Positive Thoughts Only: The coming advantages of another faith-based presidency

[Pure]

100% Positive Thoughts Only: The coming advantages of a second term of faith-based presidency, and of unashamedly Judaic/Christian 'tilt' in our official, governmental efforts.

Two cautions: These efforts will never involve direct support for the religious practices of any one denomination or grouping. They will, of course, respect a diversity of practices within the framework of our constitution and justice system.

====

First thought: Our children will be exposed to much less trash--promiscuity, vulgar display of sex, and immoral violence on TV.

====

(NOTE: Those who carp, criticize, and mock both faith and faith-based values, who believe these are 'private matters', and who insist on the moral neutrality of politics and government (its adoption of secular humanism) have many other threads in which to sound off.)

 

[amicus]

http://www.secularhumanism.org/intro/what.html


What Is Secular Humanism?

Secular Humanism is a term which has come into use in the last thirty years to describe a world view with the following elements and principles:

A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith.

Commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.

A primary concern with fulfillment, growth, and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.

A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.

A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.

A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.

A conviction that with reason, an open marketplace of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children...."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


There is more to this article at the link provided...

Secular Humanism seems like an ideal nest in which to rest...however...as much as Secular Humanists claim objectivity, they insist that there are no 'universal' or absolute values of life and that morality and ethics are a personal and subjective choice made by each individual.

The movement has somewhat splintered and disintegrated into sub categories and is basically non functional in terms of providin a 'replacement' god or set of moral values on can comprehend and teach.

Amicus...


(edited after re reading...if this is considered sounding off I will delete the post....it is intended only to be informational concerning secular humanism)

 

[rgraham666]

The main advantage will be that when reality asserts itself, the event will be so sudden, nobody will have time to be frightened.

 

[BlackShanglan]

A positive: a real and interesting challenge to conservative politicians and political thinkers to integrate the difficult-to-reconcile concepts of passionate free-market capitalism and a Christian care for one's neighbour and the less fortunate. I would quite like to see more debate on that topic.

Shanglan

 

[cantdog]

I think one positive thing in the unlikely event of another term of "service" being asked of the Bush team is that the split in the Republican party may become final and permanent. Between the conservative, reality-based Republicans Bushites do not represent and the messianic, faith-based Evangelical Christians which they do, there lies a vast gap.

Once those guys, the Real Republicans, want a third party, we may see some procedural changes which could open up the way American politics does business.

The coalition of the reality-based Repubs and Dems against the faithful federally funded fundy freaks around the Presidency may help limit or even reverse some of the foolishness we've had passing unchecked through Washington lately.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I think one positive thing in the unlikely event of another term of "service" being asked of the Bush team is that the split in the Republican party may become final and permanent. Between the conservative, reality-based Republicans Bushites do not represent and the messianic, faith-based Evangelical Christians which they do, there lies a vast gap.

Once those guys, the Real Republicans, want a third party, we may see some procedural changes which could open up the way American politics does business.

The coalition of the reality-based Repubs and Dems against the faithful federally funded fundy freaks around the Presidency may help limit or even reverse some of the foolishness we've had passing unchecked through Washington lately.

I doubt it. Even reality based Republicans, even old school conservatives realize that if you split the party, you will get nothing but John Kerry's in the white house forever more. Even the most moderate republican isn't going to be willing to abdicate the white house to the Dems.

My 2 cents

 

[shereads]

This time, more of us will know what to expect.

 

[Pure]

cant, regarding what you said,

from the opening of the Bush article in the last NYTM:

RON SUSKIND

Published: October 17, 2004

Bruce Bartlett, a domestic policy adviser to Ronald Reagan and a treasury official for the first President Bush, told me recently that ''if Bush wins, there will be a civil war in the Republican Party starting on Nov. 3.'' The nature of that conflict, as Bartlett sees it? Essentially, the same as the one raging across much of the world: a battle between modernists and fundamentalists, pragmatists and true believers, reason and religion.

I see Colly's point, but maybe the Republican party is better purged of its secular and liberal sprinkling. Depending on the size of the win, the R's may realize they don't need to cater to these elements.

Perhaps it will be good to see a pure faith-based agenda.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

cant, regarding what you said,

from the opening of the Bush article in the last NYTM:

RON SUSKIND

Published: October 17, 2004

Bruce Bartlett, a domestic policy adviser to Ronald Reagan and a treasury official for the first President Bush, told me recently that ''if Bush wins, there will be a civil war in the Republican Party starting on Nov. 3.'' The nature of that conflict, as Bartlett sees it? Essentially, the same as the one raging across much of the world: a battle between modernists and fundamentalists, pragmatists and true believers, reason and religion.

I see Colly's point, but maybe the Republican party is better purged of its secular and liberal sprinkling. Depending on the size of the win, the R's may realize they don't need to cater to these elements.

Perhaps it will be good to see a pure faith-based agenda.

According to thelatest polls I saw, it may be a moot point.

 

[BlackShanglan]

a battle between modernists and fundamentalists, pragmatists and true believers, reason and religion. [/i]

I'd like to see more focus on integrating reason and religion. The theory that the two cannot coexist is quite a recent philosophical development and I think deserves more critical analysis and, frankly, objection than it currently garners.

Shanglan

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I'd like to see more focus on integrating reason and religion. The theory that the two cannot coexist is quite a recent philosophical development and I think deserves more critical analysis and, frankly, objection than it currently garners.

Shanglan

Religion and reason are incompatable.

Relgion is prediated on faith.

Faith is accepting something you cannot prove. The opposite of reason which is questioning even that you think is proven.

-Colly

 

[Guest]

Religion and reason are incompatable.
Relgion is prediated on faith.
Faith is accepting something you cannot prove. The opposite of reason which is questioning even that you think is proven.

Colly, that's a bit too simplistic. Faith is enriched (or not in some cases) by religion, and it requires reason. A theologian I admire says faith is a "calculated risk" (vs. a leap into the unknown). The calculation requires reason.

I won't say more cos I don't think it's the point of this thread.

Perdita

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colly, that's a bit too simplistic. Faith is enriched (or not in some cases) by religion, and it requires reason. A theologian I admire says faith is a "calculated risk" (vs. a leap into the unknown). The calculation requires reason.

I won't say more cos I don't think it's the point of this thread.

Perdita

Pascal's wager followed reason.

One of two options, either there is a god or there isn't.
One of two options, either you belive or you don't.

Four possible outcomes:

God does exist & you do believe = Heaven
God dosen't exist & you do believe = you won't know you were wrong.
God dosen't exist and you don't believe = you won't know you are right
God does exist & you do believe = hell

The only winning result is heaven, with two draws & one loss. Since you can only get the winning option by believeing you shold

-Colly

 

[Guest]

Colly, you're a funny gal , but when it comes to matters of importance my reasoning is a bit more complex than witty logic. Thanks for the grin though, P.

 

[Couture]

There will be an increased chance of Rapture

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colly, you're a funny gal , but when it comes to matters of importance my reasoning is a bit more complex than witty logic. Thanks for the grin though, P.

Glad ya smiled. Ole pascal was a roguish sort

I'm a very complex thinker. But the question here is why people seem to think religion and reason are incompatable. And in this case Occams Razor applies. It really comes down to faith.

You can't reason faith. If you could, then there would be no need for faith. I.e. if I could prove God existed with a reasoned argument, there would be no need to take it on faith.

GWB would tell you gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. Cut through the rhetoric & double talk and if pressed, he would fall back on that position being god's word. How does he know? He takes it on faith. You can't reason with him on it, beacuse his faith will trump all reason.

Reason is a great societal uniter, because theoretically, since reason demands proof, you can prove your position. Without a resoned base, societal reaction and interaction would be a never ending war of competing faiths.

Faith denies reason. Jesus Christ rose from the dead. Reason will tell you that's impossible. Even the most astute biblical scholar won't be able to reason that out. Likewise the most gifted mind on all the planet, won't be able to disprove it beacuse it isn't taken with reason, it's taken on faith.

Reason and faith are diametrically opposed. You can reason your choice, in fact McDonald's book, <I>Evidence that Demands a Verdict</I> does just that. And it's powerful, intelligent, well argued on every point.

At the end of the day though, you either believe or you don't. If you don't, you can reason that. If you do, you are taking it on faith, and thus reason has no sway over your decision.

-Colly

 

[cantdog]

cant, regarding what you said,

from the opening of the Bush article in the last NYTM:

RON SUSKIND

Published: October 17, 2004

Bruce Bartlett, a domestic policy adviser to Ronald Reagan and a treasury official for the first President Bush, told me recently that ''if Bush wins, there will be a civil war in the Republican Party starting on Nov. 3.'' The nature of that conflict, as Bartlett sees it? Essentially, the same as the one raging across much of the world: a battle between modernists and fundamentalists, pragmatists and true believers, reason and religion.

I see Colly's point, but maybe the Republican party is better purged of its secular and liberal sprinkling. Depending on the size of the win, the R's may realize they don't need to cater to these elements.

Perhaps it will be good to see a pure faith-based agenda.

The figures he cites are 42% who label themselves "born again" or "evangelical."

Europeans may cringe, but this is such a religious country! With a plurality like that, in this time, that is to say, this close to the "millenium," we could see the beginning of some very wacked shit out of this country. You thought it was bad when fundies had the resources of the state of Iran to play with? What about this army? This Navy? A hemispheric empire with a vast amount of the planet's resources in its godly little mitts?

They won't need the pragmatic, conservative wing of the party, you say?

They won't need anything. They'll have it all. And then, they'll want the rest. Watch youselves, Europe! Get ready to be forced to resist.



Nope. We can't let it happen.

 

[Guest]

You can't reason faith.
Faith denies reason.
At the end of the day though, you either believe or you don't. If you don't, you can reason that. If you do, you are taking it on faith, and thus reason has no sway over your decision.

Colly, what you say is logical, makes sense even. Yet, it's not that simple, at least for me. Faith is not necessarily unmitigated. I myself have never held my faith resolutely. For me it's not a matter of proving the existence or non-existence of God, or believing Jesus rose from the dead (I don't) or any number of tenets my church holds. I am always thinking (reasoning) about my faith, and for me that's what matters, vs. coming up with answers (if only for myself) or feeling spiritually comfortable.

I suspect we can't understand each other here, but I don't mind expressing myself to someone as good a listener as you, and fine mind as you possess.

Perdita

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colly, what you say is logical, makes sense even. Yet, it's not that simple, at least for me. Faith is not necessarily unmitigated. I myself have never held my faith resolutely. For me it's not a matter of proving the existence or non-existence of God, or believing Jesus rose from the dead (I don't) or any number of tenets my church holds. I am always thinking (reasoning) about my faith, and for me that's what matters, vs. coming up with answers (if only for myself) or feeling spiritually comfortable.

I suspect we can't understand each other here, but I don't mind expressing myself to someone as good a listener as you, and fine mind as you possess.

Perdita

No, Dita, I truly understand what you are saying. I do not disagree with you. I approach my own faith in a similar manner.

I am flattered you don't mind expressing your opinion to me. I hope you know I take it very seriously when you do choose to express yourpoint of view

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Are Reason and Faith entirely independant? Not necessarily.
Is Religion based strictly on Faith? Not necessarily.

 

[Pure]

One of the advantages of a faith based approach is resoluteness and steadiness, as mentioned in another thread.

Let me give an example. Abu Ghraib. There was some mistreatment, and perhaps a few deaths. Your liberal or secularist is going to trumpet these facts, indeed wallow in them.
IF opposed to the war, these facts will be latched onto, and touted from the rooftops. So this person ends up questioning goals; in a word, wavering: "Should we really be there, since we do such evil?" Or the susceptible soul goes 'over the top' and begins with "Western civilization is under indictment."

But, if we consider that faith dictates bringing, if not our religion, at least some of our values to Iraq, the so-called 'facts' become fairly insignificant. Indeed, as Cheney indicated, the immediate, primary matter is one of 'how did they get out?' and 'who had, or who allowed cameras?' etc. For the project has to proceed without 'hangups' (e.g., extended debate) about the usual ounce of mischief in what will be a ton of good works. (A couple dozen mischief makers in an invasion force of 150,000 who've seen over a thousand of their fellow soldiers butchered.) As one poster suggested, elsewhere, consider the immense benefit to women and children of the new gender-blind society that Allawi will usher in.

So, with faith, the administration can proceed to do what's gotta be done, and the carpers are left behind, tangling themselves in their moral confusion over what are, in the scheme of things, incidentals.

 

[rgraham666]

Oh, I know the importance of faith. I lost mine, all of it, for a number of years. Those weren't very pleasant years.

But true faith is leavened with doubt. You have to recognize that it is entirely possible for you to be wrong and to do evil.

Whether it's Osama bin Laden, Timothy McVeigh or Shrub II, the more certain you are you are right, the more likely you are to be wrong.

 

[cantdog]

Doubt, as rg so persuasively puts the matter, is so useful! Doubt as in a recognition of fallibility, both others' and your own. Doubt is the beginning of common sense. Doubt is the doorstop that never lets the door close completely.

Doubt not only helps you begin to keep faith from being destructive, it helps to keep faith itself alive. It makes faith renewable. No one renews their faith without it.

cantdog

 

[Pure]

What we can expect: A rollback of judge-created 'rights'

The topic of faith is a big one, with thousands of tomes devoted to it, and its relation to reason, God, works, doubts, science etc.

But as to THIS faith-based presidency, as is shaping up, what benefits may one expect:

As GWB made clear in his last debate, there will be a curbing, and perhaps an end to 'judicial activism.' Indeed, in some cases its rulings will be corrected, limited, etc. if not overturned directly.

We've seen, at the hands of unelected judges, a promiscous creating of 'rights' for at least 50 years. These represent intrusions of the secular government in private, social (mores) and religious matters.

Let's look at some of these 'rights'

The right to be in an integrated classroom (Brown decision). (A decision now questioned by a number of Black leaders and educators, since it pushed the ideal of racial integration at the expense of guarantees as to quality of education in mostly Black schools.)

The right NOT to have to wait too long to be executed.

The right to have a *voluntary* confession thrown out of court, if one confessed instead of seeking legal counsel (who generally says 'don't').

The right to burn the flag, as a matter of 'free speech.'

The right to government funding for an 'artistic project' consisting of immersing of crucifix in a bottle of piss.

The right of adolescents to medical attention and procedures behind their parents' backs.

What's in the offing, apparently:

The federal-court-created 'right' to marry someone of the same sex.

------

It seems there's been an orgy of 'rights' creation since WWII, and the 'faith based' presidency--through its judicial appts.-- is going to be scrutiniizing them. That way we get back to rights stated in the constitution and its basic amendments.

This is not to say that changes in social attitudes should not be taking place, e.g., in how pregnant adolescents are treated. But these aren't changes to be demanded and enforced from the highest secular authority through the creation of alleged 'rights.'

For example, adultery probably should no longer incur a death penalty or any criminal sanction. But this is NOT the same as an official position that allows undermining of marriage and family through the creation of legally enforceable 'rights' for the adulterous. (The 'right' of the adulterous spouse to half the marital assets.)

Adolescents, it's now conceded, are best not beaten with rods and whips. But that's a far cry from creating a 'right' of an adolescent to sue for abuse--and state support (welfare)-- when s/he was cuffed in the course of getting homework completed.

A society in its private sphere and its religious sphere often develops increased tolerance, including for diversity of 'life style.'

In short the faith based presidency will undo a subtle and no so subtle process of replacing Judaic and Christian values with 'values' espoused by secular thinkers with an ax to grind against established religion. It will replace the official religion of "NON RELIGION" [secularism] with an official respect--but not direct funding--for the geuine religion of those who founded and built America.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

One advantage will be no more annoying telephone calls from canvassers for public opinion polls.

We can all go to church and hear what God told the Administration. Or, vice versa.