The list is pretty authoritive. I’d have no problem voting for a 73 year old gay hispanic black woman who was married three times so long as she was jewish, not atheist.

patkin: Well, to be entirely correct, I’m a Jewish commie. There’s plenty of us out there, tilling kibbutz soil. But thank you for backing me up.

Uh oops. My bad. That’s almost as bad as when people assume I’m American. ;) Okay, it’s worse, I’ll admit it. Anyway. Sorry ’bout that. No one should get lumped in with our lot. *grin*

I’m not one of those who buys the myth that the “Dark Ages” were a time when nothing changed at all, but there’s a surprising lack of any develoment of the concept of human rights for that particular millenium.

600AD-1600AD: not a lot of progress in the concept of human rights

1700AD-2000AD: Horking gazongas of change in the concept of human rights.

It’s all relative, to quote the secular worshippers of Einstein.

And yeah, it’s been a fight. Any sort of change at all in the world will always be a fight.But anything worth having is worth fighting for.

Consistently and quickly, it’s gotten better.

Therefore, my argument was that it wasn’t consistent. And from the time of the Enlightenment, there was nearly another century or two before the remainder of society even got close to “a better place”, which means it wasn’t exactly a quick evolution.

Are things better now? Sure, let’s say it is. But there wasn’t the rising tidal wave of ratiocination you’re arguing, but an agonizingly slow erosion of what society said was right and wrong.

It’s not frightening, it’s just if we’re going to point at how quickly the Enlightenment reformulated society, we should be honest about how quick it actually was, and how consistently those rights were actually applied.

I never assumed you were Christian. Your personal beliefs don’t really matter to me here, because I’m not attacking your personal beliefs. I’m attcking the idea that faith, which is something I see defined as “belief in a proposition, regardless of the evidence for or against that proposition”, can ever be a societal good. I’m supporting the proposition that ratiocination is the opposite of faith, and is the only foundation upon which a decent society can be established.

Other than that, I have no idea what you’re going on about in the above. If you really don’t think that the 21st-century world, even with all of its numerous flaws, is a better place to be than the 17th century world for women, for gays, for Jews, for atheists, for people in Africa, for poor people…..then I really don’t know what to tell you.

Are things hunky dory for any of those groups? Hell, no. Are things better? Hell, yes. And all I’m saying is that the credit for that goes to the radical secularization of public space that occurred as part of Enlightenment thought.

Why is that so frightening?

Not every person who is religious is begging for the chance to off themselves to get to Heaven. In fact, in my theology, the basic idea of an afterlife is so muddled, indistinct and individualized that it’s just easier to say that if there is an afterlife, I certainly wouldn’t know what it is.

But it’s easier to just assume I’m a Christian for your condescending comments, isn’t it.

My challenge to you is to find something that works better than ratiocination for resolving these problems.

So, all I have to do is fabricate an entirely new and revolutionary idea about how we deal with a flawed concept with contractism, and I win?

Well, that should be easy. Lemme put on my thinking cap here.

The basic flaw of contractism is, in essence, people *have* to give up their own personal position in order to make the best social corrections. Therefore, if I, a white heterosexual male in the middle-class, am to make the best decisions for say, someone black, homosexual, female, in the working-class, I have to assume that I could be that person and would want the best possible options.

I can’t think of a single goddamn soul who’s ever been that altruistic that wasn’t fictional. So how precisely is that concept supposed to practically work?

But then there’s this:

But there’s no real alternative

See, this attitude is what prevents any real changes to the idea to come through. “It’s not a great idea, but it’s the best we’ve got, so let’s not think about it. And isn’t this better than how it used to be, so why argue against it, religionist, or do you just want things to go back to how they used to be?”

The concept (and when I say concept, I just mean ‘we get to take your rights away for whatever reason society dictates is a punishable offense’, not the whole of rationality) is flawed, but to come up with an alternative is either ignored or actively yelled at.

Here’s the thing about the Englightenment project: it’s gotten better. Consistently and quickly, it’s gotten better.

Really? Because outside of the actual Enlightenment, in which what, men without property got their rights to be people?

I mostly saw the rest of society only come along, dragging and screaming all the way, within the past century. Women have rights? People other than white people have rights? Those came along only recently in terms of the ‘project’.

People of other religions, yes, even of no religion have rights? Not fucking likely in the recent past. People who don’t screw heteronormatively have rights? Well, that one’s still in question. People outside our countries have rights? Society had to murder a couple million or more to even approach that concept, and the U.S. abandoned that as soon as was viable.

The circle of beings to whom we are ethcially accountable has done nothing but expand since the idea was first proposed.

Not really, it hasn’t. It’s started and jumped in short bursts, contracted as reactionaries got terrified of somebody they fucked over suddenly having the right to say they got fucked over, then maybe started again. Ideally, it should’ve done nothing but expand, but idealism is just another word for irrational.

I cannot think of a comparable example in the use of religion in a similar time period.

I suppose the various reform movements in organized religion don’t count then.

Do we screw up? Yes. In fact. we probably screw up more often than we get it right. The one difference beween the rationalists and the religionists when it comes to screwing up, though, is that when the rationalists do something terrible, at least it actually is a screwup. When the religionists do something terrible, it’s usually just an action in line with their doctrine.

What religion are you referencing, Jillian? It’d make this game of painting every religion with the same brush less tiring if I knew which one you’re blaming all the world’s ills on.

Also, I’d argue with your assesment that when a rationalist screws up, it’s something entirely independent of their worldview, while when someone religious screws up, it’s in keeping with the basic ideas of theirs.

And if this is incoherent in spots, it’s just because I’m a glib idiot.

because it suggests a person can be stripped of whatever rights they have for whatever reason the ’society’ decides. It’s that idea that basically establishes why the Bush Adminstration thinks it can get away with stripping even the rights of habeas corpus and a fair trial from the people they abduct. Why people think they can strip rights from minorities for whatever mainstream bigotry passes for the community standards. Why arguing against the disenfranchisement of voter-age felons is the windmill of kooks.

Yep.

And it’s even worse than that. It is what allowed people of enhanced melanin content to be treated like chattel property on this continent for three centuries.

My challenge to you is to find something that works better than ratiocination for resolving these problems.

If you want to live in a perfect world, go to Heaven. If you want to do something easy, go pray. The real work of really fixing the real problems here on earth is really, really hard, and we are going to screw up more often than is ever pleasant to admit. But there’s no real alternative – unless you honestly think that sitting and praying in your home is going to fix something in Iraq, or Darfur, or wherever. If you do, then fine – enjoy yourself. But I hope you don’t expect too much.

Here’s the thing about the Englightenment project: it’s gotten better. Consistently and quickly, it’s gotten better. When we first started writing about the Rights of Man and the social contract and all that stuff, nobody believed that people had any rights at all. Rights were things given to you by God, and they mostly dealt with your obligations to do what God wanted you to do. Even the most powerful people on the planet – kings – didn’t have the ability to do something the poorest schmuck among us takes for granted nowadays, in the form of marrying whom they might have wanted to marry.

When this crazy, secularist idea of “rights” first began to circulate, it was a pretty limited thing. Early thinkers proposed that these rights might belong to white, Christian, male landowners – and pretty much nobody else. I know how crummy that sounds, but you have to stop listening to that statement with ears that are on *this* side of the Enlightenment gap for a minute, and listen with ears from the other side of it. It was an incredibly revolutionary idea.

And the only thing more amazing than the original idea is how quickly it has expanded. In short order, we’ve come to recognize the same sort of rights inhere in men without property, women, people of other religions, people of other races living inside our countries, and people living of other races outside our countries. The circle of beings to whom we are ethcially accountable has done nothing but expand since the idea was first proposed. I cannot think of a comparable example in the use of religion in a similar time period.

And why do you think I”m such an evil fucking tyrant about the importance of rationality and the primacy of ratiocination, anyway? The only way that such a system can maintain its self correcting nature is if people insist on a rational commitment to a shared set of first principles.

Do we screw up? Yes. In fact. we probably screw up more often than we get it right. The one difference beween the rationalists and the religionists when it comes to screwing up, though, is that when the rationalists do something terrible, at least it actually is a screwup. When the religionists do something terrible, it’s usually just an action in line with their doctrine.

Apologies if this is incoherent in spots. I’m still fighting off a cold, and I have a NyQuil hangover this morning as well. If there are parts that don’t make sense, let me know what they are and I’ll explain them.

This is just basic social contract stuff.

Sure, but it’s a stupid portion of the social contract, because it suggests a person can be stripped of whatever rights they have for whatever reason the ‘society’ decides. It’s that idea that basically establishes why the Bush Adminstration thinks it can get away with stripping even the rights of habeas corpus and a fair trial from the people they abduct. Why people think they can strip rights from minorities for whatever mainstream bigotry passes for the community standards. Why arguing against the disenfranchisement of voter-age felons is the windmill of kooks.

It’s a flawed concept.

People act in a way to lose their rights when they commit acts that are criminal.

I have the right to go anywhere I like, within the bounds established by reason. If I choose to ignore the bounds established by reason – if, say, I try to act as though my freedom to go where I wish extends to me entering your house without your permission – then the community acts to strip me of my right to go where I want to go. They charge me with a crime called “breaking and entering” and send me to jail.

This is just basic social contract stuff.

Well, to be entirely correct, I’m a Jewish commie. There’s plenty of us out there, tilling kibbutz soil. But thank you for backing me up.

The default position in the modern iteration of secular Enlightenment thinking is that all people are entitled to whatever civil, secular rights a society offers unless they act in such a way to lose that right.

Of course, that position is still dumb. In what fashion must a person act to lose their rights? Who has that authority to strip a person of rights?

And the funny thing is that most of us here in Western, 20th century democracies pay a lot of lip service to the idea that being reasonable is important.

Here’s the thing: you bring up a point about saying that gay people should have equal rights. In a rational, secular discussion, this would be the conclusion of an argument. The argument would consist of a series of premises and subconclusions that would be based on a few assumptions conceded on the basis of rationality, and it would end with “Therefore, gay people should be entitled to the same civil rights as any other group of people”. At any point in time, a reasonable person could object to one of the premises in this argument, but their objection would have to be based on some point of argument that – once again – reasonable people would agree on.

The default position in the modern iteration of secular Enlightenment thinking is that all people are entitled to whatever cviil, secular rights a society offers unless they act in such a way to lose that right.

If I wanted to argue against that, I’d have to offer some substantive argument…something like “gay people are a public health hazard because their sexual practices spread disease”. You’ve probably heard that one before – I know I have. But here’s the great thing about rational argumentation: if I say that, you get to say “prove it”. If I can’t, then you get to ignore it.

Religious arguments don’t work that way. And that’s the problem with them. Religions admit into evidence things like “private knowledge” – things like “God told me this”. There’s no way to rationally argue against that. If God told me gay people suck, who are you to tell me He didn’t say that?

It is because of this that religious ideas fail the smell test. There’s no arguing against them. Even when they appear to agree with points achieved at through the process of ratiocination, that agreement is orthogonal at best, much in the way it would be if you claimed to know that water freezes at 32F at sea level – because your invisible guardian water sprite told you that it does. You’re right only by sheerest coincidence, like the stopped clock is twice a day.

This is a lot shorter than I wanted it to be, mostly because I have to leave for work, but I hope the point I’m trying to make comes through here. Religious ideas are not respectable repast in the public square, and a person who cannot distinguish between public conduct and private conduct isn’t even capable of functioning effectively in a civic democracy.

It’s why ours is sorta dying at the moment, btw.

I understand. I really do. And it’s fine that you think that. I think it’s preposterous to not believe in God, as he’s pretty obvious to me. But that’s okay too. I don’t go out of my way to call you a blind idiot. :)

Now, as for that last part, okay, I’m going to have to agree with you. It is pretty preposterous when you put it that way. Ever read The Pagan Christ? I feel much the way the author of that does. I don’t believe in the guy who emerged from the virgin, etc. I’m not a very typical Christian though. I haven’t the first clue if a guy named Jesus was born to a girl named Mary, and if he turned water into wine and healed a leper and all that stuff. To me, none of it matters a whit if it’s literally true. The power is in the stories. The power is in the message. If it’s literally true, that’s all sorts of cool. If not, so what? The message is to be good to one another and to strive to be divine. So yeah, I follow the message of Jesus. And I believe in divinity.

Again, I don’t think there’s any need for you to respect my views. I’d just like it if you (in general) didn’t call me stupid or dangerous because of them. And if that’s too much to ask, I get to say that you’re a rude bastard. *grin* Because “find some views that are respectable” doesn’t cut it. Respectable is subjective. You could say the same to me about my belief that gay people should have the same rights as straight people, and again, that’d make you a rude bastard (and a bigot).

I waver back and forth on this daily, and today I’m feeling a big “fuck you.”

If you want your beliefs respected, go find some that are respectable. It’s really that simple. Your beliefs might be worthy of tolerance, at best, but adults are allowed to talk about how stupid your ideas are, especially if they’re stupid. Grow up or go sit at the kids table and talk about Santa.

Obviously in a practical sense it’s not nice to alienate bunches of people who are leading perfectly okay – or even exemplary – lives believing what you believe. But this is one teeny tiny corner of the internet and it’s nice to have the freedom to say that even if there were a God, God emerging through some peasant’s vagina to kill himself is preposterous.

I’m a really tolerant Christian. I’m happy to let people believe whatever the heck they want without my interference (I know, ‘let’ sounds a bit condescending. I just mean I’m not about to try to convince someone of the existence of God or the divinity of Jesus). My husband says I’m far too openminded for my own good. *grin*

I think Mencken had it right with the tolerance thing though. I mean, I find Mikey and a few others here really annoying and rude in this conversation. My beliefs are not respected, which is fine, but they’re being vocal about it, which is just plain rude. Sure, you have every right to say I’m delusional, hallucinating, etc., but you’re sure as hell not going to get my respect for you as a human being if you do. Just as if you were to say my kids are ugly, my husband’s stupid and my taste in music is atrocious. That’s the kind of respect I want as a human, never mind Christian. Don’t tell me I’m stupid for my beliefs, and I’ll do you the same, and hey, it’s all good.

On voting, I couldn’t care less what religion (or lack of) that a candidate is, as long as his or her personal politics are similar to mine, I’m happy to vote for him or her. I wish more people were like me on that.

One thing I find laughable though is the “Because they know we are right and hate us for it”. Um, no. Seriously. No. The haters hate because they were taught to hate. It’s bigotry pure and simple. It has nothing to do with being threatened in their own belief system (for most, of course, some are always that way). It has everything to do with being taught that atheists are evil.

One reason I think a person like me mightn’t vote for an atheist, is if I thought s/he were like Mikey or a few others who would like to be rid of religion or find it dangerous. Once you start labelling religion dangerous, I start not voting for you, because I’m afraid you’ll outlaw religion on the basis that you think it harms society.

Sam Harris’ viewpoint, too, straight outta the first pages of End of Faith.

Gotta second ironicname’s point about how we create our own meaning in life. It takes a human being with language to create meaning. There is no meaning to an exploding star, although Human McMeatlump will have something to say about it. As someone once riddled: What’s the difference between you rolling down a hill, and a rock rolling down the same hill? A: You complain about it all the way down.

Life has no inherent meaning. You are free to choose a MeaningPak(tm) that’s been developed especially for you*, or you can create your own. Just don’t be a dick about what someone else has chosen.

*Or, more likely, that Mom’n'Dad have picked for you.