WMD? Nope. Oil? Nope. Try Gog and Magog...

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

(shaking both hands with five fingers extended, taps dancing, and all smiles)


Every morning
Every evening
Ain't we got fun
Not much money
Oh but honey
Ain't we got fun?
The rent's unpaid dear
We haven't a bus
But smiles were made dear
For people like us
In the winter in the Summer
Don't we have fun?
Times are bum and getting bummer
Still we have fun
There's nothing surer
The rich get rich and the poor get children
In the meantime
In the between time
Ain't we got fun?


International Group recording. Or something. Oh, all ya'all need to view the lyrics in their entirety. I think Deckard's giving me one of those "hard love" routines, but I will pursue, I WILL pursue... *burp*

[Strangelet]

Originally Posted by Sean

While I won't be shocked if it's a true story, it does seem slightly dubious in it's anectodal nature.

That aside, as an atheist, I personally find the fact that religion is so crucial to holding office in the first place pretty disturbing. As far as I'm concerned, religion is a purely man-made institution that began as a means to provide answers to scary questions, like "what is that big, bright, hot thing in the sky that flies overhead every day?" and "what happens when we die?" In the past, those questions were answered through deities like Ra, Thor, and Zeus. Now it's God, or Allah, or whoever else other contemporary religions worship, but the motivation and concept is exactly the same. Personally, I would love to see a national leader who can check all of this at the door (or even not be religious - I can't imagine that actually happening though), and govern based on reason, logic, and the basic needs of our society - because to be perfectly honest, powerful people who believe in and govern by using this kind of mythology at all make me extremely uneasy. That goes equally for Republicans and Democrats.

So all of that is basically meant to make the point that if this story is true, it's honestly no more scary to me than the fact that all of our political leaders finish virtually every speech with statements like "God bless America", and base much of what they do on what their religion tells them is right and wrong. Nothing that any political leader does in their job should be motivated by religious ideology, because it will inherently alienate and ignore the beliefs of a significant portion of the population while at the very least appearing to cater only to like-minded religious folks.

Completely agree and, having grown up in a cultish religion I'd wager I'm more bitter and militant than the average atheist who grew up with out religious pressures.

Having said that I would like to suggest that its quite possible to be secular and still be religous. For example Maoism is a religion, or any kind of fervent nationalism that demands unquestioning loyalty. Just as its possible to believe in God but not be religious. So I guess I would have no problem with a president who had faith in God, as long as that faith wasn't administered by someone like Hagee, Doug Coe, Falwell, that dude who got caught with jOHN rODRIGUEZ in the back of a car and a meth pipe.

To be "religious" is to adhere to an authoritarian, unquestioning mindset that reflect an authoritarian unquestioning social system.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

I wish.

Correction to the song above: It's by International PLAYGROUND. Could not be more fitting.

Wiki dis sht kids: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ain't_We_Got_Fun%3F


OMG, more fitting: link to cartoon


****

Also, I'm doing all this re-re-re-editing on purpuse.

[Deckard]

Originally Posted by Strangelet

So I guess I would have no problem with a president who had faith in God...

Out of interest, when you say God, are you including the individual beliefs of the religion?

What about a president - of either party - who had faith in Gog and Magog? I'm not being facetious, but would that not make you feel uncomfortable?

And if so, then what about a president who believes that a man was born to a virgin, performed miracles, and was resurrected?

[Strangelet]

Originally Posted by Deckard

Out of interest, when you say God, are you including the individual beliefs of the religion?

What about a president - of either party - who had faith in Gog and Magog? I'm not being facetious, but would that not make you feel uncomfortable?

And if so, then what about a president who believes that a man was born to a virgin, performed miracles, and was resurrected?

It honestly would not make me feel uncomfortable, and I'll tell you why.

Your question used the word "believe" which is epistemologically weak compared to "know" or existing in a consciousness of knowing. And that's the point I'm trying to make. I'd rather have a president who believes in burning bushes and noah's ark, than an atheist president who *knows* or thinks they know that global communism achieved by murder and imperialism will usher in a golden age of the working man, or that global capitalism achieved by murder and imperialism will usher in a golden age of freedom.

now if you were to ask me if I would feel uncomfortable with a president who unquestioningly accepts the truth of the bible and acts accordingly then yes. I would have a problem with that.

i'm trying to argue the usage of the word religion to be abstracted from mystical, esp. judeo christian elements and more describe a method of thought, whose opposite is not atheism, but more specifically the scientific method.

edit: just to preemptively defend this. I know religion stricken from anything mystical sounds bizarre. Its only because mystical things, like all unproven things, tend to fertilize in the minds of the religious. Ivan Lenin's tomb is a great example. Here are all these supposed atheists IE anti-religious, who call christianity a tool for the bourgoise, embalming lenin and putting him on display like a fucking pharaoh. The idea is to create a sense of immortality, and eternal existence, which is decidedly "religious" in the sense we take it to mean conventionally. But this shows that religion preceeds mysticism, not the other way around.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

O.K., so to sum it up Deck, after dotting his' "i"'s and crossing his' "t"'s and then crossing our eyes and dotting our teas, his answer to your third question was "yes"...



Man, I can't wait for the new Orb album I'm so fucking bored.

[Strangelet]

Originally Posted by jOHN rODRIGUEZ

O.K., so to sum it up Deck, after dotting his' "i"'s and crossing his' "t"'s and then crossing our eyes and dotting our teas, his answer to your third question was "yes"...

HAHAHA yes jOHN, exactly. I forget we work in blanket statements around here like "Republicans SUCKX!!!!!' or "HILLARY CLINTONz RULES!!!" so to boil it down to your level of discourse "RELIGIOUS PEOPLE ARE LAMERZ!!! ATHEISTS ARE AWESOME BECAUSE THEY WOULDN'T BURN PEOPLE AT THE STAKE SO THEY ARE PERFECT!!!!"

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

o.k., TRANSLATION: wrrooff, wrrororrrroooofff, wroof, woof, woooofff etc. etc.

[Deckard]

Originally Posted by Strangelet

I'd rather have a president who believes in burning bushes and noah's ark, than an atheist president who *knows* or thinks they know that global communism achieved by murder and imperialism will usher in a golden age of the working man, or that global capitalism achieved by murder and imperialism will usher in a golden age of freedom.

I think I would too.

Originally Posted by Strangelet

now if you were to ask me if I would feel uncomfortable with a president who unquestioningly accepts the truth of the bible and acts accordingly then yes. I would have a problem with that.

i'm trying to argue the usage of the word religion to be abstracted from mystical, esp. judeo christian elements and more describe a method of thought, whose opposite is not atheism, but more specifically the scientific method.

You said you would feel uncomfortable with a president who "unquestioningly accepts the truth of the bible". But what is, for example, 'believing' in a virgin birth if not unquestionably accepting the truth of the bible? An awful lot of vagueness and embarrassingly undeserved respect is hidden behind that word 'belief' (even moreso 'faith'). And understandably so. We all have friends and loved ones who do subscribe to such beliefs, and most of the time we don't want to make them feel awkward unless they've shown their willingness to get into a debate about it. And besides, subscribing to an organized religion has pay-offs beyond the simple matter of truth, and so we typically don't press home the distinctions of having faith and knowing. It seems untoward. And around this vacuum has grown an (IMO) unwarranted reverence for the concept of religious faith.

But discussing it here in reference to a leader, I'd be lying if I said I didn't feel more comfortable with someone who didn't have faith in superstition and myth (if you'll excuse the triple negative).

Some will insist, 'what business is it of yours what someone's private thoughts are?' Well we all have an interest in someone's driving force, their motivation, and we all judge what we can muster about people's thoughts and opinions and beliefs, particularly belonging to those who govern us. It doesn't make us thought Nazis. Also I don't want to suggest I'm black and white about this. Belief in a Spinozan type of god is barely going to register. Belief in the literal truth of everything written in the Bible or the Qur'an or belief in the Ancient Egyptian gods and goddesses is going to freak me out. And in between is a whole lot else.

But for me it's not just a question of how they administer their faith to others, but also what they have faith in. I think the Spanish philosopher de Unamuno is correct when he writes faith is in its essence simply a matter of will, not of reason. Believing is essentially wishing to believe. And I am going to be more uncomfortable with someone of a mindset that chooses to believe in something so utterly baseless or of highly dubious veracity than someone who does not. About the only saving grace is that they're possibly believing in it because so many other people do too. But I will almost certainly question their judgment and feel uncomfortable if we learn they are having faith in obvious nonsense, even if they never utilize those beliefs to authorize a war or ban abortion.

Originally Posted by Strangelet

Ivan Lenin's tomb is a great example. Here are all these supposed atheists IE anti-religious, who call christianity a tool for the bourgoise, embalming lenin and putting him on display like a fucking pharaoh. The idea is to create a sense of immortality, and eternal existence, which is decidedly "religious" in the sense we take it to mean conventionally. But this shows that religion preceeds mysticism, not the other way around.

Sure. The fundamental opposition being between dogma and the scientific outlook. In that sense, Christianity and Communism are on the same side, they are two of the great dogmatic systems, despite being rivals at one time or another. On the other side, the scientific outlook/humanism.

[Strangelet]

Originally Posted by Deckard

You said you would feel uncomfortable with a president who "unquestioningly accepts the truth of the bible". But what is, for example, 'believing' in a virgin birth if not unquestionably accepting the truth of the bible? An awful lot of vagueness and embarrassingly undeserved respect is hidden behind that word 'belief' (even moreso 'faith'). And understandably so. We all have friends and loved ones who do subscribe to such beliefs, and most of the time we don't want to make them feel awkward unless they've shown their willingness to get into a debate about it. And besides, subscribing to an organized religion has pay-offs beyond the simple matter of truth, and so we typically don't press home the distinctions of having faith and knowing. It seems untoward. And around this vacuum has grown an (IMO) unwarranted reverence for the concept of religious faith.

hmmm. really good question. to be honest I don't have an answer for you. The relationship between faith and knowledge is easily the corner stone of all religious mischief, so its important by those who want to use religion to manipulate to keep the faith/knowledge relationship as complicated and ambiguous as possible, so that you don't know where one ends and the other begins. This is how a person who embarks on an honest spiritual quest with an open mind are so succeptible to be selling magazines on a street corner with a shaved head two weeks later.

Anyway, in terms of faith versus knowledge, my own take is that there is no such thing as knowledge outside of the analytic and the a priori, in other words we can know things in definitions and mathematics, but that's about it. so that our relationship to, for example, the bohr model of the atom is one of faith. i know. its insane, but i'm a little unhinged.

Its interesting, your Unamano quote. the american pragmatists william james took him literally and basically argued that we can "will" into reality truths in which we instill faith. Which is totally awesome and practically useless, but then in the context of modern philisophy its a drop in the bucket of all th attempts to square what we want to know, what we think we know, and what we actually can and do know.

Originally Posted by Deckard

But discussing it here in reference to a leader, I'd be lying if I said I didn't feel more comfortable with someone who didn't have faith in superstition and myth (if you'll excuse the triple negative).

And I agree!! But I think this is because we're all exhausted from all the recent dickheads whose belief in myths were the smoke that indicated the fires of authority, heirarchy, and unquestioning demands beneath.

Originally Posted by Deckard

Sure. The fundamental opposition being between dogma and the scientific outlook. In that sense, Christianity and Communism are on the same side, they are two of the great dogmatic systems, despite being rivals at one time or another. On the other side, the scientific outlook/humanism.

Yes exactly and that's really the point I was trying to make. I was not attempting to disagree with you or sean, but to expand on it. If we're going to get rid of god fearing politicians, lets get rid of the real problem, not the symptom of the problem. The belief in God is a symptom of the religious but its isn't the only symptom. And its possible to believe in God, like spinoza and the other deists of the enlightenment, without being religious and its possible to be religious without believing in God. My interest is cutting out the totality of the cancer from humanity, not born again christians. But I'd be happy if they fucked off first