What I’m Reading…aka look at me I’m smart segment
Update: Austin Dacey will apparently be visitin UD on April 15th. Thanks Cassandra…
It is one hell of a read thus far. In a nutshell, Religion has gone underground and popped up through government and other arenas because Liberals forced it out of the the public dialogue. Had we not tried to make certain things private and out of the public dialogue we might not be where we are. The don’t talk about religion creed should be a thing of the past. Why are we so afraid to discuss it? Why shouldn’t it be discussed more? Why do we allow certain people to hold certain opinions when they are wrong?
Read this book…
As long as you can freely use reason as a weapon against them ensure that people with bizzare ideations stick strictly to the rule of law in this land, there is no reason they cannot have them. But the over-riding impetus for legislation on the liberal side was brought about by the rise of the evangenical movements that do in some instances want to cause harm both to this people and others.
Yeah, Liberals kept religion down…..just like how libs have kept the White Man down too…
From your brief synopsis, DV, the book seems to be based on false assumptions.
Freedom of Religion is a Constitutional right. The great thing about the Founders’ language is the right can stand on its own, even when interpreted differently. Some religious authoritarians believe the phase doesn’t mean Freedom FROM Religion, which literally is true, but I can say it does because “OF” can be understood as “distance” or “separation”.
It’s been salad days for christians in this country, even prior to 1776.
No VC, the book is correct – a liberal WAS responsible for the idea that religion is a private matter:
“And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men….when thou prayest, enter into thy closet and when thou has shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret….”
“I say let the priests, pastors and pope’s howl with all their deceptive fury becuase they have always been aligned to the tyrant, knowing that they cannot fool all the people with their foolishness and the wall of seperation between church and state will not be violated, unless we should return to the days of monkish superstition through ignorance and beleive their dupery and let it align itself with the seculr power” like the “good ole'” pre-enlightenment days. “In that case, consider this, I should rather that the entire earth be reduced to one adam and even in every continent and left free, for that condition shopuld be better than it is now..” can anyone here guess who said that? He founded the democrat-republican party and obviously had the most radical idea about the seperation of church and state I have ever heard…..and am paraphrasing here for you….so tell me, who expressed those sentiments in 1793? I know I have a copy of the original letter somewhere here and I’ll see if I can find a link to it. But if you go over to FSP you can see my argument with Jeff on the subject of a seperation of church and state I gave him about 100 quotes to this effect and almost won the Rob Foraker award for superlong posts. 🙂
pretty AND smart.
dang
Anon, I believe there is confusion between liberalism and Victorian-era religious practices.
Victorian practices placed religion on the back-burner in favor of an increased understanding of the Natural world, e.g. Science, and subsequently led to questioning the old, unchallenged axioms of theology.
BTW – Conventional wisdom will not consider these people of the Victorian era to be liberal. If fact, many of the social conservative mind-sets come from this time.
What’s next, saying Liberals started fascism?
Oh wait…..
Look at the last entry….
http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Statistics
Don’t mind the other 8 that are from a particular grouping… 😉
“….I find only one redeeming factor in religion or in our particular superstition (Christianity) and like the rest it is founded on mythology and superstition….”
“I see a day coming when Science will break the chains of ignorance and supersistion….”
“….just as the declaration I have sent will, I beleive, roll the ball of liberty throughout the world breaking the chain under which men have so long labored…”
For me, personally, I would revoke all faith based iniative stuff for the Religious Industrial Complex that the republicans have made, but leave everyone with their own opinion and freedom of religion to discuss and debate, even if they find they do not have any religion at all. Just like William Penn did.
VC,
Anon is correct, what happened is the Privacy issue the liberals forced on religion pushed certain beliefs out of public discussion. It held religion down in a manner that kept and practically forbid it from being discussed at all by our government and the country leaders.
I didn’t say it kept it out of government. What I tried to say is that what occurred is exactly what has happened now, due to misguided liberal thoughts that making Religion a private issue not be discussed in public, it allowed religion to breeed itself and matastisize (sp?) in the manner it has in the United States and our government
trust me, you and DG would really love this book.
If you say so…since I haven’t read it.
Ok, I just read the B&N synopsis of the book, and I see where the author is going with the argument. Self-imposed silence on issues of conscience and how it allowed the nutjobs to define morality, family values, etc… I agree with that.
See that in a world of secrets human genius is power.
All the demopublicans have done is bicker over issues that the enlightenment already settled and I would encourage everyone to live up to them. The book is correct, we need to get back to the idea that a man’s business with religion as long as it “does not break my legs or pick my pockets” is his business between he and his creator. When it does either of these two things it violates the wall of seperation that was established. His opinion is his own as long as it does not break into my bank for taxes, or use force to make me accept its conclusions or exlude me for rejecting them through the freedom of my own moral conscience. William Penn and Tom Jefferson both knew that that would protect the liberty of the people from censorship or from faith based initatives…. to think that these things are new developments is wrong, it is the same debate they had from about circa 1664-1782 and we have been struggling to fulfill it since that time until today.
Mr. Dacey has a very engaging blog, and is apparently going to stop by UD on the 15th of this month on his book tour. I may try to go, this looks awfully interesting.
An excellent book–have read it and second dv (as if he needs or appreciates it)
Secular humanist.
I don’t steve but thanks anyway 🙂
“Why do we allow certain people to hold certain opinions when they are wrong?”
What do you suggest we do with these people!?
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, Donny!
This quote sums you up perfectly. “Why do we allow certain people to hold certain opinions when they are wrong” So anyone that has an opinion different from yours is WRONG and should not be ALLOWED to hold such opinions.
Are you f-in serious? Donny, you are something else.
I am speaking in the context of the book and this post. namely religious opinions.
Yes, Everyone is an entitled to their opinion Bundy, but if it is your opinion that the grass on my front lawn is not green when it clearly is green,then your opinion is wrong. Therefore you don’t get to go around and yell to the hills that my grass isn’t green when it is green. You can have your opinion all you want that my grass isn’t green. But it is green so your opinion would be wrong.
So yes, I’m FN serious Bundy.
So take a deep breath and step back from yourself for a minute moron and try to digest the simple sentence I stated.
If your opinion is wrong you shouldn’t be entitled to keep positing it without someone else telling you you are wrong.
So my opinion is that you are an idiot. Prove me wrong
Wow! I’m an idiot! Now there is an opinion from a great liberal thinker!
You see, Donny, I am not going to jump back and spout off some ridiculous rant. I am better than that. I respect your opinion. I totally disagree, but everyone is entitled to their opinion.
But the fact that you are suggesting that people SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED to keep opinions that are WRONG is unreal!
He is a very simple question for you: Who decides what religious/social opinions are wrong? Answer that question, Donny!
you bore me Bundy.
all this is in regards to people in public, politicians, policy makers.
read the book.
if you were better than that, you wouldn’t have replied at all
Nice try, Donny. You are “bored” is exactly the type of response that I expected to get. When a person has no answers that is what they claim. You make ridiculous statements like this and when you are challenged you back peddle or claim that you have grown tired or bored.
Justify this statement: “why do we allow certain people to hold certain opinions when they are wrong?”
You were so quick to come back the first time with your “green lawn” analogy, smart guy.
Answer the question! I know you won’t because, once again, it will expose you for the hypocrite that you are! In Donny’s world you are only allowed to speech and exchange ideas freely when those ideas jibe with his!
HYP-O-CRITE!!
I already have justified the opinion more than once. I was explaining what the book is trying to convey in my own words bro. If you don’t like it fine, but yawn, I don’t have to break each noun and verb down to appease you.
I haven’t seen you reply once why a person especially politicians or people in power can repeat wrong opinions over and over and NOT be told they are wrong.
How about we start there. I’ll sit back and allow you to shed light on why that should be allowed…
The book rehashes J.S. Mill, essentially, arguing that the light of reason and open debate is what ultimately separates the wheat from the chaff. I saw nothing new in it at all.
RS,
your opinion has been noted
But I really am bored.
lol
“The book rehashes J.S. Mill, essentially, arguing that the light of reason and open debate is what ultimately separates the wheat from the chaff. I saw nothing new in it at all.”
Jesus H. Christ someone knows John Stuart Mill you hear that sound that is my brain hemoraging.