In Opposition to Conservative Christianity

Post Reply New Topic

You can use my writing. It is kind of rough, and I don't go into enough detail on the large list of scriptural defects, but if it is useful, then use it.

You might also find these essays interesting:
http://www.users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html (Why I am not a Christian by Bertrand Russell, which focuses on philosophical failings and then moves on to flaws with scripture, scriptural ethics, and the churches)
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... stian.html (Why I am not a Christian by Richard Carrier, which focuses on how notions of God do not match the evidence we have)
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... stian.html (Why I am not a Christian by Keith Parsons, which focuses on the poor historical foundation of the New Testament, but also the doctrine of hell and absurdity of Christianity)
and finally
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... anity.html (Why I am not a Christian by John Loftus, which is the broadest on the list, but not the deepest)

You maybe. Personally, I consider that most of beliefs have a very high chance of being incorrect, and am open to being persuaded to believe different things.

Actually, true Christians would welcome the opportunity to achieve martyrdom.

The problem is:


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uS5DaTIF1a0[/youtube]

Thanks. I've been reading those essays. The reason why your post is good for my class is because they really have no attention span. It's short, to the point, and could be understood even by high school students (which is exactly what I'm dealing with.)

I find these sorts of diatribes to be compeltely counter-productive.

Conservative Christianity might well be silly, childish, illogical and even incorrect. Does this matter? I am in no position to make judgements about another person's beliefs, nor the decisions that they make about how to live their lives. You are free to believe whatever you like, for whatever reasons you like. The argument only becomes meaningful when Conservative Christians seek to impose their beliefs upon all members of society. But at that point the argument is no longer theological, but political.

You cannot win a political argument by attacking the fundamental beliefs of your opponent--that will merely cause him to entrench himself (sex-specific pronouns deliberately chosen!).

For my part, I choose to respect the fact that Conservative Christians believe as they do, and debate with them on particular issues.

Yes, it does.


Sure you are. To say that people can believe whatever they want without criticism is just a popular bit of nihilism that people swallow for concern about peace, but it makes no sense with any more substantive notion of virtue. If a person were being cruel in some sense to their children, would you just consider this "Ok" and make no judgment? If you saw that a certain lifestyle would inevitably bring some people to pain, would you never speak out against it? To me, that seems plainly wrong.


The point isn't just to win, but also to show that the other side is wrong. Some will entrench, and some on the sidelines might have to rethink their position, and if someone on the cusp of the matter rethinks their stance, then this effort is a success.


And I'd rather get people to recognize that there might be something very wrong with the world rather than practice such an empty-headed tolerance.

It's not nihilism, it's a recognition of human reality, as well as one of the fundamental values of pluralist, democratic societies. The freedom of thought, belief and opinion is not some abstruse philosophical talking point, it lies at the very center of our political culture.

As for the conduct of others, your question begs the further question, "Cruel in what sense?" If you can quantify the harm done, then the State's parens patriae jurisdiction steps in. Similarly, if the inevitability of some quantifiable harm can be demonstrated, then by all means, stand in the way of the harm. But if the cruelty that you imagine is the perpetuation of a belief structure that you find ridiculous, then you are simply engaging in the same political conduct as the christian right.

That being said, there are times when intervention is required in a well-ordered society. But that intervention must be both purposive, and minimal. If a couple's fundamentalist Christian beliefs cause them to deny their child medical care, then the proper response is not to rubbish their beliefs in a vain attempt to get them to, "see the light," but rather to order the care to be administered.



That may be your point, but to my way of thinking it is of no practical use. At the end of the day, I don't care if you believe that your teddy bear is God, provided that you don't attempt to use your teddy bear's revelations as the basis for shaping public policy. If you want to live your life according to the teachings of Paddington, go to it. (Within the confines of the law, of course).



If that's the tone you use when approaching the argument, it's no wonder that you continually fail. To describe my tolerance as, "empty headed," merely serves to paint you as an arrogant idealist, who has no real insight into how to have a meaningful impact on the shaping of public policy.

You're blurring a line. Society does allow for freedom of thought, but that does not mean that all ways to think are equally good. As it stands, you sound like you believe that the only moral dictate to exist is to obey the rigid rule of law, but most people recognize more and are concerned for men whom they will never encounter.


Not really, no. If we argue that conservative Christian parenting is harmful to the point where some children will commit suicide, such as in cases of homosexual urges, or where it promotes teen pregnancy by suppressing knowledge about condoms, it still won't likely get the state's intervention.

That being said, even if the cruelty is the spread of ridiculous beliefs, the cultural engagement isn't wrong, even if it is similar to the Christian right, as one or both of the groups have to be wrong.


Ok, but my complaining and argumentation isn't state intervention.


Who dictates practical use?

It seems to me that your entire point is this:
1) This kind of stuff is outside of the bounds of legal intervention.
2) Therefore it is right.
3) Therefore getting in the way of it is "wrong/impractical/whatever else have you"
4) Therefore you should not stop people from believing whatever they want to.

Now, I deny point 2, as that point is absurd. People within society can criticize other people within society. There is a point to it by many ethical systems, as many parts of society, even many important parts of society are a matter of culture rather than laws. This kind of goal might still be outside of the dictates of the law. I mean, it seems to me that you would also have to deny the importance of promoting women's equality, equal racial attitudes, tolerance and respect for homosexuals and so many other things that are obviously important to someone as "real issues" by your own logic, and this is just silly. Particularly given that the law has always never been a basic category, but an emergent phenomenon of society. (social contract my butt, that ideas is a silly theology if I've ever seen one. None has even existed, and in all likelihood, none can ever really exist given that to create a contract presupposes the existence of a legal framework but the legal framework is often considered contingent upon the contract, thus preventing a real consent. (particularly given difficulties in even selecting who has to give consent in the first place, what age? what races? what genders? etc..)


Because you shape LOTS of public policies ALL THE TIME.

Look, you're being as silly and arrogant as I am, and you really are being empty-headed on the matter. "Arrogant idealists" even if they don't decide the final tally, do have importance for bringing up issues into the public eye, for getting people to rethink matters, for giving moderates the ability to take a stand, and all sorts of other things.

Even FURTHER, this isn't a matter of "public policy" to begin with. This is 150% about culture, and you in both your approach and even your words have been conflating two different issues, and it is annoying. The things are separate and not every action to change things means calling up some legislator.

Then you recognize the freedom of speech (and hence thought, belief, and opinion) of opponents of particularly stupid ideas and social doctrines to criticism them, yes? Then I don't see what the disagreement with AG is about.

The position that freedom of speech = freedom from criticism is one of the stupidest doctrines I've ever heard. The religiously correct sure have a one-sided conception of freedom of expression.

Yeah, I don't actually see the disagreement either. It really was weird when he invoked "public policy", when the question was "Is conservative Christianity stupid?". I mean... I don't think this is a matter of public policy to call out the belief as stupid.

I'm blurring no line. I am drawing a rigid, clear and pretty inflexible line. I know that some people's thought is inferior to my own. And yet, even so, I am prepared to accept that not only are they free to continue to think as they do, but they are free to continue to govern themselves accordingly. I am concerned for people that I have never encountered, and particularly I am concerned that their individual worth as members of society be respected, whether I respect their views or not.

Obedience to the law is not a moral dictate. Obedience to the law is nothing more than a legal obligation. If a law is immoral, one exposes onself to penalty for disobedience, nonetheless.



You come nicely to my point. The Chistian right should have no more place in shaping public policy (in this case, education policy) than any other group. Schools are places where information about contraception and prevention of STIs, about sexuality and sexual orientation, about drug use, etc. can be impartially distributed. These are areas where the state has attempted to intervene, and has been opposed by the Christian right. My view is that they have no business opposing the state's attempt to intervene.

I think we can agree to disagree on the latter point. You think one side is wrong, I think both sides are wrong, in the end, sides have very little to do with it, when reduced to the framework of the individual.



Of course not. But the state's intervention on the public policy question might well render your issues moot.



I have never suggested point 1, it is a logical fallacy to extend point 1 to point 2, point 3 is an observation, rather than a logical extension.

My argument might best be summed up as follows:

1) There is mischief in the world, perpetrated by the Christian right
2) To cure the mischief, we are considering two approaches: destroy the fundamental beliefs, or attack the individual mischiefs
3) The beliefs of the Christian right are protected legally, and perhaps morally and ethically. (There might be a moral imperative to correct the wrongheaded, but I don't believe that to be the case)
4) However, an attack on individual mischiefs requires no attack on legally protected thought, belief or opinion
5) Therefore, an attack on the individual mischiefs is more likely to be successful because it does not challenge (or presents a lesser challenge) to legally protected thought, and can be founded upon a public policy debate that relies upon observation, logic and result.

Since the strongest tools in our arsenal are logic and observation, why not take the fight to where these tools are most useful. A person who truly believes that scripture is the unadulterated word of God is not going to be swayed by logical argument. But a study that demonstrates that sex education reduces teen pregnancy will sway a public policy debate.



As a matter of fact, I do shape public policy. I'm a public servant and the focus of my work is in presenting public policy alternatives to decision makers. One of the things I do every day is look at proposals through the filter of what it is that we are trying to achieve, whether the proposal can achieve it, whether it is the most effective means of achieving it or whether there is some better option.

If this is a question of culture with no public policy implications, then your argument is essentially weakened. Yes, the fundamental beliefs are wrong. But so what? What's the harm? What's the mischief? As soon as you identify a potential harm, you introduce the public policy lens. If children are exposed to harm because of their parents' beliefs, then the consequences of those beliefs have crossed the line from protected, private thought into the realm of public policy.

I don't want to deny the validity of what you espouse. I agree with most of what you say. My only disagreement with you is what argument do you take to the barricade. I, for one, don't want to go to the mat over whether Jesus cries when a woman has an abortion. I want to go to the mat for the principle that the State should not impose itself in the relationship between a woman and her physician. I don't want to go to the mat over whether Scripture condemns homosexuality, I want to go to the mat for the principle that people are free to form the families of their choice. (I could go on, but I think you get my point).

Visagrunt, you have completely missed the point to the point where talking to you is pointless. Period. You're not even engaging the real issue. Even further, you are likely missing major political variances between the two of us to begin with, as I have openly stated that I am a very strong libertarian at past moments in time, which means that I don't believe in the casual use of public policy to achieve ends that I deem cultural. (You might misconstrue that sentence, and once again miss the point) I don't think that furthering this conversation is useful given how deeply you are missing the point.

Here's a few things where you are missing the point:
1) Even if certain things are taught in schools, parents and churches will still exert enough cultural force to change opinions in a manner that is harmful to the actions of individuals.
2) Not all harms are public, for instance, if I waste 20 years of my life for the Cthulhu cult, there is no reason why the public should prevent me from doing so, but it still may be privately wrong for an individual to ignore that there is a bad choice made, and it still may be a very real harm to me as a person.
3) Religion is constitutionally protected, but religious attitudes can potentially lead to socially destructive attitudes if just warped slightly. An example is the Webster Cook case where the man took a communion wafer and then was later sent death threats. Now, in this case, I do not consider the real problem to be the people who sent threats, but rather the religion that hijacked their judgment into doing this. It could be that the churches that these people went to weren't this extreme, I don't know, but as a rational outcome, these people went from a constitutionally protected activity to threatening to kill a young man. And given the numbers, and the fact that these people were, once again, mentally hijacked by their religion, I do not believe police action to be a meaningful option. An even better example, given your own selective brain damage is cases of homosexual children in very religious families or other similar things, as despite the lack of a right to social acceptance, this is necessary for psychological well-being and the extreme religion of these people ends up being a harm to their children.
4) Your own attitudes are incoherent, as you deny the religious right's ability to influence public policy: "they have no business opposing the state's attempt to intervene", but you also admit that the religious right has the right to influence public policy in the first place. Now, the problem is that if they were bigger and stronger, than their opposition would win, and the nature of America would be grossly altered in a manner negative for all people. This includes textbooks and other things, as seen in Texas. In order to oppose this attitude, we can't use a public policy, partially because these people also control public policy, rather we have to start with cultural change, even if we want to exert public policy change.
5) I am a libertarian. Our threshold of intervention is a bit higher than yours because we think of excessive government as tyrannical in some sense. For this reason, I am not going to admit to a public policy issue for things, even in cases where others would, but rather I would push for cultural change.
6) Public policy is not always as capable of reaching its goals as it desires anyway. Although public policy might desire equality among peoples, it cannot force this to happen without change within cultures and between them. Public policy might regulate things, but not all things can reasonably be regulated, especially given the red tape cost of such regulations in the first place. In this case, I am referring to social connections, family connections, and perhaps connections within small businesses. Despite the best efforts of government, people still complain about discrimination, and at some point, the marginal utility of another regulation is zero or negative.

As such, I think all of your claims and objections are pointless and stupid. You have critically missed the point, and you likely have a fatally flawed view of society in general anyway. (The fact that you can uphold the idea of a social contract with a straight-face is likely all I need to point to in order to laugh at your basic knowledge of the workings of human society)

The fact that I have rubbished your point does not mean that I have missed it. I am well aware of your point, and I maintain that it is impractical and irrelevant.

As for your particular points, number 1 supports my argument just as much as it does yours. You cannot sit on the beach and hold back the tide, so why waste your time doing so? Deal with the harm that the tide causes, not the tide itself.

As for point two, that is, at root a private decision for the individual who perceives you doing harm to yourself. I have never tried to suggest that you shouldn't give effect to the force of your convictions, rather, I have tried to demonstrate that you could achieve your ends through better means. If you don't like my philosophy, by all means continue to practice your own.

As for point three, it falls within that framework where I suggest that we have to agree to disagree. Protected belief is not the same as protected behaviour, and I, for one, believe that state intervention in the case of death threats is a no-brainer. As for gay children, there is scope within the education system to provide remediation for that mischief.

As for four, you perpetrate an outright falsehood. Never have I admitted that the religious right has a right to influence public policy. I may recognize that they are capable of it, but I oppose unreserveredly the exercise of that ability. I believe in a strong legislative framework to protect minority populations from repressive policies enunciated by a majority. Again, this is a matter of fighting the mischief, not the tide.

That being said, you finish point four with a valid point. I do not disagree that cultural change is a desirable precursor to public policy change. But I do think we disagree on the form that the public policy change should take. I opine that a classical, liberal approach that encourages the widest diversity of thought, belief and expression out of which the greatest social consensus can be found.

With respect to point 5, I think you are taking a very narrow perspective of libertarianism. To the extent that libertarianism means freedom from government intervention, then, yes, you are. But libertarianism must, perforce, include the freedom of thought, belief and opinion, otherwise it is not libertarianism, but small-government hegemony. If you cannot tolerate the Christian fundamentalist in your midst, who chooses to home-school his children, then how credibly can you claim the libertarian label?

Finally, with respect to point 6, I do not disagree with the limitations on public policy. That is why it is an organic thing, responding to circumstances. Ideally, public policy would be a proactive rather than a reactive instrument, but we are limited by the need for our public policy organs to be accountable to the electorate. Given the choice between proactive, insulated government or accountable, reactive government, I would choose the latter.

Meanwhile, at what point have I ever written words upholding the concept of social contract? You are imputing belief to me that in no way arises from my writing. I may be a liberal, and I may support an active public sector, but that does not make me a modern day Rousseau.

Laugh at my thinking all you like. I will continue my work, secure in the knowledge that my thinking actually has practical application in the real world, and contributes to making life better for the public that I serve. When your idealism accomplishes that, I will retract all of my reservations about it.