Good will to all men? Not from the grumpy atheists! (Thank God not all atheists are grumpy but there sure seems to be a lot of them)
Why is it that so many in the atheist community cannot bring themselves to get past their anger whenever they engage in discussions? The language of many of their contributions in public debate is laced with invective and dripping with sarcasm and bile. There are exceptions of course, but they tend to fall more into the category of being the 'exception that proves the rule' when compared to the hostility of many of today's atheist posters. Comment offered by the theists in the public square is often depicted as being 'malicious' or 'venomous' and intended to enslave the 'feeble minded and weak' by those who post. Nothing could be further from the truth. Venom is something that is oriented to death. Christians are oriented in a 180 degree different direction. We speak not to the culture of death that grips our world but rather for the culture of life and light which ends with the gift of eternal life. For example, the Catholic Church in its hum...
Hi Tim,
ReplyDeleteWith all due respect to Cardinal Dolan and other religious leaders on the right, I think that there is an unfortunate conflation going on between:
a) religious dogma informing an individual's views/conscience on matters of public policy; and,
b) religious dogma as the basis for public policy.
Regardless of whether or not one is a theist or an atheist, I think we can all agree that a) is inevitable and normal.
With respect to b), however, I am afraid that the only practical response can be that there is no place in public policy for religious dogma of any stripe. The only arguments that ought to be acceptable on matters of public policy are secular arguments: i.e. those arguments demonstrable by way of empirical evidence.
In other words, if you want to argue that your reigion's view on any matter of public policy represents the common good, then you damn well better have good emipirical evidence to back it up. Otherwise, we have no basis to prefer your religious view over any other competing religious view....and I assure you, there is a competing religious view on every public policy question.
To pretend otherwise is to invite a tryanny of the majority where undemonstrable biases overrun the rights and interests of any minority. Moreover, it puts the state in the position of prefering or privileging one theology above another...is this something that the religious right truly wants to enshrine?
American Christians may be fine with the tyranny of the majority as long as they are the majority, but I assure you they will drop it like a hot potato the moment the numbers shift out of their favour.
Only a secular framework can protect all religious factions in our society. I would have thought that this was self evident...especially here in Canada where non-Christian populations grow at a faster rate than traditional Christian populations. Once the wall of separation between Church and State is breached, it is as easy to re-make public policy by the tenets of Evangelical Christianity as it is by the tenets of Islamic Sharia Law.
The religious right ought to be very careful what it wishes for.
Cheers...Martin