Chicago State Rep: Atheist has "no right" to testify.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Gelfin, Apr 7, 2008.

  1. Gelfin macrumors 68020

    Gelfin

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #1
    There are plenty of Chicagoans hereabouts who might be interested to know what a shrill, hateful person represents them to the state.

    Representative tries to put the fear of God in atheist (Chicago Tribune)

     
  2. GfPQqmcRKUvP macrumors 68040

    GfPQqmcRKUvP

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Location:
    Terminus
    #2
    Ridiculous. To be honest, I don't know what to say in response to this or things like this. That atheist could just as easily turn around and say "What you spread is dangerous, preaching that everybody become subservient to the laws of an unprovable creator." What a crock of...
     
  3. Shotglass macrumors 65816

    Shotglass

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2006
    #3
    My parents are like that. I need to move out.
     
  4. PlaceofDis macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #4
    its a shame that such a person is a representative. :/
     
  5. Naimfan macrumors 68040

    Naimfan

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    #5
    There is an interesting document that representative should read . . .
     
  6. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #6
    Sigh- time to write another letter to an idiot Rep. PoD- could you please do the same? This is exactly the kind of thing we need to nip in the bud right away. These people are batsh** crazy and need to be stopped immediately.
     
  7. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #7
    This representative seems to have forgotten that Lincoln didn't really believe in a god.

    Also I hate it when people say things like this and claim to be Christians, it makes all the other Christians look bad.
     
  8. cheeseadiddle macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2007
    #8
    I've been thinking for a while now that this country's fundamentalist religious types are strikingly similar to the Islamic fundamentalists in the Middle East. Especially the ones that so called represent the people here. It's really kind of scary when it get's right down to it. I would think by this day and age we'd be beyond that. Unfortunately we seem to be regressing.
     
  9. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #9
    Amen to that. No pun intended.

    And what adds insult to injury is...this woman is a Democrat.

    Just goes to show you the Republicans don't have a complete monopoly on uber-religious lunatics.
     
  10. PlaceofDis macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #10
    i plan on it.
     
  11. themadchemist macrumors 68030

    themadchemist

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Location:
    Chi Town
    #12
    Oof, that's not the Chicago I live in. How embarrassing to a city where people live together quite happily expressing every type of belief and non-belief. I'd expect this nonsense from a Republican from Wheaton, but a Democrat from Chicago? It just goes to show that in this country, it's OK for atheism to be everyone's whipping boy, even if it's usually considered offensive to attack theism in various stripes. I say that as a person who practices a minority religion in this country: For all the various silliness with which I've dealt for not being Christian, I feel like in the larger public sphere, atheism is treated with far greater disrespect. It's a shame. It's still bigotry.
     
  12. SMM macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #13
    Do you have contact information, Lee? BTW, nice to see your post. Have you been away from the keyboard, or have I just been on the wrong threads?
     
  13. GfPQqmcRKUvP macrumors 68040

    GfPQqmcRKUvP

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Location:
    Terminus
    #14
    t3h Bibil?
     
  14. stevegmu macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2008
    Location:
    A stone's throw from the White House.
    #15
    There is a bit of difference between telling someone to be quiet, and cutting someone's head off...
     
  15. Macaddicttt macrumors 6502a

    Macaddicttt

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #16
    To play devil's advocate, it's been a problem in a lot of people's minds to be atheist and have morals ever since the Enlightenment. Now, I'm not saying I agree, I'm just making this argument for the sake of discussion.

    Most political theorists admit that it's has potential to be dangerous to have atheism within the state, for according to whom do atheists have morals? Even humanists found it important to believe in some higher power, even if it not be a personal God like that of the Abrahamic religions. Atheists are keen to point out that people like Jefferson were not Christian, yet this does not mean he was an atheist. He was a deist, one who believed in a sort of God who created the world and let it run. The important thing here is that in the deist view point, the universe was created, and not by chance, therefore there is a right and a wrong.

    The US is not based on being Christian, but on being not atheist. The language in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence all are based on language that explicitly refers to a not-indifferent universe. "All men are created equal" has little meaning in a completely atheistic world view. Created by whom? Equal in front of whom? Talk of rights make little to no sense in a completely atheistic world view (many would argue). Who gave you the right? What are you basing equality on? Why are we equal? Why do we have the same rights? If I am physically capable of killing you, why is it wrong to? There's not physical evidence to say that it isn't.

    Even during the French Revolution in which the radicals wanted to completely do away with the Church in every form, everyone knew that you couldn't remove every form of deism, that you couldn't create an atheistic state. Without a god, how could you say equality were better? Better judged against what? You can't judge two things without a scale.

    Many would contend that atheists in western society have morals only because they have inherited it through a theistic society. Atheism by itself has no basis for morals. Even if you consider yourself a humanist, there has to be some reason why humans have value. It's impossible to be a completely atheistic humanist.

    And people making this argument need only to point to the four examples of a state based on atheism to call into doubt the possibility of a moral atheism: Nazi Germany, the U.S.S.R., communist China, and North Korea. I'm not implying that all atheists are nutjobs, but only in those four states is atheism carried out to it's logical end: if the universe is completely impartial and completely atheistic, then as many as necessary may be killed to better the state or the world.

    EDIT: The point of this post is not trolling, but merely a discussion of the very real philosophical problem of morals within atheism. You'll find very, very few people within the field of ethics (as in the philosophical discipline) who find complete atheism at all tenable.
     
  16. wonga1127 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Location:
    Wishing for a magic bus.
    #17
    This woman is part of the government that wants to outlaw texting on your cell phone when crossing the street. After seeing this type of stuff, I expect no less from the State of Illinois.
     
  17. Macaddicttt macrumors 6502a

    Macaddicttt

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #18
    That is patently untrue. Although Lincoln did not believe in organized religion, he believed in divine necessity, and definitely in a God, especially towards the later part of his life. He saw God as working through him. It was probably his greatest motivator.
     
  18. NAG macrumors 68030

    NAG

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2003
    Location:
    /usr/local/apps/nag
    #19
    Okay, I realize you're trying to play devil's advocate here but you're argument is still pretty flawed right off the bat. It looks like you're saying group A "admits" group B doesn't have morals as a 100% fact about group B (I'm just ignoring the "most political theorists" bit for sake of argument). How is that a valid argument? I can find a majority of one sort or another that will make a statement of opinion about another group. It isn't hard (this is actually a favorite of the Creationist crowd).

    Again, I do appreciate you trying to be devil's advocate. I just think you left your argument way too open.
     
  19. Macaddicttt macrumors 6502a

    Macaddicttt

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #20
    I think you're pretty much ignoring the content of my post. I included that little bit about most political theorists to have a way of playing devil's advocate without saying that these beliefs about atheism are necessarily my own or on the fringe. I didn't mean for "a group of people believe it to be that way" to be an actual argument, just a preface.

    And my argument is therefore not "flawed right off the bat" because that part of my post you're responding to does not actually form any part of my argument.

    P.S. Sorry if I sound combative, it's just the way I argue. Sort of a straight logical "If this is true then this is true" sort of thing. I just don't know how to argue without sounding like a jerk. Alas, something I need to work on...
     
  20. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #21
    Let's just call a spade a spade here - this congressperson is behaving in a manner inconsistent with everything written in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights. She has exposed herself as a bigot...how, then, can she call herself a REPRESENTATIVE ????
     
  21. NAG macrumors 68030

    NAG

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2003
    Location:
    /usr/local/apps/nag
    #22
    Your preface frames the later more developed argument. Opening with a flawed argument (falsely equating atheist/without religion to amoral/without morals by saying 100% of cats like meow mix) is just not the way to have a worthwhile argument. You can't really say just because it is a preface it doesn't matter. If you would like to talk about the later parts of your argument will have no problem doing so after you address this initial flaw.
     
  22. Macaddicttt macrumors 6502a

    Macaddicttt

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #23
    I don't think you understand my argument then. I'm not saying atheism = amoral and saying that's it. I'm giving reasons, too. I'm saying atheism = lack of a basis for morals, and then I give examples as to why it's difficult for an atheist to have a basis for morals. And if you have no basis for morals, then it's quite hard to have morals. And if you do have them, perhaps it's based on a contradiction, claiming to have morals (using a basis brought in from an at least deistic line of thought) while still claiming that there is no God at that the universe is completely impersonal.

    I'm trying to say: Impersonal universe = the universe doesn't care what you do = there is no way (or no one) to judge what is right and wrong = there is no right and wrong.

    "Atheism = amoral" isn't "starting with a flawed argument" but starting with the proposition that I then lay out reasons for. I wrote my argument more like "a^2 + b^2 = c^2 because..." and then laying out the proof. "Atheism = amoral" is what we're debating. It's not an argument.
     
  23. NAG macrumors 68030

    NAG

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2003
    Location:
    /usr/local/apps/nag
    #24
    Yes, I understand what you're doing. I'm stating that using the faulty logic of stating group A thinks this of group B is not a valid way to set your premise. I was only riffing on the other stuff in my second post to try to lighten the mood. (who can get mad at meow mix?)

    I repeat: I am noting that your argument equating atheism to being amoral by stating the opinion of most of group A about group B is not valid.

    The only defense thus far that I've seen of this is that it is the preface. Is the preface a get out of jail free card?
     
  24. Macaddicttt macrumors 6502a

    Macaddicttt

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #25
    I don't quite understand what you're saying. Since it is only a preface, it contains no logic. It sets out the position that I will be arguing, and says that I don't necessarily hold this opinion, but a fair amount do, so it's worth discussing. I don't see why this is faulty logic at all, since, as I said, I don't think it's any kind logic in the first place.

    So in response to your question, my answer is yes?

    Maybe it'd be clearer if I were to say that the "A = B" is not my premise, but the thing I'm trying to argue. My premise is that atheists believe that the universe is impersonal.
     

Share This Page