ping SkyDog: Man of Steele (good article) [Archive]

Buccaneer

11-14-2005, 06:17 PM

from Cal Thomas

What would you call a man born into poverty who became a success in spite of many obstacles? You'd probably call him an inspiration and invite him to speak at your next business convention. Suppose that man from humble roots is African American? He might be a keynote speaker at the next NAACP gathering, or the 2008 Democratic National Convention. Except that this man is not a Democrat. He's a Republican and a conservative. What would you call him now - an "Oreo," an "Uncle Tom," a "token"?

Maryland Lt. Governor Michael S. Steele, who is running for the United States Senate seat being vacated by Paul S. Sarbanes, has been called these names, and worse, by Democratic leaders in his state. Their problem, which is the problem most Democrats have with African Americans who have Steele's work ethic and political pedigree, is that he became a success without their help.

A profile of Steele in the April issue of Johns Hopkins Magazine by writer Jim Duffy reveals the source of Democrat angst. Steele didn't waste time singing "We Shall Overcome." He overcame. His mother, Maebell Turner, born into a sharecropping family in South Carolina, dropped out of school to work in the tobacco fields. While still a teenager, she and her mother moved to Washington, D.C., where she got a job in a Laundromat. She worked there for 45 years. She married what Duffy describes as an "abusive, philandering alcoholic" who died at age 36, leaving two young children behind.

Steele was born in 1958. He lists his mother, Martin Luther King Jr. and Ronald Reagan as his three heroes. Steele says his mother was urged to accept welfare when his father died, but that she refused. Years later, he asked her why. Steele quotes his mother as saying, "I didn't want the government raising my children." Eventually, Maebell married Steele's stepfather, John Turner, a truck driver. They managed to send her children to Catholic school, which Steele credits with contributing to his success.

He was admitted to Johns Hopkins University, but when his grades were substandard, he was invited not to return. His mother urged him to go back. Three times he petitioned the dean of students to give him a second chance. Three times the dean refused. Steele persisted and the dean told him to enroll in four summer courses the dean would select at George Washington University. Steele did and when he brought back straight A's, he was allowed back into Hopkins, from which he graduated. He later earned a law degree at Georgetown University.

"Hopkins gave me a second chance," Steele told Johns Hopkins Magazine, "But before it gave it to me, it told me to straighten up, to recognize your priorities, and to do what you're responsible for. ... That sounded a lot like my mom."

This is not the modern Democratic Party message, which teaches victimhood and government dependency, telling African Americans they can't make it on their own. Steele rejects such thinking. He tells blacks their best political future lies in the Republican Party, through which they can build vibrant businesses and decent schools.

The Baltimore Sun, with which Steele and Maryland Governor Robert Ehrlich Jr. have a running feud, said of Steele during the 2002 campaign: "Michael S. Steele brings little to the ticket but the color of his skin." In response, Steele said, "It's an ignorant statement meant to diminish what I represent." He became the first African American elected to statewide office in Maryland history.

Liberal Democrats are worried about success stories like those of Michael Steele, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and Clarence Thomas. While discussing the demographic makeup of the Supreme Court in a Nov. 1 editorial, The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel implied Justice Thomas isn't really black and that he "deserves an asterisk because he arguably does not represent the views of mainstream black America."

I have news for those who think this way. The so-called "mainstream" of black America, as represented by race-hustlers like Rev. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, doesn't represent the best interests of black America. The work and personal ethics of people like Steele, Powell, Rice and Thomas do.

Michael Steele should be elected to the United States Senate from Maryland, not only because he is qualified, but because he would provide a sharp contrast to the Democratic Party and its plantation mentality. Currently, the only African American in the Senate is Barack Obama of Illinois, a Democrat.

Steele's inspiring story should serve as an example not only to African Americans, but to all Americans.

flere-imsaho

11-14-2005, 07:55 PM

This is not the modern Democratic Party message, which teaches victimhood and government dependency, telling African Americans they can't make it on their own.

Michael Steele should be elected to the United States Senate from Maryland, not only because he is qualified, but because he would provide a sharp contrast to the Democratic Party and its plantation mentality. Currently, the only African American in the Senate is Barack Obama of Illinois, a Democrat.

There are 43 African American members of Congress (42 reps + Senator Barack Obama). All are Democrats.

Whose "plantation mentality" was that again?

JonInMiddleGA

11-14-2005, 08:15 PM

Whose "plantation mentality" was that again?

The use of the phrase did not sail that far over your head, or at least I refuse to believe that it did. And considering how frequently we disagree, if you can't get away with playing dumb with me, it seems pretty unlikely that many other people are going to buy it either.

Axxon

11-15-2005, 06:10 AM

The use of the phrase did not sail that far over your head, or at least I refuse to believe that it did. And considering how frequently we disagree, if you can't get away with playing dumb with me, it seems pretty unlikely that many other people are going to buy it either.

Nice way to avoid the question Jon.

Not one black member of congress is a republican. Good ole boy Cal proudly points out 4 exceptions to the rule and holding them up as examples of the rule. Are those the only black "success stories" or the only four that the republicans deigned worthy of being honorary whites?

The message is pretty clear here Jon and you're not too dense to see it either. Blacks who work hard and get elected such as Obama are simply plantation mentality products while the few tokens who get appointed by those who simply won't elect them are somehow examples of how to succeed?

There's no way a white dinosaur like Thomas basically insulting an entire ethnic group, and saying that they aren't intelligent enough to decide who they want to represent them and in fact are so stupid that their choices are little more than supplicating their plantation masters is exactly doing that, is going to cause a ground swell of minority support for his klan, I mean party. ;)

I have no problem with the message though. If Steele wasn't represented by the likes of Cal I'd consider voting for him on his bio alone. I'd vote for a diseased lemur with syphilis with that bio. That is, if he isn't represented by the likes of Cal of course.

I just think that this is a lead by example message not a preach from above one especially if all you have is four current examples when the other side can give more examples that not only are successes but more represent the views of their electorate. Cal's is a message for the white guys simple. It's rolling his eyes and saying, look at the stupid negroes.

It's stupid because of course it doesn't produce the "intended" results of the message. It alienates and insults those who are working for and earning their place in the world but who happen to hold views different than the writer. Obviously, he's not writing this for them; he's writing it for his constituency, you know, conservative white guys. It's a feel good about yourself and bad about those who are not like you piece. It's meant to continue and perhaps widen the racial divide and at the same time shoring up it's base.

It's nice to see how hard the party will go to pimp their fifth black token though. The very scarcity of candidates for this role would make it an attractive choice for young men like Michael Steele. The largess he'll get by his grateful masters will surely give him a huge boost in his ambitions. I applaud him for recognizing the need and filling it.

In after thought I noticed something else. Cal boldly states at the beginning that "Their problem, which is the problem most Democrats have with African Americans who have Steele's work ethic and political pedigree, is that he became a success without their help."

So African Americans who have Steele's work ethic and political pedigree are republicans. Ok.

We already know that there aren't any black republicans currently worthy of being elected to the republican controlled senate except of course this guy who hasn't been elected yet. How empowering a message is it to tell folks that their best and brightest aren't really worthy of consideration for any real power but that they're welcome to keep trying. There are still a couple more token jobs still open.

If I was black I'd be offended. Actually, as a thinking human being I'm offended. If you have the honesty and morality you credit yourself with then I'm sure you are too.

JonInMiddleGA

11-15-2005, 07:22 AM

Nice way to avoid the question Jon.

Avoid it? Hell, I welcome it, although frankly after such an incredible b.s. filled post on your part it's kind of tough to fight through the nausea to put much together. You aren't going to like my answers most likely, but after all the misdirection you just tried it's pretty tough to care.

Not one black member of congress is a republican.

You want the truth of that matter? The real, honest-to-goodness bottom line truth? Okay, here you go: that fact says more the political state of affairs among blacks in America than anything I can think of.

How can people elect what they never see? In 20 years I've voted in at least 4 different Congressional districts and at least a half dozen different state legislative districts (a fairly common pool for federal level candidates) my lifetime, I've seen exactly ONE black GOP candidate in those districts ... and that was in the last election cycle. And he ran well, just not well enough to beat a more experienced party veteran who has been pretty well received since ultimately winning the seat (translation: he didn't lose because he was a black candidate, he lost because he wasn't the best candidate)

Are those the only black "success stories" ...

At the Congressional level, yeah, those are pretty much it. Sad, really, but that's the situation.

There's no way a white dinosaur like Thomas basically insulting an entire ethnic group and saying that they aren't intelligent enough to decide who they want to represent them and in fact are so stupid that their choices are little more than supplicating their plantation masters

Well damn Ax, something has to explain the long term tendency to vote self-destructively. At this point, if it isn't explained by being hoodwinked en masse, damned if I can see a better explanation. Meanwhile, I don't see how you can criticize Thomas for giving the benefit of the doubt -- in spite of decades of voting history, he's saying "hey, there's plenty of black Americans who are smart enough to see through this ... if they're willing to look at it." It isn't an intelligence issue, it's a matter of will, and to this point that's something that there's been scant evidence of.

It alienates and insults those who are working for and earning their place in the world but who happen to hold views different than the writer.

I find it pretty hard to find any action more worth of insult than block voting for a group as judgementally deficient and ethically bankrupt as the Democratic Party, certainly nothing more contemptable comes to mind on Election Day. And in spite of it all, Thomas hasn't given up yet, he's still hopeful that the lightbulb will go on. Will it? Only time will tell, but at least people like Steele provide some reason for hope.

How empowering a message is it to tell folks that their best and brightest aren't really worthy of consideration for any real power but that they're welcome to keep trying.

If more stopped drinking the same poisonous kool-aid, it could be quite empowering -- that's the whole point of the article.

Honolulu_Blue

11-15-2005, 07:29 AM

I find it pretty hard to find any action more worth of insult than voting for a group as judgementally deficient and ethically bankrupt as the Republican Party, certainly nothing more contemptable comes to mind on Election Day.
Fixed.

JonInMiddleGA

11-15-2005, 07:48 AM

Fixed.

Lemme guess, you'd like the government to hand out $250 vouchers that could be used to buy a vowel, in desparate search for a clue.

Ben E Lou

11-15-2005, 08:05 AM

So African Americans who have Steele's work ethic and political pedigree are republicans.I haven't had a chance to read the article yet, but I just wanted to mention that I find the term "African American" to be extremely offensive. I was born in Georgia. My mama was born in Georgia. My grandmama was born in Georgia. My great grandmama was born in Georgia. I am dadgum SICK AND TIRED of liberals marginalizing me as an American. Carry on. I'll read and comment later in the day.

JonInMiddleGA

11-15-2005, 08:28 AM

flere-imsaho

11-15-2005, 08:32 AM

I haven't had a chance to read the article yet, but I just wanted to mention that I find the term "African American" to be extremely offensive.

...

I am dadgum SICK AND TIRED of liberals marginalizing me as an American. Carry on. I'll read and comment later in the day.

How about when conservatives (i.e. the author of the article in the original post) do it? Does it bother you then?

Ben E Lou

11-15-2005, 08:35 AM

How about when conservatives (i.e. the author of the article in the original post) do it? Does it bother you then?Conservatives do it because weak-minded people somehow managed to make it the "acceptable" term. They're weak-willed for cowtowing to the weak-minded, too. Blech.

Axxon

11-15-2005, 08:40 AM

Axxon

11-15-2005, 08:50 AM

Conservatives do it because weak-minded people somehow managed to make it the "acceptable" term. They're weak-willed for cowtowing to the weak-minded, too. Blech.

If you're weak-willed enough to follow blindly the weak-minded it doesn't say very much about the state of your own mind really, at least at this level.

Axxon

11-15-2005, 09:03 AM

Avoid it? Hell, I welcome it, although frankly after such an incredible b.s. filled post on your part it's kind of tough to fight through the nausea to put much together. You aren't going to like my answers most likely, but after all the misdirection you just tried it's pretty tough to care.

You want the truth of that matter? The real, honest-to-goodness bottom line truth? Okay, here you go: that fact says more the political state of affairs among blacks in America than anything I can think of.

How can people elect what they never see? In 20 years I've voted in at least 4 different Congressional districts and at least a half dozen different state legislative districts (a fairly common pool for federal level candidates) my lifetime, I've seen exactly ONE black GOP candidate in those districts ... and that was in the last election cycle. And he ran well, just not well enough to beat a more experienced party veteran who has been pretty well received since ultimately winning the seat (translation: he didn't lose because he was a black candidate, he lost because he wasn't the best candidate)

At the Congressional level, yeah, those are pretty much it. Sad, really, but that's the situation.

Well damn Ax, something has to explain the long term tendency to vote self-destructively. At this point, if it isn't explained by being hoodwinked en masse, damned if I can see a better explanation. Meanwhile, I don't see how you can criticize Thomas for giving the benefit of the doubt -- in spite of decades of voting history, he's saying "hey, there's plenty of black Americans who are smart enough to see through this ... if they're willing to look at it." It isn't an intelligence issue, it's a matter of will, and to this point that's something that there's been scant evidence of.

I find it pretty hard to find any action more worth of insult than block voting for a group as judgementally deficient and ethically bankrupt as the Democratic Party, certainly nothing more contemptable comes to mind on Election Day. And in spite of it all, Thomas hasn't given up yet, he's still hopeful that the lightbulb will go on. Will it? Only time will tell, but at least people like Steele provide some reason for hope.

If more stopped drinking the same poisonous kool-aid, it could be quite empowering -- that's the whole point of the article.

The truth is all you just did is agree that what I posted is indeed what Cal was doing and that you agreed with Cal's point about the black community.

I can't help but think though. Blacks represent 12 percent of the population and they represent 8 percent of the congress. It's an underrepresentation but not horribly. The community is getting out and getting it's voices heard and it's people elected and not one of those people are currently a republican.

It seems that you and Cal feel that insulting people is going to somehow change that. I see a real disconnect with reality in that view.

Ben E Lou

11-15-2005, 09:06 AM

If you're weak-willed enough to follow blindly the weak-minded it doesn't say very much about the state of your own mind really, at least at this level.Agreed. I'm not a big fan of most Republican politicians, either. The Democrats are basically clueless and the Republicans are basically whores. Like that better? :)

JonInMiddleGA

11-15-2005, 09:07 AM

It seems that you and Cal feel that insulting people is going to somehow change that.

Bluntly, it's a desparate attempt to wake them the fuck up.

And it's not even an effort that I'm particularly enamored with. I admire the intentions of those who are really into it, but I'm more cynical than they are I guess. I'm not sure any amount of effort is going to bear fruit in the face of the concerted & much more long-standing effort to keep them in the dark.

Ragone

11-15-2005, 09:07 AM

flere-imsaho

11-15-2005, 09:10 AM

Axxon

11-15-2005, 09:16 AM

Bluntly, it's a desparate attempt to wake them the fuck up.

And it's not even an effort that I'm particularly enamored with. I admire the intentions of those who are really into it, but I'm more cynical than they are I guess. I'm not sure any amount of effort is going to bear fruit in the face of the concerted & much more long-standing effort to keep them in the dark.

It's a horrible effort and I am extrememly critical of Thomas' style and that had a lot to do with my response. Note I never got into the actual issues or who was right and who was wrong. I looked at it from the view of what's being believed now not which belief is wrong. Right now, clearly the black community supports the ideas of the democratic party. That's the fact that the republicans want to change.

I also did this deliberately because that's what Cal did. He never discussed the issues at all. He simply said our beliefs are right, your beliefs are wrong and you're stupid. That's not "a desparate attempt to wake them the fuck up" it's a stupid insult with no substance to wake them up with. It screams "you're different and that's why we hate you" to me.

I think that's dumb and I have no respect for Cal. It has nothing to do with political idealism. I think he's a moron and would be no matter how he voted.

Axxon

11-15-2005, 09:18 AM

Agreed. I'm not a big fan of most Republican politicians, either. The Democrats are basically clueless and the Republicans are basically whores. Like that better? :)

Why did you have to go and insult whores now? :)

JonInMiddleGA

11-15-2005, 09:27 AM

He simply said our beliefs are right, your beliefs are wrong and you're stupid.

Well damn Axxon, that is pretty much what it boils down to ... welcome to reality. That's not meant as a hard shot at you -- I'm pretty sure you already know that's the reality of it -- it's more of a "well, duh" sort of thing. Of course that's what he said. But years of logic & reason, nor years of failed Dem policies, nor years of enslavement on what one author dubbed "Uncle Sam's Plantation" haven't combined to wake that segment of the electorate, so I don't see much loss in trying this tactic. If it hasn't been figured out by now ... well, like I said, I'm more cynical than Cal Thomas.

He's surely as frustrated as I am by it, but at least he's still willing to try (regardless of what you think of his method).

Axxon

11-15-2005, 09:46 AM

Well damn Axxon, that is pretty much what it boils down to ... welcome to reality. That's not meant as a hard shot at you -- I'm pretty sure you already know that's the reality of it -- it's more of a "well, duh" sort of thing. Of course that's what he said. But years of logic & reason, nor years of failed Dem policies, nor years of enslavement on what one author dubbed "Uncle Sam's Plantation" haven't combined to wake that segment of the electorate, so I don't see much loss in trying this tactic. If it hasn't been figured out by now ... well, like I said, I'm more cynical than Cal Thomas.

He's surely as frustrated as I am by it, but at least he's still willing to try (regardless of what you think of his method).

Well if the best idea the republicans have in this regard it might be worth a shot letting their least competent representative float the argument. That way it's no biggie when it's laughed out of the water.

In that case though why bother? If the blacks are as stupid as you say they are why would you want them in your party? If they're not all stupid but aren't buying your sides arguments, again, why bother? Either present new arguments to convince them or move on. They've already heard the pitch and aren't buying. Calling them idiots isn't going to change that.

I really just think Cal is an idiot and you know it too. You're just stuck backing a lame horse in this race. :D

JonInMiddleGA

11-15-2005, 09:54 AM

I really just think Cal is an idiot and you know it too.

Although I don't read him all that frequently, my recollection is that he's dead on more often than he's off-base. I don't read any one columnist all that frequently to be honest, I skip around a lot, maybe catch 10-20 columns a year from any one writer max.

Sigh ... now I'll have to go find an archive or something & read maybe 10 columns at random and see how I score him. This could be a savant situation, maybe I've read the only column he's basically gotten right in a year.

QuikSand

11-15-2005, 09:55 AM

I haven't had a chance to read the article yet, but I just wanted to mention that I find the term "African American" to be extremely offensive. I was born in Georgia. My mama was born in Georgia. My grandmama was born in Georgia. My great grandmama was born in Georgia. I am dadgum SICK AND TIRED of liberals marginalizing me as an American. Carry on. I'll read and comment later in the day.

Well, I intended to stay out of this thread (and it probably would be best if I did anyway) since I know Mr Steele a bit... but on this tangent, I have an offering.

I have no problem with that opinion, SkyDog -- if your reaction to the use of that term is that you think it marginazes you as an American, I guess I can see that logic.

However, there are people -- and not necessarily "weak-minded" people -- who are simply seeking to be appropriately respectful when a situation arises to reference people by their ethnicity, race, or the like. At some point, such people made a well-intended decision to essentially say that making specific reference to skin color may be inappropriate or insensitive... and that some other reference might be preferable. Coming up with a term like "African-American" is clearly imperfect -- since most references to such people are probably intended to apply to people who might actually be, for example, of Caribbean descent, or who are of African descent but are not Americans. Also, we know that people are obviously reluctant to use the term for white-skinned Americans who happen to be of African descent, or even from the North African countries who are more closely associated as Arabs rather than black-skinned. It's clearly imperfect, and by focusing entirely on the exact term tha is used, it's easy to find denotative fault with it.

But I think that belies the fact that the usage is, in nearly every case, well-intended. I think that "strong-minded" people can earnestly seek to use a respectful term for ant group... whather that term is "Native American" rather than "indian" or whethere it's something else to replace "black" or "negro" or their various predecessors. Yes, this tendency can get carried away when some people get terribly bent out of shape when another person uses different judgmnt abotu what term to use in such cases -- but I think it's at least worth considering the honest attempt by many people to do the right thing.

As one person who doesn't consider myself all that weak-minded, your comment essentially leaves me no out. If you're horribly insulted by my use of a term that (for better or for worse) has become the most commonplace respectfully-intended term for black-skinned people in this country... I've got fairly little choice in the matter. There are, I have little doubt, many other blacks/African-Americans/????? who would prefer that I use the imperfect hyphenated term, despite its literal shortcomings. So it goes.

Maybe things would be better if the sensitivity about any reference to skin coloration was just gone (and I think that's your underlying message here, if I read a bit mroe deeply into your comments). I can't disagree with that. But absent that significant leap in culture in the here and now... you have (basically) well-intended, and (hopefully) strong-minded people like me essentially painted into a corner.

Axxon

11-15-2005, 10:03 AM

Although I don't read him all that frequently, my recollection is that he's dead on more often than he's off-base. I don't read any one columnist all that frequently to be honest, I skip around a lot, maybe catch 10-20 columns a year from any one writer max.

Sigh ... now I'll have to go find an archive or something & read maybe 10 columns at random and see how I score him. This could be a savant situation, maybe I've read the only column he's basically gotten right in a year.

Well, truth be told I am not an expert either as I don't read him much either. I don't like what I've read so I may well have read the 20 or so bad ones he has written.

I see him though as an "oh shucks" kinda guy spouting off trite questionable truisms and instead of defending them goes "oh shucks, everybody knows that's true." Very condescending and irritating style to me and as todays example shows, upon further review, the piece stinks. I can see how though, if you are generally in agreement with him and already know the reasons why, his pieces would seem spot on, I mean, oh shucks, he's just speaking the common truth but to anyone else it's worthless.

Honolulu_Blue

11-15-2005, 10:14 AM

I see him though as an "oh shucks" kinda guy spouting off trite questionable truisms and instead of defending them goes "oh shucks, everybody knows that's true."
He's a conservative columinist. It's what they do. It's all they do! Defending your point would involve using facts and as we all know facts are liberal and, therefore, cannot be trusted.

For more on this see: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/2/19053/6913

Take this further, and you will see the very nature of the elitist beast that plagues conservatives and threatens to steal their children in the night. Scientists are liberal; the education system in this country is liberal; government agencies are liberal; journalism is liberal; historians are liberal; lawyers are liberal; the medical community is liberal, etc. Everywhere, in every profession that requires a broad span of actual real-world knowledge, the bogeyman of liberalism exists. Is it because those professions are truly liberal, or is it because knowledge itself is considered, by the right, liberal?
I could easily make the argument that science, journalism, and every reputable university campus in this nation is liberal, and is explicitly self-selectingly liberal at that. I could argue that intelligence, itself, is linked to liberalism, if I wanted to be a snot about it -- there is evidence to back the claim. But I could certainly, and without much argument, argue that universities and other institutions of learning may trend "liberal", and their resulting adherents seen as "liberal", simply because liberalism is a natural state of seeking progress and the basic advancement of known facts about the world.

As a matter of core principle, the Right has little interest in scientific rigor; it's hardly surprising that science, then, is populated by individuals more dedicated to the field. Ditto journalism; a Rush Limbaugh wouldn't last any longer in "real" journalism than he did as an ESPN sportscaster, and Malkin, Coulter, and Goldberg's fact-challenged works speak to severe lapses of basic competence on those fronts as well.

Where the right sees liberalism on all sides, the rest of us merely see facts. The conservative response to dedicated scientists have been right-wing funded "think tanks", which do very, very little actual science, but instead reparse statistics and argue untestable hypotheses to "reinterpret" what the actual scientific community must do through peer review, reproducibility, and rigor. The conservative response to education is the founding of educational facilities less interested in factual knowledge than in the shielding of students and faculty from the intellectual challenges inherent to classical learning. The conservative response to journalism is, simply put, Fox News.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Buccaneer

11-15-2005, 07:52 PM

QuikSand

11-15-2005, 08:45 PM

HB, you are an ignorant fool if you think it is so well defined as the broad strokes you pasted stuff someone wrote about.

Fixed.

Honolulu_Blue

11-15-2005, 09:11 PM

HB, you are an ignorant fool if you think it is so well defined as the broad strokes you wrote about. You ignore the many in the same fields you mentioned that are very intelligent and have produced monumental works - but do so in the context (or acknowledgement) of spiritual faith or at least the context of not promoting a new age utopia. You also ignore the many in the "liberal" fields promoting the very evil you decry - for self, for greed and for mockery. Those motivations are the same regardless of political or cultural persuasions. If you think that one "side" has a monopoly (or is predominately bent) on sin and evil, you will be very wrong.

Part of the fallacy at the crux of your argument, I believe, is the total absense of spiritual faith in any of their "knowledge" - the 'God is Dead' hypothesis, if you will. It is as if humans have enlightened themselves above any reason for faith in God, apart from believing that we can become gods. In truth, I believe that instead of being more enlightened, we have fallen further into sin and self-indulgence. Spiritual faith should not be used as a weapon, which too many do, but it should not be left out, which too many do.
Quik had the right of it. I just posted/cut n pasted something a friend had directed me to on the internet that I found amusing. Nothing more than that really. It certainly wasn't meant to be taken that seriously. If seriously at all. It's certainly not my argument.

I'd recommend you follow the link I provided and pass your thoughts along to the author of them. He may be interested.

That said, I'm an athiest so all that "sin" and "self-indulgence" talk is pretty much meaningless to me. I don't begrudge anyone who believes or finds strength in it. I did for many years and almost everyone I care about or love still does. Since my "conversion", if you will, I feel more "spiritually" fullfilled then ever before. It's interesting.

QuikSand

11-15-2005, 09:16 PM

Part of the fallacy at the crux of your argument, I believe, is the total absense of spiritual faith in any of their "knowledge" - the 'God is Dead' hypothesis, if you will. It is as if humans have enlightened themselves above any reason for faith in God, apart from believing that we can become gods. In truth, I believe that instead of being more enlightened, we have fallen further into sin and self-indulgence.

Setting aside the second sentence... you seem to suggest that denial of faith (for whatever reason) results in bad human behavior. (I'll set aside the definition of "sin" as it seems too loaded a term) Do you think that's necessarily the case? Or is it possible that people without religious faith can live lives that are still worthy, virtuous, and even righteous, even without subscribing to the same belief structure that you do?

Buccaneer

11-15-2005, 10:01 PM

Setting aside the second sentence... you seem to suggest that denial of faith (for whatever reason) results in bad human behavior. (I'll set aside the definition of "sin" as it seems too loaded a term) Do you think that's necessarily the case? Or is it possible that people without religious faith can live lives that are still worthy, virtuous, and even righteous, even without subscribing to the same belief structure that you do?
Those are good questions, better for a theologian to answer (like my brother, he was on earlier). Do I think that's necessary the case? Bad human behavior has also come from those who 'profess' the faith as well. The belief structure is that we are all sinners, not righteous to be in God's presence - except through His grace. But as this the "good", there is also its counterpart, "evil". Man throughout history, whether in the context of a belief structure or not, speaks of the conflicts between good and evil. If there is a force (or spirit) that allows goodness, there must be force that is wanting to do evil. One cannot exist without the other - but one cannot permit the other as well. Sin or evil (actions, words, etc.) is said to dwell in the heart that is without the forces of good acting upon it. We have seen that in countless cases of those spiraling downward in matters of abuse, depravity and senseless acts of crime (evil as we have codified it).

This leads to your second statement, "live lives that are still worthy, virtuous, and even righteous". I would throw back the obvious question, by whose standard? There is no question that many acts of worthiness and virtuousness have been conducted by those without faith. I pause on righteousness because that implies a higher standard than what we as humans are capable of. No one, truthfully, is righteous. If you think, even a minute possibility, that there is an external force that is greater than any one of us, do you suppose there is some calling for faith on our part to believe - beyond ourselves? Taking it one step further, what if the forces are "good" and "evil" (or love and hate) with one trying to do away with the other? If God is love and there is no love, have we seen how that would manifest itself in the human world?

Buccaneer

11-15-2005, 10:03 PM

HB, sorry I attributed those to be your words. I, by habit, rarely follow links. I thought the link refered to your first statement.

Honolulu_Blue

11-15-2005, 10:06 PM

HB, sorry I attributed those to be your words. I, by habit, rarely follow links. I thought the link refered to your first statement.
No worries, Bucc. Looking back at the post it's not entirely clear at all that those words came from the link.

I added the: ------ only at the end. I should have done so at the begining to clearly delineate where my thoughts ended and the cut 'n past began.

st.cronin

11-15-2005, 11:01 PM

AENeuman

11-16-2005, 01:37 AM

This isn't something you have to answer in civ 4 is it? Because that would be cheating.
But as this the "good", there is also its counterpart, "evil"...If there is a force (or spirit) that allows goodness, there must be force that is wanting to do evil. One cannot exist without the other...
Well, yes you can have good without evil. This is a very dualist approach. Loads of cultures don't believe in dualism. In fact, Jesus tried to get away from it. After Job, Ecc., Daniel, Ezekiel, etc, dealing with suffering/meaning via dualism started to fade,(it created a lot of "us and them" and false hope based on deserved reward). If one thinks of a full glass of water as good, an empty glass would not necessarily be evil. It would just be the absence of water/goodness. This absence of goodness/spirit filled is what Christ talked about.

That said, I'm an athiest so all that "sin" and "self-indulgence" talk is pretty much meaningless to me. I don't begrudge anyone who believes or finds strength in it. I did for many years and almost everyone I care about or love still does. Since my "conversion", if you will, I feel more "spiritually" fullfilled then ever before. It's interesting.

What I think is interesting about this meaningless comment is its exploitation of language. You define something (your belief) by offering two contradicting points, a paradox. As much as saying, "I never knew how rich I was until I lost everything" makes since, so does, "I became spiritually fulfilled when I stopped being spiritual." What that statement does say is that you believe there is some sort of "god-shaped whole" in each person (very un-atheist). I would even guess you argee that you are more than the sum of your parts. The problem is defining, knowing what that "more" is.

Or is it possible that people without religious faith can live lives that are still worthy, virtuous, and even righteous, even without subscribing to the same belief structure that you do?

Continuing with this language theme, I think the key word in your quote is "structure." In other words, a man-made parameter, a limitation of religious experience, in order to define, preach, convert, fulfill, etc. Is spiritual experience (or anything really) limited by our language? We come to know things by not what they truly are (for that is far beyond the scope of language), but by what qualities they represent. For example, Christ and Buddha has represented/inspired profound metaphors. We can never know who they were, but we can come to know them by knowing what they represented.

Honolulu_Blue

11-16-2005, 06:50 AM

What I think is interesting about this meaningless comment is its exploitation of language. You define something (your belief) by offering two contradicting points, a paradox. As much as saying, "I never knew how rich I was until I lost everything" makes since, so does, "I became spiritually fulfilled when I stopped being spiritual." What that statement does say is that you believe there is some sort of "god-shaped whole" in each person (very un-atheist). I would even guess you argee that you are more than the sum of your parts. The problem is defining, knowing what that "more" is.
I didn't want to got into and it wasn't an "exploitation of language", it was just an attempt (weak as it may be) to continue to use Bucc's language to describe something I have experienced. I didn't feel like trying to go into a long, indepth explanation of it as I don't often like to get into discussions of religion, or lack thereof, around here. It's typically not worth it and rarely, if ever, ends up well. That statement says nothing of what you implied above. Poorly worded? Yes. Written quickly? Yes. But that's start and end of it. I do not believe there is some sort of "god-shaped whole (sic)" in each person or that I am more than the sum of my parts.

QuikSand

11-16-2005, 07:53 AM

Addressing Quick's Questions

To choose to be good, one must first believe in good. Whatever that belief is, whether it is correct or not, to believe in good is in some sense the most basic religious belief.

Okay, but semantic-switching aside (don't mean to minimize your point, but I'm rather sure you realize that by "absence of faith" above, I didn't mean "absence of good")... does this then acknowledge that as long as an individual recognizes goodness, and opts to seek it out through virtuous behavior, that a person can be a virtuous person even while completely denying any sort of (traditionaly-speaking) religious faith?

I'm trying to leave that as an open-ended question, though I think my bias shows pretty clearly. I, myself, have fairly little tolerance for a view that says "if you don't have (my?) faith, you are evil" and that sounds an awful lot like what I read earlier in this thread. I think any sensible approach to virtue, even while believeing that faith is one route to virtuous behavior, has to acknowldedge that faith itself is not a precondition.

Ben E Lou

11-16-2005, 08:25 AM

Ok. Finally got around to reading the article. Frankly, the writer himself doesn't impress me. He just sounds like your typical partisan hack. However, one statement that strongly rings true is this:The so-called "mainstream" of black America, as represented by race-hustlers like Rev. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, doesn't represent the best interests of black America.
Now, to address Quik's post...

However, there are people -- and not necessarily "weak-minded" people -- who are simply seeking to be appropriately respectful when a situation arises to reference people by their ethnicity, race, or the like.Fair enough. I'll get to the "weak-minded' comment in a moment, but yes, there are those seeking to be appropriately respectful, and that's an admirable desire. At some point, such people made a well-intended decision to essentially say that making specific reference to skin color may be inappropriate or insensitive... and that some other reference might be preferable.No problem here, specifically due to the "might" included... Coming up with a term like "African-American" is clearly imperfect -- since most references to such people are probably intended to apply to people who might actually be, for example, of Caribbean descent, or who are of African descent but are not Americans. Also, we know that people are obviously reluctant to use the term for white-skinned Americans who happen to be of African descent, or even from the North African countries who are more closely associated as Arabs rather than black-skinned. It's clearly imperfect, and by focusing entirely on the exact term tha is used, it's easy to find denotative fault with it...and this is where the "weak-minded" comment came in. After saying, "Hmmmmm....it might be better to use a term that does not include skin color," rather than coming up with a term and evaluating it and saying, "Well, this isn't it. Let's come up with something else or just go back to 'black' and 'white,'" unfathomably the term stuck, coming to its most absurd points with situations like college professors referring to black South Africans as "African American South Africans."

But I think that belies the fact that the usage is, in nearly every case, well-intended.Early in my career, one of my mentors reminded me that "communication is not about what you say, but about what they hear." The intention, in other words, can be virtually immaterial. When I, and many others with whom I've talked, hear "African-American," we hear, "I'm too scared to say 'black,' too lazy to come up with something better, or I think you people should just keep to yourselves and be considered a separate culture."

I think that "strong-minded" people can earnestly seek to use a respectful term for ant group... whather that term is "Native American" rather than "indian" or whethere it's something else to replace "black" or "negro" or their various predecessors. Yes, this tendency can get carried away when some people get terribly bent out of shape when another person uses different judgmnt abotu what term to use in such cases -- but I think it's at least worth considering the honest attempt by many people to do the right thing.Understood.

As one person who doesn't consider myself all that weak-minded, your comment essentially leaves me no out. If you're horribly insulted by my use of a term that (for better or for worse) has become the most commonplace respectfully-intended term for black-skinned people in this country... I've got fairly little choice in the matter. There are, I have little doubt, many other blacks/African-Americans/????? who would prefer that I use the imperfect hyphenated term, despite its literal shortcomings. So it goes.Agreed. My point, though, is that you're going to offend some people.

Maybe things would be better if the sensitivity about any reference to skin coloration was just gone (and I think that's your underlying message here, if I read a bit mroe deeply into your comments). I can't disagree with that. But absent that significant leap in culture in the here and now... you have (basically) well-intended, and (hopefully) strong-minded people like me essentially painted into a corner.And I guess that's what befuddles me. Two or three days a week during the fall, I hang out for a couple of hours or so with a grop of men. We range in age from mid-30's to late 60's. Some are black, some are white. Some days, there are more black than white, and other days, there are more white than black. Some of the black guys are pretty assimilated culturally, while some are 45 years old and wear earrings, gold chains, and drive up booming gangsta rap. The white guys range from the liberal-labor-lawyer to two 55+-year-olds with thick Southern accents who no doubt attended segregated schools. Some of us know each other's names; some of us don't. We stand there, and we talk. We talk about politics some. We talk about football a lot. We talk about race sometimes. We use "black" and "white" freely. We argue, sometimes about issues that are racially charged. There are no "African Americans" or "Anglos" in that group, or in the world we discuss, though. There's black guys, white guys, etc. etc. etc. Just a few weeks ago, one of the white men, in his early 50's, said in his thickest southern accent (about the Baseball Booster Club) "We're not going to get anyway until one of you upstanding black parents is willing to stand up and say to some of the no 'count black parents that you've got to start pulling your load. The problem ain't the guys that are standing here. The problem is all of 'em that we never see, never come to meetin's, and don't pull their weight!" Whoa, Mike! That's not politically correct! You can't say that! No, that wasn't the response. It started a very real and a very honest dialog. I stand with that group and I'm often thinking, "Why can these guys get past the politically correct bullcrap and actually talk and it seems like so many can't?" Maybe it is because we respect each other, but we aren't so all-fired afraid of offending each other that we don't sit back and sugar-coat comments, ideas and terminology. {shrug} I'm not sure that is the reason, but it certainly seems to be the leading candidate

QuikSand

11-16-2005, 08:43 AM

Early in my career, one of my mentors reminded me that "communication is not about what you say, but about what they hear." The intention, in other words, can be virtually immaterial. When I, and many others with whom I've talked, hear "African-American," we hear, "I'm too scared to say 'black,' too lazy to come up with something better, or I think you people should just keep to yourselves and be considered a separate culture."

Okay, I don't have any problem believeing that there are plenty of people who receive the term that way. I suspect that in most cases, they are exactly correct, with one possible exception.

I take issue with the notion that "too lazy to come up with something better" is a valid criticism of an ordinary person. I find myself in this situation fairly frequently... I'm a teacher, I'm involved in politics, and I have a lot of opportunitites where I am a public speaker. There are times when the things I say are on display for many people to hear and consider. I think it important, in such situations, to be prudent.

Is it at all reasonable to think that I ought to just conjure up my own term for such situations, and hope that I can communicate it respectfully and effectively by doing so? I like to think that my command of the language is pretty good -- but I think that's a pretty tall order. If I'm making a presentation that deals with, perhaps, court-mandated "minority districts" in local government (a topic that I have spoken about publicly before) and I drop in a number of references to "Extended-lineage Sub-Saharan populations" -- am I doing anyone a service there? Will the rubes who have just been ordered to do a set-aside council seat understand that I'm talking about "black folks" there?

I recognize that attempting to please everyone is impossible... and that some people will (correctly sometimes) recognize stupid efforts to be PC even in the face of denotative meanings. I think you minimize, above, the inability to avoid this.

Ben, if I meet you someday, I think I'd be pretty comfortable with your gang of guys you describe, and in that setting, I think I'd do fine. In another setting, I might very well be exactly the sort of tight-ass person you guys all make fun of, trying to say the crowd-pleasing thing. I don't see a real way out of it.

flere-imsaho

11-16-2005, 08:44 AM

I've found this discussion good reading and thank you guys for your contributions. I still feel I'm kind of damned-if-I-do, damned-if-I-don't, though, as I've had Blacks get annoyed when I called them African-Americans and African-Americans get annoyed when I called them Blacks.

Ben E Lou

11-16-2005, 08:56 AM

I take issue with the notion that "too lazy to come up with something better" is a valid criticism of an ordinary person. I find myself in this situation fairly frequently... I'm a teacher, I'm involved in politics, and I have a lot of opportunitites where I am a public speaker. There are times when the things I say are on display for many people to hear and consider. I think it important, in such situations, to be prudent.

Is it at all reasonable to think that I ought to just conjure up my own term for such situations, and hope that I can communicate it respectfully and effectively by doing so?Ah, gotcha. I hadn't thought about that angle. I'd definitely stipulate that a white guy can be stuck in a difficult place having to discuss race in a public or semi-public forum such as a speaking engagement or classroom.

Ben E Lou

11-16-2005, 08:56 AM

I still feel I'm kind of damned-if-I-do, damned-if-I-don't, though, as I've had Blacks get annoyed when I called them African-Americans and African-Americans get annoyed when I called them Blacks....and I agree that that sucks.

Buccaneer

11-16-2005, 08:58 AM

Lots of great points and thoughts (thanks, bro). Quickly, there is this paradox of wanting to know God's ways and actually living out life within our limitations. Whether it is truly a duality or not, I think the evidence throughout history - from our perspective - has something going on. Can the absense of good be nothing or does something have to be there?

Sorry I can't comment much on the race discussion. I keep going back to the "content of one's character and not the color of one's skin" which I thought Mr. Steele alledgedly examplifies.

Ben E Lou

11-16-2005, 09:12 AM

Sorry I can't comment much on the race discussion. I keep going back to the "content of one's character and not the color of one's skin" which I thought Mr. Steele alledgedly examplifies.That's an admirable goal, and one that I believe ultimately that American society is slowly but surely moving toward. However, until we get there, race in American is going to be much more complicated than a nice-sounding soundbite.

Wait 'til I post the flier I got handed last night. I meant to bring it to the office to scan it today. Hopefully, I'll remember tomorrow.

Bee

11-16-2005, 09:26 AM

Ah, gotcha. I hadn't thought about that angle. I'd definitely stipulate that a white guy can be stuck in a difficult place having to discuss race in a public or semi-public forum such as a speaking engagement or classroom.

Just another example of the hardships the white man has to go through...I feel sorry for them. :D

st.cronin

11-16-2005, 10:55 AM

Okay, but semantic-switching aside (don't mean to minimize your point, but I'm rather sure you realize that by "absence of faith" above, I didn't mean "absence of good")... does this then acknowledge that as long as an individual recognizes goodness, and opts to seek it out through virtuous behavior, that a person can be a virtuous person even while completely denying any sort of (traditionaly-speaking) religious faith?

I'm trying to leave that as an open-ended question, though I think my bias shows pretty clearly. I, myself, have fairly little tolerance for a view that says "if you don't have (my?) faith, you are evil" and that sounds an awful lot like what I read earlier in this thread. I think any sensible approach to virtue, even while believeing that faith is one route to virtuous behavior, has to acknowldedge that faith itself is not a precondition.

I think the key point is 'recognizes goodness.' It seems to me that virtuous behavior arises from effort, not as a natural condition for man's existence. Recognizing this goodness, and striving to emulate it, whether based on established religion or not, is neccesary for virtuous and righteous behavior.

I don't think it's a bad thing at all to say that belief in good is the very basic definition of religious belief.

st.cronin

11-16-2005, 10:57 AM

I can't think of a time when I've had to use the term 'black' or 'african-american.' I'm not in the habit of describing somebody with their ethnicity.

QuikSand

11-16-2005, 11:06 AM

I don't think it's a bad thing at all to say that belief in good is the very basic definition of religious belief.

I guess I'd need to stew on that assertion... but it's certainly not the meaning that most people (or at least I) have in mind when talking about "religion" or "faith." You might, in time, be able to convince me or the group here that it's so, but you can't walk into a random ocnversation in the subject and assume everyone is on the same page there, can you?

st.cronin

11-16-2005, 11:08 AM

I guess I'd need to stew on that assertion... but it's certainly not the meaning that most people (or at least I) have in mind when talking about "religion" or "faith." You might, in time, be able to convince me or the group here that it's so, but you can't walk into a random ocnversation in the subject and assume everyone is on the same page there, can you?

Well, if I may be Socratic for a moment, what *is* the definition of religion?

QuikSand

11-16-2005, 11:11 AM

Honolulu_Blue

11-16-2005, 11:13 AM

Well, if I may be Socratic for a moment, what *is* the definition of religion?
Well Websters defines religion as:

<LI type=a>Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
For example, Satanism is probably considered a religion by some (few?). I would imagine that Satanists would not believe that "belief in good is the very basic definition of [their] religious belief." Same with pagans maybe? Pagans are stil out there. I once temped for a wiccan.

st.cronin

11-16-2005, 11:15 AM

I guess I don't know... but I'm comfortable saying that a purely prudent person might make decisions to act in kindness and respect for others, might develop true friendships and mutual relationships with others, and might conduct himself in a perfectly virtuous way by any objective standard. And I don't think that religion, as I'd picture it, is in any way a precondition to this case.

Is this sort of person, by embracing "goodness" in his life, a religious person by definition in your view?

I don't know that there is a standard academic definition of religion; I've seen definitions that explicitly included atheism, for example.

My question about your 'purely prudent' person, is WHY does he behave the way he behaves? Is it out of pure self-interest (in the hope that the good he sends out is returned to him), or out of some sense of duty to his fellow man, or for some other reason? It seems to me that describing behavior without motivations doesn't tell us much about a particular person.

st.cronin

11-16-2005, 11:16 AM

Well Websters defines religion as:

<LI type=a>Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
For example, Satanism is probably considered a religion by some (few?). I would imagine that Satanists would not believe that "belief in good is the very basic definition of [their] religious belief." Same with pagans maybe? Pagans are stil out there. I once temped for a wiccan.

I don't know much about Satanists, but I believe that their teachings are based on the idea that the Bible is a distortion of fact, and that Lucifer is, in fact, Good. I may be wrong, though.

Honolulu_Blue

11-16-2005, 11:22 AM

I don't know that there is a standard academic definition of religion; I've seen definitions that explicitly included atheism, for example.

My question about your 'purely prudent' person, is WHY does he behave the way he behaves? Is it out of pure self-interest (in the hope that the good he sends out is returned to him), or out of some sense of duty to his fellow man, or for some other reason? It seems to me that describing behavior without motivations doesn't tell us much about a particular person.
I think you're right there are a number of motivations for why people do "good." I think you generalized the majority of them quite well with this post.

This is sort of what I was getting at in my initial and jumbled response to Bucc. In my mind, I think it is more admirable and more rewarding on a personal level to do "good" because it's the right thing to do (I guess out of some sense of duty to my fellow man or sense of compassion/justice), rather than doing "good" because I felt as if I would be rewarded/punished by some all-powerful invisible force in the afterlife. This is obviously a simplified view of things and there are many more justifications/motivations than that.

QuikSand

11-16-2005, 11:30 AM

My question about your 'purely prudent' person, is WHY does he behave the way he behaves? Is it out of pure self-interest (in the hope that the good he sends out is returned to him), or out of some sense of duty to his fellow man, or for some other reason? It seems to me that describing behavior without motivations doesn't tell us much about a particular person.

And I'm willing to accept that virtuous acts committed out of self-service no not constitute a virtuous life or person. Fine.

I don't think that gets me any closer to accepting a super-broad definition of "religion," especially that has nothing to do with spirituality, higher powers, and the like. If "doing good things" is a religion, then it seems to me you're just appropriating the word out of its most common context. (Which, again, is fine by me -- but you can't expact a general audience to receive this immediately, which was my initial point)

QuikSand

11-16-2005, 11:33 AM

I don't know that there is a standard academic definition of religion; I've seen definitions that explicitly included atheism, for example.

But to me, that's not much of a stretch -- if religion is essentially one's beliefs about spiritual matters and the existence of and reverece for higher power(s), then it's not a complete stretch to say that a person who denies all of the above has adopted a "religion" of sorts. It's a modet semantic difference, to me.

Much less that the notion that I'm inferring from you, that religion is just a person's overall belief system about eveything, independent of whether it gets to matters of spirituality or higher power(s).

st.cronin

11-16-2005, 12:28 PM

But to me, that's not much of a stretch -- if religion is essentially one's beliefs about spiritual matters and the existence of and reverece for higher power(s), then it's not a complete stretch to say that a person who denies all of the above has adopted a "religion" of sorts. It's a modet semantic difference, to me.

Much less that the notion that I'm inferring from you, that religion is just a person's overall belief system about eveything, independent of whether it gets to matters of spirituality or higher power(s).

I don't think that's what I'm saying, and it's definitely not what I think; what you are describing is what I define as 'cosmology.' I think of religious belief as a longing for goodness; some systems place that goodness within man, some place it without. First prerequisite would be belief in that goodness.

QuikSand

11-16-2005, 12:29 PM

I think of religious belief as a longing for goodness; some systems place that goodness within man, some place it without. First prerequisite would be belief in that goodness.

Again, I'll stew on that argument -- but I don't think there's anything self-evident about that definition.

albionmoonlight

11-16-2005, 12:34 PM

To me, a belief system that attempts to describe and affect human behavior that does not include the existence of a transendent realm is ethics and/or philosophy.

A belief system that attempts to describe and affect human behavior that does include the existence of a transcendent realm is religion.

Transecedent is defined for these purposes as an existence that it not able to be commonly perceived by our 5 senses.

Edit--or maybe a better way of putting transcendent is to say that it exists outside of the observable physical universe.

(Though both of those definitions could be nit-picked by someone looking at things like other dimensions, etc. If you beleive in a being from the 5th dimension, is that a religion by my definition? I have no idea.)

st.cronin

11-16-2005, 12:36 PM

And I'm willing to accept that virtuous acts committed out of self-service no not constitute a virtuous life or person. Fine.

I don't think that gets me any closer to accepting a super-broad definition of "religion," especially that has nothing to do with spirituality, higher powers, and the like. If "doing good things" is a religion, then it seems to me you're just appropriating the word out of its most common context. (Which, again, is fine by me -- but you can't expact a general audience to receive this immediately, which was my initial point)

I think most 'general audiences' would have contentious arguments about the definition of religion. I don't think it's an easy question at all. We each have pre-concieved notions based on our own experiences, education, etc.

The question which got me involved in this discussion was (paraphrasing) "Can a man be virtuous without religious beliefs?" I think it's clear that you can't answer that question until you have some idea of what you mean by 'religious beliefs.' And, as I have said, it is not an easy question.

QuikSand

11-16-2005, 12:39 PM

I think most 'general audiences' would have contentious arguments about the definition of religion. I don't think it's an easy question at all. We each have pre-concieved notions based on our own experiences, education, etc.

The question which got me involved in this discussion was (paraphrasing) "Can a man be virtuous without religious beliefs?" I think it's clear that you can't answer that question until you have some idea of what you mean by 'religious beliefs.' And, as I have said, it is not an easy question.

Fine, but incorporating anything to do with goodness or virtue under the umbrella of "religion" seems like a serious stretch to me. (Not that I totally disagree with your elucidation ths far)

I'd go back to my original statement, and simplifiy it to basically be: "Isn't it possible for someone to deny the existence of God, but still be a good person?" That is, essentially, what I was seeking to ask. Sorry if my sloppy semantics led us down an unproductive path.

st.cronin

11-16-2005, 12:52 PM

Fine, but incorporating anything to do with goodness or virtue under the umbrella of "religion" seems like a serious stretch to me. (Not that I totally disagree with your elucidation ths far)

I'd go back to my original statement, and simplifiy it to basically be: "Isn't it possible for someone to deny the existence of God, but still be a good person?" That is, essentially, what I was seeking to ask. Sorry if my sloppy semantics led us down an unproductive path.

I would describe your semantics as 'revealing' rather than 'sloppy.' ;)

Anyway, I'll stew on your new wording and see what I can come up with tonight. Til then, cheers.

Honolulu_Blue

11-16-2005, 01:00 PM

The question which got me involved in this discussion was (paraphrasing) "Can a man be virtuous without religious beliefs?" I think it's clear that you can't answer that question until you have some idea of what you mean by 'religious beliefs.' And, as I have said, it is not an easy question.
I think you can't answer that question until you have some idea of what you mean by "virtuous" before ever getting to the question of religious beliefs.

AENeuman

11-16-2005, 03:16 PM

In my mind, I think it is more admirable and more rewarding on a personal level to do "good" because it's the right thing to do (I guess out of some sense of duty to my fellow man or sense of compassion/justice), rather than doing "good" because ...
Do you think the feeling of "reward" is natural/biological? In most cases that feeling comes from very un-natural acts, like mercy and self-sacrifice. In any case it is uniquely human.
Essential to the notion of religion is community. If it were not for others there would not be religion. For example, was Adam religious, was he even practicing a religion? Given that religion is community driven, and humans depend upon experiences with the other in order to define and know themselves (externalism, objectivation, internalization), one can argue brother Durkheim was right in say saying religion is a communities idealized image of itself. Therefore, we can say one can act "good" without being religious, but rather they are conforming to the ideas of their society so that they can better know themselves and the world around them. In a sense, by abiding by this "social contract" we have the foundation to build relationships, which again is essential for our own existence. Just a thought.

st.cronin

11-16-2005, 06:57 PM

more thoughts

Naturally we have to know what we mean by 'virtuous' as well. Without providing a specific meaning, I would assume that we all agree that to be virtuous is to be law-abiding, honest, hard-working, generous, and accepting of one's role in society. We could perhaps also include other qualities as well, and situational modifiers and qualifiers, etc.

The question before us is "Is it possible for a man to be virtuous without belief in God?" I think obviously it *is* possible. What is perhaps less clear is whether it is possible to want to be virtuous without belief in God?

Some thoughts on definitions... I could easily define God as the highest possible Good (a fairly common equivelance). I assume that when Quick says God, he is allowing for the possibility that God has many names (Allah, Yahweh, etc.) I am not sure if you are willing to allow that God can have many aspects; in other words, God is not merely the Creator and Shaper of our World, not merely a sentient judge, not merely the imprint left on the world by Siddhartha or Jesus, or Plotinus' One, etc. Knowledge of God is given to us in all these ways, and this is only off the top of my head - I have an entire section of library on this stuff. I think it is foolish to presume that one's own idea of God is the only idea of God.

There is a complex psychology to religious belief which is only vaguely understood by me (and, I assume, only vaguely understood by psychologists and theologians as well). There have been many attempts (notably by William James) to find the universal in religious belief; I am not sure anybody has succeeded.

I apologize for the rambling nature of this post; it may require some editing for clarity.

Honolulu_Blue

11-16-2005, 07:36 PM

The question before us is "Is it possible for a man to be virtuous without belief in God?" I think obviously it *is* possible. What is perhaps less clear is whether it is possible to want to be virtuous without belief in God?

The answer to both of these questions is: 100% unequivocally yes.

Honolulu_Blue

11-16-2005, 07:44 PM

st.cronin

11-16-2005, 07:49 PM

Dola, and virtuous unbelievers are arguably more virtuous, since they are acting on their own moral compass and not out of fear of Hell or whatever. It's not hard to be good if you think you will be tortured eternally for being bad, or if you think you will get some kind of heavenly reward for being good. But if you think, like I do, that at the end of the day we're all worm food, from Hitler to Mother Theresa, your good actions are motivated purely by your own internal sense of what is right.

Basically, I am a good person without having to pretend someone is watching me.

What you are arguing against is the exact opposite of what I was suggesting. I originally suggested that religious belief was centered on longing for good; you are presuming it is based on fear of something terrible. I *know* that your assumption is false when it comes to my own religious belief, and I believe it is not based on anything other than prejudice. I don't know anybody who believes based on fear.

Axxon

11-16-2005, 07:50 PM

Early in my career, one of my mentors reminded me that "communication is not about what you say, but about what they hear."

Semi tangent but I just wanted to say that this is the most true statement in this thread. It's true not only of speech though. In this thread you read what I didn't write so to speak over the term "african american" for example.

It's really shocking but a few years ago I tried an experiment. I was working at the hospital and I was taking patient information calls. At one point I deliberately misspoke the names I was given and clearly misspoke them and 75 percent of the callers agreed that I'd given them the right way when I asked them.

"I'm looking for Joe Johnson."

"So that's Joe Ronson?"

"Yes sir"

It was simply amazing but try it sometime. :)

Honolulu_Blue

11-16-2005, 08:01 PM

What you are arguing against is the exact opposite of what I was suggesting. I originally suggested that religious belief was centered on longing for good; you are presuming it is based on fear of something terrible. I *know* that your assumption is false when it comes to my own religious belief, and I believe it is not based on anything other than prejudice. I don't know anybody who believes based on fear. Prejudice? I have no idea what you're talking about there.

I think it's hard to argue that "fear of hell" or a "reward in the afterlife" is not an essential part of almost all religions. It's certainly a big part of their "PR" package when trying to convert people. I didn't mean to imply that this was all there was to everyone's religious beliefs, but rather that it is absent from all irreligious people's beliefs.

Also, I still don't think that religious belief is centered on longing for good. There are as many Reasons for religious belief as there are religious people. Perhaps some people, like you, believe for a long for good. Perhaps other people believe because they like the ceremony or simply can't or don't want to believe that there is nothing else out there. Or other people, like me unilt my late 20's, just believed because it was what I had been told and taught since I was a child and never thought much more of it.