-dressed Mormon boy showing up at my door. Or folks who don't want their tax money going to a medical procedure where a life could be (arguably) terminated. I can deal with that. So from a THREAT standpoint --- I give a slight edge to the GOP. HOWEVER, I will never fund or support EITHER party.

As you, I'm not a believer in either party's agenda. That said, I don't accept any of the political conventional wisdoms (spewed by the parties) either. I don't think the GOP is the party of national security, family values or fiscal discipline (neither are). Same goes for the conventional wisdoms that the Dems claim. They're all full of shit IMHO.

I just have extreme difficulty supporting a party (the GOP) who moves in lockstep with the crazy, xenophobic lying assholes who populate talk radio and Fox. It's kinda a matter of principle. I just can't be in a party that welcomes such people. Simple as that.

Democrats tend to be overly idealistic and prone to overregulation. OTOH, a balance is needed to ensure that we don't become a full-fledged corporatocracy/oligarchy, even though the Dems are also in the bag for industry (though less so IMHO).

You may find this interesting; I serve on three different national consensus standards committees/commissions and almost invariably side with the industry view of things (on the issues we address). The Labor view of these issues (generally of a technical/managerial nature) is generally that any regulation (standard) is a good regulation.

Similarly, industry believes that no regulation is a good regulation. I believe that a good regulation is a good regulation. The trouble is that any regulation (or standard) written by a large group or committee ends up being a friggin' mess. I think we're better off with no standard than a friggin' mess. BTW, the politics of such committees makes national politics seem pretty tame and civilized.

[d-ray657]

A lot of this discussion reminds me of my favorite TV character ever - Dietrich on Barney Miller. He and WoJo and Barney are discussing the afterlife. Dietrich says he believes that life just ends, and there is no reward or punishment. Barney asks him that if his time came, it turned out that there was an afterlife, and he had to answer to God, what would he say. Diertich: "Whoops."

Regards,

D-Ray

[JJIII]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

A lot of this discussion reminds me of my favorite TV character ever - Dietrich on Barney Miller. He and WoJo and Barney are discussing the afterlife. Dietrich says he believes that life just ends, and there is no reward or punishment. Barney asks him that if his time came, it turned out that there was an afterlife, and he had to answer to God, what would he say. Diertich: "Whoops."

Regards,

D-Ray

There it is!