Barry Goldwater on Religion and Politics
On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.
I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?
And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism."
Speech in the US Senate (16 September 1981)
I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?
And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism."
Speech in the US Senate (16 September 1981)
Previous comments... You are currently on page 3.
Success is claimed by all. Tacitus. probably from Euripides
When the tide of opinion changed and slavery was abolished, many claimed the credit. The religious being the most organized make the loudest claim. Undoubtedly William Wilberforce was a big player but so were many of no particular denomination or religious conviction. Those who really can take major credit were the Quakers, religious dissenters banned from public life who campaigned against slavery from the beginning. Whether the Quakers took their convictions from the bible or the enlightenment can be argued., it was not from the churches around them.
ok slight revision of my opinion.
What Christians think and do is of declining importance as except for the religious right and maybe Quakers, they are moving themselves over to the new religion , Allah, Marx and Gaia are the new trinity. I think one of those will prevail.
Kittyhawk and jtrikakis - Thanks for the sources.
Even more off topic- lumping dbh and me together as 'radical atheists' is fighting talk!
Give me a break with your point. You are arguing that chistianity and judaism is the foundation of all the advancements in western civilization. You have a long, long way to go to support that even religious scientists were driven to succeed by religion. So Robert Boyle (of Boyle's Law fame, no? Yes, I recall 10th grade chemistry) was a christian and a scientist? So what? So was Darwin. Telescopes were created by muslims. This provides no basis that islam or christianity drives scientific advancement, or are you willing to accept that most scientists today are atheists or agnostic somehow supports those philosophies?
I thought you decided you were sick of all us hypocritical, lying atheists last night. You're back now? Ok, let's get to it. You and Blarman can collaborate to educate us all in Sophistry.
Seriously Blarman, as usual, you have made up your mind and are manipulating the data to support your argument. Do not accuse us of this. The concept of prohibiting sex out of wedlock is completely unnatural, unhealthy and supported only by those clinging to religion. Normal people have long realized that sex is natural, and absolutely need not only be limited to procreation with the consequent concerns of parenthood.
I'll go find articles when I get home. I'm not looking up technical studies on sex while in the office. This is a discussion that should've been put to bed 50 years ago.
Instead, they jump to a conclusion and then feel that they must defend it out of fear that somehow others will look down on them for even considering a change in their position. To me, that willingness to change one's position based on new evidence should be the hallmark of any true Objectivist: hypothesis -> test -> evidence -> either confirmation or rejection. Rinse and repeat.
Fear of change, arrogance over position - these are all illogical, but especially heinous coming from anyone claiming to live by the product of the mind rather than the heart.
I'm sure you are just not-informed of the fact that the foundations of modern science were built by Christians who looked at the world around them and, contrary to the thought at the time (that the world was all random chance, governed by random gods or fates or whatever different groups believed at the time across the globe), they realized that since God is eternal and never changing, that we should be able to discern absolute truths about our universe, and we can rely on those truths to provide repeatable results every time.
You know, minor, insignificant people like Johannes Kepler, Roger (and also Francis) Bacon, Leo the Mathematician, Nicole Oresme, William Turner, Newton, Albrecth von Haller, Copernicus, Galileo, thousands of others, oh, and... Robert Boyle, you might want to look him up.
But I'm sure you just didn't know about them, and aren't being "non-objectivist" and ignoring facts about them.
Now, there's some folks on here who are atheist and aren't idiots about it, but there's a growing number on here who are just plain hypocritical and childish.
I can show you evidence of how disastrous premarital sex is in the black population as published by Thomas Sowell. Prior to 1950, black out-of-wedlock births and white out-of-wedlock births were at the same rate. So was the incarceration rate and the high school graduation rate. Since then, black out-of-wedlock births have skyrocketed (and white's have increased modestly). And correspondingly black graduation rates are down and incarceration rates are up - way up. Obviously, pre-marital sex isn't working for the black population - and society as a whole.
I've already given you the other evidence especially regarding STD's as other real, scientific evidence about the consequences of extra-marital sexual relations. And it correlates directly and indisputably (because it doesn't spread any other way) with the permissiveness of society.
Now I ask you to show me any evidence that says this behavior is _better_ for individuals and society as a whole.
Seriously. Don't claim to be an Objectivist and harp on and on about showing proof when it is done and you choose to reject it.
A Christian allows you to not be a Christian. A Muslim will force you to convert, enslave you, or kill you.
Objectivism is about reality, is it not? Can you prove that sleeping around makes one a better person and more able to commit to long-term relationships? If not, anyone with any kind of intellectual integrity will say "in the absence of any proof supporting my position, I should at least take a look at the other side."
I find it more than a bit hypocritical of those on this forum not to follow their own creed: examine the evidence and follow where it leads - even if it is to conclusions that differ with preconceived notions.
Wow. To me all the Abraham religions seem similar. Most people from all religious backgrounds claim to be moderates and embrace pluralism.
TTFN
Clearly it wasn't the Greeks, Romans or Monguls.
Maybe it was the christians burning people at the stake for heliocentrisism...or being gay...no it can't be. That was only like 600 yrs ago, and only 1,500 yrs before that there was no christianity. Therefore for it to be "thousands" (that's plural) it had to be the whole of recorded christianity. Was something like Luxemburg overwhelmingly successful and we are all just ignorant of it.
Oh yeah, and back to that lifespan thing. What was the average lifespan back in those days before science came along and muddied everything up with nasty evil-u-tion, vaccinations antibiotics, nutrition, farming techniques and an economy? On the order of 35-40 yrs. Boy, I guess smoking or being gay has nothing on that, eh?
"Exhume Goldwater 2016!"
The artist sculpture argument is argument from personal incredulity. It seems impossible to our minds that all of this could be here without a creator to guide it, but sometimes things that seem impossible are correct. It seeming impossible tells us nothing.
The notion that we're saying humans are the pinnacle of all the universe is a straw man, not something anyone has argued.
The notion that we think we are responsible in the end only to ourselves is true, at least for me.
Thanks for sharing opposing views.
If God doesn't intervene in our world at all, isn't human wisdom all we have?
Load more comments...