Beliefs and Action

I know that theists and atheists tend to get on one another's nerves, both here and elsewhere. One of the most frequently leveled charges at atheists is that we can not stand it when people believe differently than we do (ala atheist "fundamentalism") and that we wish to prohibit people from believing differently.

I've been doing some thinking on that, and I think there are actually two separate issues at work that can blend together and obscure the debate - leading to bomb-throwing and ad hominem attacks. The first issue is - as illustrated in the oft repeated accusation against atheists - is simply a difference of belief. This is perhaps the clearest example of what differentiates theists and non-theists - a disagreement regarding the metaphysical veracity of the notion of God.

For my money, I do not have absolute knowledge whether or not God actually exists, so that would technically make me an agnostic. However, I do very strongly believe that there is no God despite my lack of knowledge (hence, agnostic atheist). That being the case though, I am fine with people believing differently than I do. After all, I could be wrong (or we all could be wrong, for that matter). I honestly believe that the vast majority of theists and atheists have no problem with the fact that many people hold different beliefs. I know I don't.

The second issue, however, is what I think is often responsible for the escalation of hostilities and - as I tried to point out earlier - cloaks itself in the issue of a simple difference in beliefs (thus leading to hostile argument rather than cool-headed debate). As best as I can conceptualize it, the second issue is in regards to what the appropriate limit is for putting one's beliefs into action. This is the issue that gets under my (and I would presume other people's as well) skin.

Here's a concrete example: Many of you have probably heard the story about the woman in Tampa, FL who was raped and then jailed on an old arrest warrant. While she was in custody she was denied emergency contraception because of the nurse's religious convictions. This is just what I understand about this story. Whether or not I have the particulars correct is irrelevant, as issues just like this one have often surfaced here and elsewhere.

What makes me upset about such situations is not the fact that the nurse has religious convictions. I respect the fact that she believes that human life begins at conception, though I disagree vehemently. If she were to be the victim of a rape and become pregnant, but would carry the child to term because of her religious convictions I would not try to stop her. Indeed, I would probably think highly of her for having the courage of her convictions. Unfortunately, good people doing good things on the basis of their convictions has nothing to do with the objective truth of those convictions. That is why we all rely upon evidence in making decisions every day.

Why do we think it is safe to eat our cereal? Because we have eaten it several times before and we are still alive. Why do we believe our car will start this morning? Because it has started without fail for the past several hundred days. Why do we think that punching numbers on a phone will allow us to talk to a specific person? Because it has several times before. These are all examples of evidence that we use unconsciously in our daily lives.

In most aspects of all our lives, we have good evidence and, hence, good reasons for the things that we do. In the area of religion and belief, however, evidence is a tricky word. Both sides of the debate tend to agree that there is no evidence that points to the existence of a God such that it can be used as a proof. That doesn't mean God doesn't exist as absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, just to be clear. I'm not trying to persuade anyone into abandoning their personally held religious beliefs.

What I am trying to point out is simply this: When it comes to putting our beliefs into action with other human beings, evidence must be taken into account on the basis that we all should respect differences in religious (or lack thereof) convictions. This is simply because there is no way that we know of to resolve religious differences on the level of metaphysical debate. This should be plainly obvious to all of us. For all the debates that I have been involved in, I have never had someone send me a message that said they were renouncing their faith on the basis of something I have said nor have I re-converted to Christianity on the basis of things that were said to me.

So it seems to me that the field upon which daily decisions should be made when deciding how to deal with fellow human beings is the physical field simply because others might not believe the same way as you and, in addition, you might be wrong.

Going back to the example - if the nurse believes human life begins at conception on the basis of what is written in the bible, then I respect that. The fact that she would believe something that I think to be inaccurate is not what bothers me. What bothers me is that she would put those beliefs into action against another human being who might very well not believe those same things. It smacks of religious paternalism - and it is the worst kind of paternalism in my opinion. Such activities occur when there is either an inability or an unwillingness to admit that one might be mistaken in their beliefs that have, at least as I see it, no support in the world around us.

The purpose of me writing this was to try to differentiate between the two issues that tend to blend as one, and to try to explain how I see the second issue of the ethics of putting beliefs into action. I hope I was clear, and it was not my intent to inflame anyone's emotions but rather to try to bring a little more clarity to conversations here.

varkam:
"Going back to the example - if the nurse believes human life begins at conception on the basis of what is written in the bible, then I respect that. The fact that she would believe something that I think to be inaccurate is not what bothers me. What bothers me is that she would put those beliefs into action against another human being who might very well not believe those same things. It smacks of religious paternalism - and it is the worst kind of paternalism in my opinion. Such activities occur when there is either an inability or an unwillingness to admit that one might be mistaken in their beliefs that have, at least as I see it, no support in the world around us."

What your talking about is dogmatic thinking, where an individual believes that they have the whole and entire truth of a situation. This individual then puts their belief above the local law.

I see it as a conflict between an individual's responsiblity to provide the service for which they were hired, and their belief system. If their belief system conflicts with their job requirements, they either go against personal beliefs and provide the service required by the job, or leave the job. They do not have the right to deny service.

I see the nurse's failure to provide that service as both grounds for firing, and as grounds for a civil lawsuit against her. She does not have the right to deny service based on her religious belief.

I perceive that there is prejudice against the intentions of atheists here when atheists are simply stating why they don't believe in God(s). An atheist questioning beliefs seems to get a lot of defensiveness from the theist side.

However, I also perceive that there is prejudice from the atheists camp sometimes, in here, who might expect that just because a person is a theist this means that the theist would support putting belief in God into action against another human being.

The wrong perception that one side is imposing beliefs and that the other side is imposing lack-of-belief is what causes a lot of the bomb-throwing and ad hominem attacks. Perhaps it's all lack of communication? Or maybe one side is arguing apples and the other side is arguing oranges?

Thanks for the extremely articulate post that brings a lot of clarity to what happens here in this forum!

it takes two to tango. Atheists aren't innocent in the acrimony that is often found here in the R/T forums, but I figure a theist would be better equipped to address that as I don't get called out by fellow atheists too often.

I don't think it's an imposition of lack-of-belief that leads to the arguments around here, but rather the assumption by many atheists that a theist will always impose his or her beliefs on others that causes people to get upset - which is really just as bad. In other words, I agree with you.

"I don't think it's an imposition of lack-of-belief that leads to the arguments around here, but rather the assumption by many atheists that a theist will always impose his or her beliefs on others that causes people to get upset"

I don't think its either. I don't have to assume that a theist will impose their belief (and personally, I think the majority of the theists here are way too classy do that) in order to find faults with their ideas. Its not imposition on either side, despite the whining that goes on around here, that leads to arguments. Its just the plain ol' fact that we disagree that leads to argument. Blaming others for "imposing their beliefs on you" is bullshit on a forum where the discussion of ideas is the point.

We do disagree, but it is not so much the disagreement in and of itself that causes such ruckus. I have disagreed with many a person on here and have not been the least bit miffed. I do not think it is the simple disagreement that causes my blood pressure to rise but rather the assumptions that I tried (perhaps inreptly) to outline in the OP.

As a theist in this forum, I frequently feel the need to state that my belief in god is not dogmatic, and that in no way do I expect anyone -- atheist or fellow theist -- to come around to my particular way of thinking. I'm afraid I have accused a number of atheists here of tarring all believers with the same brush. And I have been asked (a number of times) why I take the matter so personally.

Here's why: my feeling is that the way conservative Christian mores have crept into public life in the last thirty years has poisoned the well for all of us. Jimmy Carter may be a sincere man but when public religion becomes fashionable it is taken up by all sorts of hypocrites and fascists, and it gets warped. In the hands of people with an authoritarian mindset, faith becomes a truncheon, or a bomb. So it's not surprising that many liberals and progressives flinch when someone announces they believe in god. (But it still bugs me.)

The nurse in your post is a perfect example of religion being allowed to run amok in politics and in public life: if she cannot dispense medication that has been prescribed for a patient, she should not be a nurse. Period. It is unconscionable, and to my way of thinking, ABSURDLY unChristian.

Damn this is all really frustrating. I hope I was coherent. Thanks again for your post, varkam.

But it is not fair. and we know that the fundies are actually doing the very opposite of what Jesus taught, but never the less we are all judged by there actions.
One could do that with atheist too by holding up Stalin as an example of an atheist and hold all atheist to account for his actions. but this only divides us as progressives and humanist and serves no good porpoise.
Let us just not go there.

As an atheist, I often blame the craziness of fundamentalism on all believers. And that's wrong - it's a kneejerk reaction to a problem that scares the shit out of many atheists.

But, liberal Christians are in a better position to challenge fundamentalism than are atheists, and we often blame them (rightly or wrongly) for not stemming the tide of fundamentalism in the U.S.

of trying to be low-key and un-obtrusive. They are often mocked as being "elitist" by the fundies. It's amazing how this mirrors American politics.

Also, liberal (mainline) protestant churches have been under attack by well-organized, well-funded conservative elements in their own midst. I hate to give these guys play, but it's worth checking out this web site if you can stomach it: http://www.ird-renew.org

It's the Institue on Religion and Democracy, and the infamous Richard Mellon Scaife is one of its founders. :scared:

It's a very accepting and tolerant position, but it hurts because the fundies are so in-your-face and they are agressive proselytizers. It appears (from a quick scan) that IRD is doing the sorts of things that can help combat fundamentalism.

of fundamentalism's ascendance. IRD is a rightwing front for the likes of Scaife and Olin. Theocracy is their goal and obliteration of religious moderates is their method. Look behind the schisms currently wracking the Episcopalians, Presbytarians, Methodists, et al, and you'll find those clowns funding it.

The veneer is definitely different from the malicious goals of the org.

They're darker and oilier than they'd have you believe. Just another bunch of Liars For Jesus.

that you really have to read that IRD web site carefully... pure slime. They are indeed behind the recent strife in the mainline churches. They're throwing big bucks into those supposed "schisms."

The nice, unobtrusive people are over at the National Council of Churches: http://ncccusa.org/

It looks much less slick than the IRD's site but if you get into the nitty-gritty you'll see that it's pretty much about the mainline churches' social justice stuff. E.g., third article from the top, "LJR thanks Senate for minimum wage vote," LJR being the "Let Justice Roll Living Wage Campaign."

It is the more the fault of believers for not tolerating the fundies who are by the way not fundamentally oriented anyway. A truly Fundamentalist Christian is one who believes in the fundamental teachings of the Christ. And to borrow from Colbert; And the teachings of Jesus have a well known liberal bias.
But you are right the first time one of them said in public that we should pray in school or at a football game or in some other public venue the true believers, the true fundamentalist, should have picketed there church and accused them of perverting the teachings of Jesus. They would have not went to far if we had because the truth is so easy to prove in this case.
And the same is true for Stalin and the atheist with morals, someone should have stopped him, but they didn't .

Instead of the bible, imagine you own a gun. You are a very responsible owner, only use it for legitimate hunting and you keep it locked and away from children when not in use. But...you also believe that everyone should own a gun. You tell people how great your life is now that you own a gun and you advocate that everyone should get one. You make no distinction between people who are responsible and people who are violent nuts. You just think guns are good and that anybody who doesn't have one is missing out big time.

Now, if you have that attitude, do you share any responsibility when someone buys a gun and uses it in a crime? Does your support of gun manufacturers translate into any culpability when others use their products to hurt people?

Yes, Stalin was an evil man who happened to be an atheist. But there is no evidence that he did evil because of his views on religion. Try saying that about the 19 hijackers or suicide bombers or people who shoot abortion doctors. Or people who voted for George Bush.

The fact is that this religion thing is not for everyone. Many people can have it and use it responsibly, but many, many people simply become dangerous once they're exposed to it. Most theists go around pretending that biblical doctrine is a completely harmless belief system that can be applied to everyone. And that's where your responsibility comes in.

Would the world be better off if Mohammed Atta, Osama Bin Laden and George Bush were atheists? Of course it would. Just like it would be better if Mark David Chapman and Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold never had access to firearms.

and terrorism are undeniably complex. Economic, security, and educational forces are all at play. Religion factors in as well. In the case of religious terrorism, it strikes me that the civil-religious doctrine invoked to support such actions fall on a continuum between either the religion being the ultimate motivator for the action (such as with abortion clinic bombings) or with religion simply being used to motivate the masses (such as with the Iraq war).

Theists often say that religion does not necessarily lead to violence, and I agree. There are many, many good people who try to build a better world and gain strength from their faith. It's these people that I admire and wish that I could share that same degree of faith. However, no one will ever be able to convince me that things like belief in paradise after death did not facilitate and/or allow things like 9/11. If the hijackers believed that their life would simply come to a screeching halt upon slamming into the towers - they would have pulled up. At least that's how I see it.

who was a minister and was responsible for a lot of social progress and was himself a victim of violence. Dorothy Day was a Catholic activist for workers' rights. That's two people off the top of my head whose faith really did lead to good works.

The official stance from most mainline Protestant churches, as well as from the Reform Jews on most of the social issues dear to DUer's hearts (Iraq, abortion, etc.) is pretty damn reasonable.

And there are any number of religious people who work in shelters and soup kitchens without tooting their own horns about it, or -- and this is extremely important -- trying to convert the people they help.

Again, the fundies are loud and in your face, they use guerilla marketing as well as guerilla warfare and they grab all the headlines. And come on, honestly, you don't have a lot of Episcopalians and Reform Jews knocking on your door and saying "my biblical doctrine applies to YOU, jgraz!"

...aside from the fact that everyone would have despised him for his lack of faith, that is. People like MLK, Dorothy Day and others bring an inherent morality to their faith. They can build on their faith in a positive way because they are inherently good people to start with. I don't believe for a second that Martin Luther King would have been any less of a great man if he did not believe in god.

Good people tend to do good, evil people tend to do evil. But there's only one thing I've encountered that will make otherwise good people do evil.

That's what I mean when I talk about the dangers of religious belief.


Edited as part of a never-ending quest to stamp out typos.

if he had been an atheist... He might not have been as effective. The civil rights movement was born in the black churches because there was already an infrastructure there for it to be based out of. It also attracted religious (and of course, non-religous) people down from the North.

Same for Dorothy Day -- the progressive branch of the Roman Catholic church has a long tradition of supporting unions and workers' rights. She was brought up in that.

The first Abolitionists, like John Brown, were Congregationalists. As were the Beechers.

And hey, I'm not arguing with you AT ALL about the dangers of religious belief. (I'm the one who made the comment about religion being a bomb in the hands of the wrong person, after all.) But we don't outlaw fire because some idiots like to play with matches.

if it weren't for people who relied on the bible as justification for slavery. Not the best tradeoff IMHO.

with the perpetuation of slavery, of course.

You might note that the same people who quoted the Bible to justify slavery also quoted the Constitution. What an evil document that must be!

said, "Aha! We can do it because it's in the Bible!"??

Yes, there were those who pointed to the Bible for justification once slavery was underway. If they couldn't find justification in the Bible they found it elsewhere. (Bad "science," for example, like eugenics.)

You yourself said that people who are inclined to be good do good and people who are inclined to be evil do evil. By and large, humanity can be a shitty lot. Religion is responsible for much, but by no means all, of the evil in the world. Let's not forget money, racial prejudice, fear, and plain old not-giving-a-crap.

and, theologically, they were absolutely correct. It was the abolitionists who were on shakey ground wrt biblical doctrine.

One big problem with what you said is that no one goes to church every week to worship money, racial prejudice, fear, or plain old not-giving-a-crap.

Except Karl Rove.

But come on, you don't have to go to church to worship that other stuff. You can do it at work or in your car or in the bathroom. :D

Ever hear of "liberation theology?" It has its roots in both OT Judaism, with the repeated deliverance of the Jewish people from oppression, and in Jesus' teaching of the kingdom of Heaven. One of the planks in his platform was the abolition of slavery--the proclamation of the "acceptable year of the Lord/year of the Lord's favor" in which debts were forgiven, captives released and slaves given their freedom.

Paul had a different take--for him, the end of time was so near that changing one's social status through marriage or manumission was simply irrelevant. Hence, his "slaves, obey your masters" and other don't-rock- the-boat admonitions. He was wrong, of course.

But I lean more to individual responsibility than that of a group being responsible just because they can be categorized.
For instance I would be for anyone owning a gun and caring it on there person if they like, but not hidden but in plain view.Caring a concealed weapon should be the crime.
'I would bet that you would see a drop in the number of homicides.
How Can I say that? well it is simple nature. Elk have huge horns that are very Sharp and can do a lot of damage, but when the elk fight they seldom hurt one another but fight it out in a ritualistic manner.
With us humans if someone has a gun strapped to there hip and raises his voice in a threating manner he has committed a crime because he would be implying the use of deadly force. People would have to watch what they say if they packed the heat.
True there is no way to connect Stalin actions with his belief, but there were many true believing party members that just followed orders and highly immoral things that rival any one in our recent history.
And then there is the cultural revolution in China that was just bazaar and they punished anyone that believed in any religion at all.

Your post reminded me of when I was in high-school. I had just gotten a black leather trench coat for my birthday and I was so excited to start wearing it to school. I wore it for about a week and then Columbine happened. The next day, I did not wear it because of the whole "trench-coat mafia" thing.

In some respects, that's what has happened to Christianity - at least as how I see it. A relatively small number of completely crazy fundamentalist lunatics have "poisoned the well" as you put it, and in doing, have painted even liberal and progressive members of their respective religion with the same brush - albeit lighter shades.

My point, I suppose, is that there's nothing one can do about it besides wait out the storm. It is not fair that should occur, but it does because that is largely how people operate. The loudest and most obnoxious members of Christianity are often the ones who are the craziest as well, and so that is the example that most of us see and remember. For example, if on a college campus there is a preacher in the free-speech zone who is calling women who walk by "whores" and tells everyone they're going to hell followed by a preacher who delivers a message of love and acceptance, who do you think most people are going to remember? Like I said, it's not fair. Neither was me not being able to wear my trench-coat. Unfortunately, that's how things seem to work.

....and raised as many issues, the last of which I'll address here. First, I must qualify myself in that I'm neither fish nor fowl when it comes to metaphysical labeling. I have my own personal beliefs that have no context in the usual "god" debate.

What I see as a problem for religion, is that there is not only a tremendous disconnect between their beliefs and actions, but considerable debate on what those beliefs are. To me, if you can't agree on the foundation, how can the house stand? Christians in particular advance their religion based upon "The Good News." That is supposed to mean that salvation is for those who seek it and conform to its edicts. But its premise is based upon only one thing: LOVE. Something hardly mentioned (except in reference to its followers) when in fact most of their actions are quite contrary to their beliefs.

The attribution has been given to Jesus for having said in Matthew 5:44 -- "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you."

Yet it seems to me that this principle commandment is violated every time a religion seeks to limit the rights of gays, those seeking abortions, or anyone whose lifestyle is at variance to what they believe it "should" be. If God indeed gave us all free will, then isn't it up to us to decide our beliefs for ourselves? Must we be coerced with religiously-influenced laws and cultural mores whose result is contrary to a belief in love and inclusion?

Personally, I don't accept the veracity of the texts themselves, upon which all of this is founded. There is no other document of this age that is taken seriously by anyone, but to question the bible is blasphemous. But in addition to the things "lost in translation" there are parts are totally ignored while other parts have found their way into our laws. I think that religion has outlived its usefulness. Its noble purpose (albeit unintended), in creating cohesion within Bronze age peoples and fostering the development of civilization, are now met in other ways. And religion now finds itself screaming at the top of its lungs demanding that we continue to consider it relevant.

Religion has been evolving for thousands of years right along with us -- only much, much slower. But today, we're much more knowledgeable than we once were. And the smoke and mirrors, the condemnations, the threats and excommunication don't mean what they once did to many people. And with the direct conflicts one sees in the churches, with their sex scandals, thefts, their hatred and duplicity -- none of these things help to solidify their arguments. (Do as I say, not as I do). If there is a group I respect for their religious beliefs, it is groups like the Quakers and similar sects, who appear to at least try to put what they believe into everyday practice.

Finally, I believe that the reason that religion continues to exist at all, is because no one really knows what to put in its place. I've never understood why so many believe in the goodness and greatness of god's creation, but the things associated with existing religion belief is quite the opposite. The religious tenets and beliefs all seem to roundly deny the greatness of their god's creation by saying that things won't get any better until everything god created is destroyed and we're all in heaven. If this is so, then why did god create earth in the first place? We could have just stayed where we were...

is that, like you pointed out, it seems that there are many edicts which are contrary to other parts of the bible or are simply disregarded entirely. If only the bible came with a reader's guide, then people like me who don't have a direct line to God might be able to figure it out. Alas.

progressive people of faith, including the clergy, don't take the Bible as the inspired word of god. They realize that it was written by many human beings over a long period of time, and sort of cobbled together at some point, with the New Testament being tacked on later.

Everyone uses only the parts they find useful: you might find the Sermon on the Mount inspiring, but you're not quite ready to give up all your worldly posessions, leave your family, and hit the road preaching.

I really think that the main difference between religious progressives and fundies is that the progressives are able to grasp things like metaphor and poetic license, and are also able to cope if everything doesn't add up just right. Fundies (like authoritarian political types) need a set of rules to live by.

I think the contradictions within the bible are perhaps one of the strongest intellectual arguments around against fundamentalism. You can't take two mutually exclusive claims to be literally true at the same time. One can only wish that would make one's head explode.

That's been my wish for Pat Robertson for years, and it hasn't happened yet. He just drinks a shake, pumps a couple of tons and then he calls god up for an update on his forecasts. Damn.
:P

would be dandy, as long as I'm not standing next to them.

My last thought of the night (it's nearly 2:00 a.m. here!) is that, if the Bible didn't exist fundies would still be fundies and progressives would still be progressives. There would be something else to latch on to, like the monolith from "2001" or something.

Yeah, I'd better go to bed now. :hangover:

...its that Fundie "literal interpretation" that has a teacher in NJ telling his students that Noah included Dino Flinstone on his Ark. Sheesh.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x110498

After all, what on Earth is the point of the Bible if it is NOT the authoritative word of Gawd? Just another book? If everyone can work out what is so great on their own then there's not anything so special about it.

Of course Fundies don't like that! You make their idol worthless!

But it is also possible to believe that it is the inspired word of God and understand just what you are reading.
And that is the problem with the fundies as well as the atheist and agnostic as well...they do not understand WHAT they are reading.
For instance the Book of Psalms si actually the Songs of King Solomon, they are just songs not instructions on how to live life.
If we wrote a book called The Songs of the Beatles we would know just what we were reading and understand what was being said when we read "Mother Superior jumps the gun"
But could you imagine how hard it would be for someone 5000 years in the future to understand that with no knowledge he was reading a book of songs?
And the entire bible is like that. the Old testament is history, the book of laws for the New Nation of Israel, the prophets of Israel and what they said and did, and when you read it all together as one should read any book, it has a story..And I assure you that most fundies could not accurately tell you what that story is.
In the new testament the first 5 books are the story of Jesus and the rest are letters written by the early founders of the church to each other discussing matters of concern and organizational things. The final book Revelations is a amplification of the vision the profit Daniel had in the old testament and is attributed to John the Davine.
All of it together is a story but few are able to put aside what they have heard it is about and find out for themselves and read it like any other book.

That you can't really take any part of the bible as literal truth. That it's all open to interpretation if it's the inspired word of God, and then who is to say how one should take such and such a passage? As I mentioned previously, it would make things a lot easier if the bible came with a reader's guide to point out which edicts are important and which ones are mere allegory. If that's the case, then the bible is essentially just a book of morality tales that is loosely based on historical events. That's not to say that it doesn't have it's purpose, but that is to say it's purpose should not be to the authoritative moral foundation for this modern world. At least that's how I see things.

"then the bible is essentially just a book of morality tales that is loosely based on historical events"

This is precisely what all "holy" texts are intended to be -- a guide. And when written, it was speaking to a different humanity. These text were written for the priests and scribes (read: lawyers) -- since hardly anyone upon the face of the earth then could read them. To most people then, the ability to read and write was viewed as a kind of magical power in itself. And the people who could, were held in awe having had such power.

Unfortunately for us now, those morality tales that spoke of a different morality -- one that was perfectly acceptable then, are viewed by many as literal. Back then for example, it made sense to stone a sinner for the crime of adultery, as it was seen as a violation of a man's property. And even the "victims" of rape were stoned as well since she was now "damaged goods." I would go so far as to say that much of what is called holy text, are in fact rather the codification of tribal mores.

And with the new advent of Christianity, when Rome adopted this religion for the state and Constantine despaired over the lack of consistency of belief he required that "The Good News" be streamlined, and made nice and neat. Those authors of holy text whose tales did not conform to the prevailing meme, were stamped "heretical" and its authors excommunicated, hunted down and imprisoned or killed. Like I said, perfectly acceptable behavior for then. Today, were much better. Now you'd just get a form rejection letter from the publisher....

It is not a book of edicts or rules
The first two are a rough summation of the history of the Israelites starting with the beginning the creation. and in th first few chapters covers millions of years, so how is it suppose to be what you would call accurate?
God only gave 10 commandment in the whole of the bible. but all the detail of the Law of Moses are covered in Leviticus and some in numbers and those are the laws of men not the law of god. The Law was written for the Israeli people when they first became a nation out of 12 tribes that escapeBut it is believed that the first 5 books were dictated word for word from God and given to Moses but let/s not go there, it is a whole different discussion.
The rest of the OT is the history of Israel and also individual stores about it's prophets. And it is this history that is unknown to most and is important to the overall story.
I don't know just when it started, probably long ago preachers that wanted to control others made up a little game to say that any quote taken from anywhere had a moral commandment in it. And amazingly people bought it, perhaps because they could not read for themselves or just too lazy, but there is no excuse for us not to know the story especially if we think we know enough to comment on it.

the problem is that there are far too many of them, and most are simply centuries of tradition.

Neither Shakespeare nor Joyce issued quides with their works, and have given us many years of discussion and insight to play with. While some consider the Bible to be inerrant and consistant, most of us may or may not consider it to be the actual word of God but do look at it as a continuum of stories illustrating key points. As with the Koran, the Vedas, or Hamlet, you can't really pick out one or two passages and understand them without understanding the whole.

As I've pointed out several times before, my impression of many of these "discussions" is that some of the more militant atheists likely feel that this place is a "safe" place to vent. Where else can they rave on about mythical sky beings and the delusions and evils of religion in "mixed company"?

FWIW, during my two terms as a moderator we usually let these slide while we tended to drop the hammer quite quickly on anyone showing fundie tendencies. Granite cookies were reguarly dropped on those espousing Right-to-Life opinions too loudly or asking if anyone here had met Jesus-- usually some other rightward tendencies were involved, although sometimes just some excessive religiosity was enough. We rarely nuked the atheists, though, no matter how strongly they expressed their opinions, except for a few that were becoming far too destructive. If this has always been the general attitude it would tend to select for atheism and against religiosity in the overall group.

Even though my background is largely scientific, or perhaps because it is, I understand the limits of science and how it cannot adequately answer even its own questions all the time and certainly is at a loss when it comes to social interaction or those existential questions we all have at times. These are questions we must answer another way, and many of us turn to our gods and spiritual advisors to some degree or other. Others don't. (And, of course, even in science we can look for a long time at a particular dataset and come up with all sorts of different answers and explanations-- eventually, things get sorted out, but it can take a long time.)

It is these existential questions that have always divided us and there really is no common solution since we all have our own ways of divining the "truth." Many, if not most, of the problems blamed on religion or alternative ways of "knowing" things are because some individuals are incapable, or unwilling, to differentiate between their spritual paths and their own egos and desires. During the 17th Century, the terms "lusts" was commonly used for these desires, and it's used precisely in that way in early Quaker writings such as the Peace Testimony. Not only Quakers, but many theologians have tried for centuries to work out ways to subsume our egos and actually live the religion we talked about. Hasn't been fully worked out yet, though, but we're still trying.

As far as the limits of one's actions is concerned, that is a complicated issue. Every religious tradition I'm aquainted with has some sort of "witnessing" that its adherents are required to act on. Witnessing is a Christian term, but it seems to be universally applicable. A certain amount of evangelizing might be involved, but it most certainly does not center on getting into someone's face and demanding he or she "Bring Jesus into your heart!"

Nope-- witnessing is living your life according to the principles you claim to believe in, and not being afraid to explain why you act as you do. (There is a presumption that you actually KNOW what you believe, but that's another issue.)

The example of the refusal for contraception or abortion on religious grounds is not entirely fair, although it does raise the issue of how far we go. There are people who blindly follow whatever whackiness they are told, but at least as often there are people who are conflicted. I know many right-to-life types who do understand the concept of a woman's rights, but they also understand that those rights conflict with the yet unborn life that they consider just as important. They consider all pregnancies and births a blessing, even those under some sort of duress. Sure, there are some who would actively try to stop it, but many, hopefully more, would simply refuse to participate and stand aside letting others act. Should they be forced to do things their consciences say are wrong? Should they be denied employment and the rest of uas denied their talents and training for acting out of conscience on an issue that is still controversial and that we have not fully agreed upon as a nation?

We allow conscientious objectors to avoid war and we allow prison doctors to refuse to supervise executions-- existentially, how is it different to allow a medical professional to refuse to participate in abortion or contraception?

Or is it just because we say so?

I don't have any clear answers myself, but I do see some small glimmer of hope in that these things are still being discussed at all, and we are not under some dictate from some all-powerful church or state to shut up about it. As we have been doing for thousands of years, we are still muddling through the tough questions.

and not small at all.

I still can't excuse the nurse in this situation, however. If she can't personally dispense emergency contraception to a rape victim, then for god's sake she should at least have gotten hold of someone who can. I don't think an E.R. nurse can really be compared to a conscientious objector (who wouldn't have anything to do with the military unless drafted) or a prison doctor who won't supervise an execution. There has to be some kind of standard for people who are working with victims of trauma. Perhaps this particular nurse could be put to better use elsewhere.

even though almost all of us agree that a child of rape or incest is not a good thing, the question is just where do our limits of belief extend. Now that we have the technology to safely abort, or prevent conception, of such children most of us agree that we simply should do so and not rely on the methods of the past in dealing with them. Few of us are, though, completely comfortable with the thought, and some are far less comfortable than others. And we can't forget that the woman herself may be the most conflicted of all over the decision, and likely not in the best frame of mind to deal with all this enormity.

But, yes, this one is more about the morning after pill and not about an actual abortion so it is an extreme case that I would hope doesn't happen very often. That's why I called it an unfair example-- an extreme view that can and should be dealt with.

I don't know if it's possible to interview nurses and doctors and assign them away from potential situations like this, but that would be one solution.

I believe that a doctor has to prescribe the medication for the patient; then the nurse dispenses it. Most likely the doctor who examined the woman said that emergency contraception was available, and the woman then requested it. It's never going to be forced on anyone, obviously.

Once it's prescribed, someone has to dispense it. And it's not in the nurse's bailiwick (nor is it a pharmacist's right) to deny medication to a patient that a doctor has prescribed.

(Personal reaction here, regarding the victim's frame of mind: As a woman and a mother, I'm about 95% sure I'd want emergency contraception if I'd been raped. Immediately. In the end, it's not up to anyone else to advise me on the enormity of the situation.)

might go a step further and say that such contraception should be pretty much automatic unless the woman refuses or there is some other good reason not to. And neither this nurse nor anyone else has the right to further violate this woman's person.

But, this discussion is about rights and limits, so I'm occasionally musing far away from practical matters.

You raise several worthy points, which I will try to address.

We rarely nuked the atheists, though, no matter how strongly they expressed their opinions, except for a few that were becoming far too destructive. If this has always been the general attitude it would tend to select for atheism and against religiosity in the overall group.

From my perspective, the people who espouse positions of the religious right are often "trolls" - people who join DU with the sole purpose of being disruptive and inflammatory. There are many people who join DU that seem to have no other purpose, and they (as you note) are not often long for this world.

These are questions we must answer another way, and many of us turn to our gods and spiritual advisors to some degree or other. Others don't. (And, of course, even in science we can look for a long time at a particular dataset and come up with all sorts of different answers and explanations-- eventually, things get sorted out, but it can take a long time.)

If I had a religion, I would have to say it is science though I know that the terms of faith and belief do not translate very well insofar as how I view them with respect to the scientific process. I agree that there are limits to science. These limits may not be limits in the future, but as far as the present is concerned there certainly are questions that science is at a loss when trying to answer. For example, what is morality? Where did the matter in the universe come from? Etc. Etc.

Many people do turn towards religion and spirituality in an attempt to answer some of these big questions. I'm pretty much in the same boat as everyone else when I say that I don't know the answers to these questions. I'd suppose what might separate me from others is that I'm quite happy not knowing and not ascribing such phenomena to supernatural forces. For example, when confronted with evidence of supernatural events I'm quite content to say that I have no idea whatsoever as opposed to saying ghosts or something like that.

I know many right-to-life types who do understand the concept of a woman's rights, but they also understand that those rights conflict with the yet unborn life that they consider just as important. They consider all pregnancies and births a blessing, even those under some sort of duress. Sure, there are some who would actively try to stop it, but many, hopefully more, would simply refuse to participate and stand aside letting others act. Should they be forced to do things their consciences say are wrong? Should they be denied employment and the rest of uas denied their talents and training for acting out of conscience on an issue that is still controversial and that we have not fully agreed upon as a nation?

In my opinion there is no such thing as "unborn life". Unborn is a semantic term that has been appropriated by the religious side of the debate to try and tilt the playing field. The concept of personhood is a very complicated issue, and I do not presume to either understand all the factors at play and certainly do not presume to have the answer. What I do believe, however, is that the rights of a fertilized embryo - in no way, shape, or form - are equivalent to that of a woman as a fertilized embryo is not a person.

If I were a practitioner of non-violence in it's most extreme, then I should not be allowed to become a police officer. The majority of a police officer's job does not involve violence and is a job that is very beneficial to others - but if I were not able to fulfill some aspects of my responsibilities then I should be found unfit to serve.

That is perhaps a fairly clear-cut case, and it's not entirely analogous to the nurse scenario. Another point that you raised is that it is controversial. Presumably, controversy arises because there is no clear-cut answer. If that's the case, then I say the nurse should operate on the presumption that she might be mistaken. If she is mistaken, then she is simply doing a grave injustice to a fellow human being. If not, then ostensibly God will forgive her for her actions. Another point that I think is important is that the nurse violated this woman's right to autonomy by engaging in religious paternalism.

I agree that the issue is controversial, but I fear that engaging in religious paternalism does far more harm in this world than good as, when it comes down to it, is just a way of circumventing people's right to self-determination.

Many people do turn towards religion and spirituality in an attempt to answer some of these big questions. I'm pretty much in the same boat as everyone else when I say that I don't know the answers to these questions. I'd suppose what might separate me from others is that I'm quite happy not knowing and not ascribing such phenomena to supernatural forces. For example, when confronted with evidence of supernatural events I'm quite content to say that I have no idea whatsoever as opposed to saying ghosts or something like that.

I'm not so much talking about "God of the Gaps" where we use religion, magic, superstition or whatever to explain physical phenomena we don't understand. I'm getting at those parts of our nature that can't be readily measured or analyzed-- ethics, morality, social interactions, love, hate, art... Science may explain why sunsets exist, but doesn't have a clue why we still sit and watch them in wonder and awe. Most religions have long recognized that a God involved in micromanaging the physical universe is a limited god indeed, although some of their members might not quite understand that.

If I were a practitioner of non-violence in it's most extreme, then I should not be allowed to become a police officer. The majority of a police officer's job does not involve violence and is a job that is very beneficial to others - but if I were not able to fulfill some aspects of my responsibilities then I should be found unfit to serve.

Well, members of the Historic Peace Churches have generally refused to become cops because of ther possibility that they might have to use violence in their jobs. It gets complicated, though, when some, like Mennonites, prefer not to involve themselves with government at all while others, like Quakers, understand see nonviolence as a personal thing and that governments often have good cause to use violence. Quakers have historically often refused to bear arms themselves, but as government officials carried out their obligations for defense and public safety. And, there is the interesting rationale for even self-defense not being a justification for violence in some quarters. But, I digress...

I say this nurse situation is unfair because it is extreme, but also because it involves the violation of someone's body. Not only has the woman suffered rape, but she further suffers someone telling her she should carry any child from this rape. The rape we all agree is criminal, but I'll go further and say the nurse's action is unconscienable and approaches criminality itself.

What we're really talking about here, though, is the constant conflict of rights, responsibilities, ethical systems, and attitudes and beliefs when people get together. Religion itself comes into play at times, but we all run into such conflicts on a regular basis, although most of us rarely see things this tragic.

Let us say, for the sake of argument, that your wife and I see nothing wrong with "adultery" and take off to Vegas for a week. Religion has absolutely nothing to do with this (except that most would condemn us) but you would be far more pissed at us than with pretty much anything "religious" that anyone would do to you. Our belief would have led to an action that most people agree is a pretty rotten thing to do (even though a lot of people are doing it, including some complaining very loudly about it). The law, common morality, and decency may have a lot to say about this, but science and logic stay way in the background.

Conflicts over property rights, politics, and everything else that keeps courts busy and feuds alive have little religious basis, but are an unfortunate downside of our fundamental nature. To pick out a few that have a religious basis, (particularly while overlooking the times religion has actually brought people together in common agreement) is coming to an unfair judgment of religion. We should spend some more time judging ourselves.

is simply that religious paternalism is bad. For that matter, so is are most other kinds of paternalism (i.e. medical paternalism).