I disagree. As a medical professional, I know that end-of-life issues are dealt with by hospital ethics boards with the involvement of the legal department. I am not aware in my experience where a religious authority was consulted. Often Gramp’s decision is made with his family and the doctor, and no official action has to be taken. The Schiavo case was controversial, and religion was unfortunately injected by some people into the case; however, there were controversial ethical issues involved that were finally sorted out.

“The checks you think are in place can simply be resolved through executive order, just as our freedoms were done with the Patriot Act.”

You need to do your homework. The Patriot Act was an act of Congress, not an Executive order. The Act was passed by wide margins in both houses of Congress and was supported by members of both the Republican and Democratic parties. Portions of it have been challenged successfully in the courts. Not the greatest piece of legislation, but the checks are still there.

Hey–how did Obama vote on that FISA bill again?

Further, of course something like a ferry disaster or 9-11 is going to make people look for some way to explain the utter randomness of the universe. It doesn’t change the fact that it’s a security blanket, and it’s fine, I’m not calling for an absolute eradication of churches, but a reduction of their influence in our daily life.

As far as ethics are concerned, yes, it’s true that our system of morality and ethics is not absolutely dictated by religious doctrine, but a great deal of our ethics is swayed by the role that religion plays. The counterargument to Euthanasia for example often requires a religious view where our life is more sacred than our dignity. It’s fine if Fido’s near death, but if Gramps feels like he doesn’t want to deal with terminal cancer, then a stink is raised, often the first to jump in line is religion. Further, all those benedictions, and prayers that are so heavily involved in politics do influence our national consciousness. Why do you think so many politicians look for the blessing of the religious authorities? Their large constituencies become instrumental in the influence they have over the rest of the country.

The checks you think are in place can simply be resolved through executive order, just as our freedoms were done with the Patriot Act. If you’re branded a terrorist, well, no trial for you, even as an American citizen? How’s that for checks? You feel just as strongly about the secular role the government plays? I wouldn’t get too cocky there.

Religion does not always shackle the mind or trump dissent. You should know better than to make such a statement. Sometimes discussion about abortion and euthanasia are based on the principles of ethics; ethical principles sometimes intersect with religious teachings. I agree with you that our society should not be governed by religious fanatics.

You seem to have a rosy view of “Northern Europe.” Although the Europeans certainly compare favorably (and better) than the US in some measures (health care for one), I suggest you review carefully European attitudes toward habeas corpus, preventive detention, summary deportation, and libel laws, and then in serious fashion compare them to their counterparts (or lack of) in the United States.

Do you remember the sinking of the ferry Estonia in 1994? Over 800 lives were lost, many of them Swedish. And what did the Swedish people do? They went straight to their churches. Nobody told them to. And the very next morning on the front of the main Swedish daily, there was an article by the archbishop putting the tragedy into a theological context and giving Swedish people a way of understanding what had happened.

Maybe your view of European secularism is not as accurate as you think.

“Unchecked, there’s no question how far we can fall into some brain dead mindset.” But the checks are in place, and the sky isn’t falling–whether it’s full of fairies or not.

Those of us who like to think freely, to live in a universe we know is astonishing, yet grounded in the physical world, we don’t want psychos with sky fairies as their masters dictating national policy. Why should abortion, gay rights, euthanasia, hostility towards contraceptives be in the hands of religious authority? That is what we’re fighting. If the sky fairy believers had their way, our way of life would change. Yes, it may not be Saudi Arabia, but it would be some type of near-theocracy dictated by some artifice of authority.

Why would we want the Pope, or some archbishop, dictate to us our rights as free beings bound by the common thread that is humanity? It is religion that is often used as a divider, and an artificial barrier towards cultural integration. Ultimately, the key to all this is extensive eduction. Looking at Northern Europe for example and their strength in Eduction is also translated with their lack of religious belief. It may sound arrogant, or “elitist” but religion is and will be populated by the artificial constructs of our minds. Thinking rationally, logically, and analytically is hard. Allowing critical thinking to become natural is also equally difficult. Yet, that is how we have the civilization which we do. This isn’t Thomas Jefferson’s America. We’re a post Darwinian world, where we know how complex life could have evolved from simpler organisms. We know that the physics of the modern day universe can apply to the very instant of formation, everything except just at the cusp of the Big Bang. Yet, some still try to inject a sky fairy into that gap. Why? Just because there’s a gap in our knowledge need not require a sky fairy. It requires diligent work that bases itself on the developing progression of scientific thought. We’re here building a mountain brick by brick to see the horizon, while some people are sitting around praying to a fairy to help lift them above the chaos. Well, if it makes you feel better, if that warm security blanket provides you with a chance to sleep at night, feel free, but why should we dictate national policy based on those who attempt to force feed us those blankets? Take the blanket, but don’t expect everyone to do the same. The Supreme Court today is attempting to redefine many of progressive laws that we’ve struggled so hard to pass. Unchecked, there’s no question how far we can fall into some brain dead mindset.

Well, for almost 250 years the separation of church and state has worked remarkably well in this country, apparently even better than in some of the more “secularized” societies in Europe. I would imagine that overall, our country is probably more secular now than in previous periods of our history. I do not know what you refer to when you mention the “religious thing” that was adopted several decades ago.

Are Jews and Muslims left out of “the Christian prayer session” (whatever that is)? I don’t know–I thought that there was a variety of faiths represented at Obama’s inaugural festivities. I wonder if Christians are left out of Muslim or Jewish prayer “sessions.” Whether you like it or not, the majority of Americans happen to think of themselves as Christian. And yet, even after all this time, there is no State religion, unlike the CofE in the UK.

Again, when I think of the word “monstrous” I think of the beheading of Daniel Pearl, or what life must be like in Mogadishu these days, among other things. If you feel that it is just as monstrous to have “sky fairy” representatives (so funny!) speak at our inauguration, then you have a most interesting and provincial view of the world.

I think you confuse numerous issues. When you talk about the “hoax and fraud” of “global warming”, just what are you referring to? There’s a lot of climate scaremongering going on etc, but not everything to do with the issue of global warming is a hoax or fraud. The globe is getting warmer – that much we know. How much of that is due to human activity is anyone’s guess. Predictions of future climate – yeah sure, pull the other one.

Yes, monstrosity. Many people make the mistake of thinking “oh, but *this* little bit of religious thing is doing no harm” – the founders of the nation didn’t buy that and were quite fierce in preventing any religion from having a control over affairs of state. The creationists and numerous religious groups would just love to see a little more harmless religion creep into government, and a little more, and yet more … Not seeing religious influence of the government for the abomination that it is could only lead to widespread misery and suffering and the subjugation of citizens to the whims of whatever religion or religious coalition is in control. Perhaps the religious thing didn’t look so bad when it was adopted several decades ago; the USA was predominantly protestant and catholic then. Other religious groups like the jews and muslims are left out of the christian prayer session; do they feel left out, or are they creeped out by the sight? I don’t know, but there is an affirmation there that the USA is a christian nation and to that I say “hey, speak for yourself buddy”. It is not christianity that makes the nation great; christianity (nor any religion for that matter) is not one of the core beliefs enshrined in the constitution and adopted in faith by the states as they signed their contractual agreements to be part of the union. God has no place in our system of government and that is a value which we must preserve.

“If this were Saudi Arabia . . . ” ‘Cause our society is just like that!

I wasn’t aware that “politicians who represent the religious view” had become Pariahs in Denmark and Sweden. I am aware that many Western European societies are having difficulties in dealing with their Muslim minorities, including Sweden, which was the scene of recent riots in Malmo after the closure of a Muslim community center.

“You know that annoying parrot you have back in the shed that won’t shut up until you place a blanket over the cage and ignore it till it’s dead? Yeah, that is hopefully the future of these religion-as-a-badge-of-honor touting politicians.”

More of that Obama hope and change! Yes indeed . . .

I took it to mean that science would be regarded with respect and left to the scientists rather than ridiculed or diminished when findings are counter to policy and also not managed by a PR machine to suit the needs of a political administration. I think his statement was an acknowledgment that the last administration meddled with science and used it to political ends but that it would not happen with his administration. I hope I am not being too hopeful and not just hearing what I wanted to hear.

” …Anyway, having a preacher at the inauguration ceremony . . . is a monstrosity heaped upon us by religious interests. . .”

Monstrosity?

Monstrosity is what is going on in Darfur. Monstrosity is what life in North Korea looks like. Monstrosity is the dictatorship in Burma, or Iran ramping up their nuclear weapons technology.

Your choice or words is maybe a little off.

@PsyberDave–

Science’s rightful place . . . does that mean “non-politicized science?” ‘Cause if you read K’s post above, seems like science may be just as politicized as it has been. But maybe since it’s politicized in a way that you and others like, it’s okay?

How refreshing it was. I felt so included.

By the way, I felt quite pleased with the use of the term “non-believer”. I would readily identify myself as such. David Hunstman referred to Tony Blair’s phraseology of “people of no religion”, which I like too. That made me think of an acronym, PONR. Or how about person with no religion, PWNR?

The reason I had those contradictions, is the same reason I had typos in my comments, where I’m rambling too fast, and didn’t bother to properly edit before I posted.

My point, that I was trying to make, which doesn’t really seem to matter anymore, was that we can’t truly know what he believes, but we can form beliefs and attempt at determining what his personal thoughts might be on the matter. Since he’s a politician, we’re not on level ground, and it takes some resolve on our part.

GAry 7

Seems to me you’ve mis-interpreted that as a condemnation of the constitution. It appears to me he was lamenting the court oriented approach that ignored the effective method of community involvement in redistribution of wealth. I will note that when Switzerland was adopting their constitution, one of the examples they looked at was ours and they rejected it as a model for their own, since,it “allowed the implementation of a dictatorship under the guise of a national emergency,,,”
,,,so there are weaknesses in our constitution, ones on which the Bush/Cheney crew were quick to capitalize.

As a practicing agnostic(note the use of lower case. It ain’t dogma), I feel quite free in ignoring EVERYBODY, muslim, christian, jew, hindu, Buddhist, wiccan,atheist,etc,,,ie,any extreme view of the nature of reality. I will always pursue the evidence, regardless where it leads.

The question “is there a god(or dog)” without providing a universally acceptable definition of “whatcha mean by dat?” is merely an exercise in frustration and loud confrontation.
If you mean, “someone who gives a hoot about me,people or life in general” then I have to say, I’ve already met many such who would fit that description,,,but they were all human,,,or perhaps just a little bit more than human.

If you mean an invisible sky fairy, operating beyond the natural laws of this universe, then I would have to disagree.

Jesus was supposed to be able to heal the sick, raise the dead and turn water into wine,,,something anyone with antibiotics, trained in CPR and a wine making kit can do today,,,so I guess we’re all potentially Jesus incarnates,,,

Children sometimes fear the dark and we give them fairy tales to both warn and reassure. Why is it so difficult for non-believers to understand this “need” for reassurance in the general populace, or their anecdotal descriptions of religious/spiritual enlightenment?
I would like to note, that, as far as I can determine from the historical literature, every great Teacher of humanity was first and foremost an agnostic, then they had their “insight” and, after imparting that insight, regular folk implemented it as a dogma(religion).

I understand childhood fear (having once been a child) and I see no dichotomy in both telling them fairy tales (as long as you tell them “these are stories handed down to us as lessons”), as well as encouraging them in evidential reasoning.

At certain stages in our developmental progress we may need such “ephemeral” reassurance,,,but hopefully we can outgrow that and tolerate the chaos that is reality, while seeking and maintaining the occasional patterns(like life) that rise from such.

On the quantum level, at least, it appears,,,”In the beginning, was chaos,,,then there were patterns,,,”

Peace to all and to all a good night,,,(hey, I’m Santa,,,)

GAry 7

As far as I can tell you haven’t provided any evidence for your assertion. Name one piece of legislation that Obama backed that supports the idea that he is an agnostic. Cite any passage in any Obama book that supports it as well. And you still haven’t answered David D’s question concerning your blatant contradiction where in one post you claim to know what Obama really believes and in another post you claim we can never know what Obama really believes. Feh.

1. You were long associated with population alarmist Paul Ehrlich, and joined him in predicting disasters that never came to pass. For example, you and Ehrlich wrote in 1969: “If . . . population control measures are not initiated immediately and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come.” In 1971, the two of you were adamant that “some form of ecocatastrophe, if not thermonuclear war, seems almost certain to overtake us before the end of the century.” In the 1980s, Ehrlich quoted your expectation that “carbon dioxide-induced famines could kill as many as a billion people before the year 2020.” What have you learned from the failure of these prophecies to come true?
2. You have advocated the “long-term desirability of zero population growth” for the United States. In 1973, you pronounced the US population of 210 million as “too many” and warned that “280 million in 2040 is likely to be much too many.” The US population today is 304 million. Are there too many Americans?
3. You opposed the Reagan administration’s military buildup in the 1980s for fear it might “increase the belligerency of the Soviet government.” You pooh-poohed any notion that “the strain of an accelerated arms race will do more damage to the Soviet economy than to our own.” But that is exactly what happened, and President Reagan’s defense buildup helped win the Cold War. Did that outcome alter your thinking?
4. You argued that “a massive campaign must be launched . . . to de-develop the United States” in order to conserve energy; you also recommended the “de-development” of modern industrialized nations in order to facilitate growth in underdeveloped countries. Yet elsewhere you observed: “Affordable energy in ample quantities is the lifeblood of the industrial societies and a prerequisite for the economic development of the others.” Which is it?
5. In Scientific American, you recently wrote: “The ongoing disruption of the Earth’s climate by man-made greenhouse gases is already well beyond dangerous and is careening toward completely unmanageable.” Given your record with forecasting calamity, shouldn’t policymakers view your alarm with a degree of skepticism?
6. In 2006, according to the London Times, you suggested that global sea levels could rise 13 feet by the end of this century. But the latest assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is that sea levels are likely to have risen only 13 inches by 2100. Can you explain the discrepancy?
7. “Variability has been the hallmark of climate over the millennia,” you wrote in 1977. “The one statement about future climate that can be made with complete assurance is that it will be variable.” If true, should we not be wary of ascribing too much importance to human influence on climate change?
8. You are withering in your contempt for researchers who are unconvinced that human activity is responsible for global warming, or that global warming is an onrushing disaster. You have written that such ideas are “dangerous,” that those who hold them “infest” the public discourse, and that paying any attention to their views is “a menace.” You contributed to a published assault on Bjorn Lomborg’s notable 2001 book “The Skeptical Environmentalist” – an attack the Economist described as “strong on contempt and sneering, but weak on substance.” In light of President-elect Obama’s insistence that “promoting science” means “protecting free and open inquiry,” will you work to soften your hostility toward scholars who disagree with you?

FROM: http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate (please consider the questions, not the source….if you can).

The secular state has always been threatened by religious interests. When the union was founded the specter of the church was already prominent and many people were wary of it. The religious interests do win on occasion; for example, the pledge of allegiance was promoted by religious interests and many years later the phrase “one nation under god” was added. Fortunately our freedoms are largely protected and we citizens cannot be coerced into reciting the pledge – this is a good thing ™ because rabid nationalism is certainly not in the interest of the nation. The people who refuse to recite the pledge are no less patriotic than people who mindlessly recite the pledge and no less patriotic than people who recite the pledge and believe every word they say. If we were all required to recite the pledge that would be an excellent example of what Eric Blair called “group think”.

Anyway, having a preacher at the inauguration ceremony has always been the practice in my lifetime, but as with the pledge of allegiance it is a monstrosity heaped upon us by religious interests and no one dare buck the status quo. It is a historical fact that the presidential inauguration did not always involve a preacher.

Therefore, I have nothing in common with the religious, and if you still choose to believe it, well, even in your error, it’s your right.