Hitchens - Spokesman For Atheism?

[The Dude]

...when in reality, both you and I had only started reading and not read the whole thing.

Point taken.

[Pahoran]

Thanks for leaving open the possibility that you just aren't paying attention, but I happen to agree enough to put it in my signature line.

Yes, but what is it that you really agree with: that believers have no right to expect participate in any discussion about moral behaviour, which is Hitchens's actual position, or some spun, folded and mutilated version of your own?

If the latter, what form does it take, as of today?

I guess this makes me a target, and I'll just have to deal with such outbursts, continually wondering if the meager substance between your insults is worth it. <sigh>

The subject of his thread, TD, is whether Hitchens is a spokesman for atheism. You appointed yourself his faithful apologist. Nobody else painted that particular bull's-eye on your chest. (Bummer of a birthmark, Hal.)

I fail to see why you characterize these as incompatible statements. The quote is about what is wrong with thrusting your personal claims of god-given certainty on others -- i.e. where they don't belong. These phrases in bold are not only compatible, they are synonymous.

Er, TD? No. They are not.

You originally claimed it was about "the impotence of thrusting your God-given certainty on others." Having posted it in context, and since we can all see that it is not about "the impotence of thrusting your God-given certainty on others," you then decided it was about "the 'thrusting' of religion into places where it doesn't belong," i.e. discussions about moral behaviour. You were determined to defend to the death that nice "thrusting" verb, so you changed the target to something that looked more defensible.

In reality, though, you were wrong both times. The only "thrusting" in view in Mr. Hitchens's statement is the "thrusting" of believers from the entire discussion. He uses more benign-sounding synonyms, like "exclude" and "farewell," but that's the only "thrusting" his statement contemplates.

And you quote it. With approval.

And defend it.

How are those interpretations "two rather incompatible statements" (your words)? How could I be possibly be moving the goal posts, or equivocating, or waffling, if I first meant one and then switched to the other?

Because, as you perfectly well know, Hitchens's statement is not at all about "the impotence of thrusting your God-given certainty on others." He does not describe believers as "thrusting their God-given certainty on others" at all. He is scandalised that they dare to hold such certainty while having the temerity to actually participate in a discussion. I can see why he (and you) would so arrogantly assume that said discussion is a place were such certainty "doesn't belong," but even if we were to grant that bigoted assumption, merely participating in such a discussion does not constitute "thrusting their God-given certainty on others."

As I am sure you realise.

What would I gain if I were guilty of these tactics? Is this really truly the basis of your heavy-handed accusation? You have nothing, Pahoran.

You sound like Robert de Niro in The Untouchables. Sorry, but I'm not as good-looking as Kevin Kostner. But I will do my best:

"Never stop fighting till the fight is done...here endeth the lesson."

Regards,

Pahoran

[The Dude]

Words don't only mean one thing, Pahoran. I'm telling you: you are twisting the intention of my two explanations, and it's a sick tyranny for you to insist that I meant contradictory things. I have told you what I meant and now I'm not going to sit for any more badgering about it.

Feel free to crown yourself, king of fools.

[Pahoran]

Words don't only mean one thing, Pahoran. I'm telling you: you are twisting the intention of my two explanations, and it's a sick tyranny for you to insist that I meant contradictory things. I have told you what I meant and now I'm not going to sit for any more badgering about it.

Feel free to crown yourself, king of fools.

Is that a personal attack? Tsk, tsk.

I "twisted" nothing, of course. Had I done so, it ought to be relatively simple for you to explain why my analysis of your two statements is incorrect, but you have not done that. I note that you have failed to even attempt to do so. Maybe it's just wrong because I'm wicked, or something.

Regards,

Pahoran

[The Dude]

Is that a personal attack? Tsk, tsk.

Yes, you may as well take it as a personal attack. For that matter, I take your "analysis" as badgering, because I have already tried to tell you what I meant.

I "twisted" nothing, of course.

Oh, of course not!

Had I done so, it ought to be relatively simple for you to explain why my analysis of your two statements is incorrect, but you have not done that. I note that you have failed to even attempt to do so.

Yes, it would be relatively simple to explain to someone who is interested in an explanation. You only want to win. Therefore, I ask you to cut to the end you seek and crown yourself right now. I have no further interest.

Knock it off you two (and I see TD is willing, thank you). ~mods

[Bach]

Believing Latter-day Saints don't say, "Well, it's true... to us." They hold that their personal 'revelation' is sufficient grounds that their religion is universally true, which has a number of implications that don't otherwise obtain.

That's right. And I did not say otherwise.

What we don't do, however, is insist that anyone else take our word for it.

And I never said you did. : I don't understand why you keep trying to drag the conversation back to this point -- it seems to me an unnecessary distraction.

For instance, people with unqualified "certainty" almost invariably use their religious beliefs to inform their voting practices;

As do people who don't articulate any claim to "unqualified 'certainty'." I'm unaware of there being much of a point to democracy if it is somehow illegitimate for people to vote according to what they believe.

You'd agree, though, that there are better and worse ways to vote, right? By retreating to private, "God says so" rationalizations in her political deliberations, a voter effectively opts out of public discourse, don't you agree? Can someone who knowingly appeals to unshared assumptions actually have a meaningful dialogue with her fellow citizens? And if someone refuses to engage in meaningful dialogue, why should she expect to have her political opinions and wishes taken seriously by the rest of the population? I see something illegitimate -- and not merely repugnant -- about a voter using her own interpretation of whatever Scripture she believes in to rationalize their vote for, say, an anti-miscegenation measure. Don't you?

Indeed. In fact, I already mentioned this, in the post to which you are most selectively replying, thus:

We do not attempt to tell anyone else that they should simply take our word for it when we claim that God has revealed some X to us via personal revelation. In fact, we don't even expect our co-religionists to do so, something I would really expect someone to know if he had ever really been one. All we really ask anyone to do is to accept that we ourselves believe X for that reason, and will therefore act on that belief.

Now Bach, perhaps you, uniquely out of all the voting world, vote in a manner contrary to, or otherwise ignoring, your beliefs. I don't know anyone else who does.

There are always limits proscribed on what acts one can do in accordance with their beliefs. Someone can't justify just any actions merely by waving the "God" wand -- for example, you can't kill in the name of God with impunity. Where's the limit, then? You haven't done a good job yet of arguing that the limit is on the far side of invoking the supernatural in political deliberations. I've given a few reasons as to why I think that religion has no proper place in public deliberations. You're going to have to defend religion as a justification for political actions more finely than you have so far.

Thank you for beating up that straw man.

Where is the straw man, and where is the beating?

If people believe that their conception of God is true universally -- and trust me, they do -- then why not use it as a basis for public decision-making, or as a reason to interfere in another person's life, or as a casus belli?

You may try to pretend that this is somehow unique to religious believers, but if you really believe that, then you know nothing whatsoever about historical reality.

I pretend nothing of the sort, sir.

And people will use their belief in Marxism or "God Delusion" or evolution or global warming as "a basis for public decision-making, or as a reason to interfere in another person's life, or as a casus belli." This is part of the human condition, and is not in any way linked to with what some subset of humans may or may not believe about "their conception of God."

Does this mean that you acquiesce the point that Latter-day Saints aren't as "live and let live" as you like to characterize them? Because that's the only claim I was attempting to rebut in the section of my post that you quoted.

My problem with injecting religion into the already-volatile mixture of political deliberations is that religion is systematically shielded from scrutiny in a way that other ideologies are not. Unlike religion, the pros and cons of Marxism can be debated and reasoned about, because they make claims about the universally observable world. The same goes for evolution and global warming (The God Delusion largely falls into the same category as religion because of the supernatural topics it broaches). If religious knowledge is inherently personal and private, and can't really be reasoned about in the public sphere, then why should have any place in political deliberations? Some religionists seem to want to have their cake and eat it, too: they want their religious knowledge to be "personal" so as to shield it from certain external attacks, but they also want it to be "public" so it can exercise influence in the world that is so hostile to it. So, "personal" or "public" -- what is your religion?

[Pahoran]

That's right. And I did not say otherwise.

What we don't do, however, is insist that anyone else take our word for it.

And I never said you did. : I don't understand why you keep trying to drag the conversation back to this point -- it seems to me an unnecessary distraction.

In that it is the direct response to your little sophistry about how "believing Latter-day Saints don't say, 'Well, it's true... to us,'" etc, I suppose it is.

Which means that when you indirectly accused me of lying, you chose to introduce this "unnecessary distraction."

Introducing such "unnecessary distractions" and then crying foul when you are held accountable for them seems rather less than good sportsmanship.

As do people who don't articulate any claim to "unqualified 'certainty'." I'm unaware of there being much of a point to democracy if it is somehow illegitimate for people to vote according to what they believe.

You'd agree, though, that there are better and worse ways to vote, right?

I'd agree that I'm not nearly arrogant enough to presume to judge the basis on which another person makes up her mind how to vote. In fact, I'd further agree that the reasons for another person's vote, much like the content of that vote, are none of my damned business, and only tinpot tyrants would want to make them the subject of censorship.

That's what I'd agree to.

By retreating to private, "God says so" rationalizations in her political deliberations, a voter effectively opts out of public discourse, don't you agree?

I agree that if that is all a voter has to contribute to the conversation, then it's not much.

Which is precisely why that is not what Latter-day Saints do.

And it is also precisely why that is relevant to this discussion and not, as you so counterfactually claimed, an "unnecessary distraction."

Can someone who knowingly appeals to unshared assumptions actually have a meaningful dialogue with her fellow citizens? And if someone refuses to engage in meaningful dialogue, why should she expect to have her political opinions and wishes taken seriously by the rest of the population?

Because in a real democracy--such as you and Hitchens so despise--a voter doesn't have to justify the reasons for her vote to anybody, no matter how "bright" they delude themselves that they are. In a real democracy--such as you and Hitchens so despise--a believer's vote counts just as much as a "bright's" vote.

I see something illegitimate -- and not merely repugnant -- about a voter using her own interpretation of whatever Scripture she believes in to rationalize their vote for, say, an anti-miscegenation measure. Don't you?

Not nearly as illegitimate and repugnant as someone presuming to censor another person's vote because they disapprove of the reasons for which it is cast.

There are always limits proscribed on what acts one can do in accordance with their beliefs. Someone can't justify just any actions merely by waving the "God" wand -- for example, you can't kill in the name of God with impunity.

Yes, but this is, to coin a phrase, an "unnecessary distraction." Hitchen's vile outpouring of bigotry isn't based upon the premise that a believer might "kill in the name of God," but only that she is certain of the rightness of her position. Well, Hitchens is equally certain of the rightness of his position, only he does not call the source of his certainty "God."

Even though he worships it no less.

Where's the limit, then? You haven't done a good job yet of arguing that the limit is on the far side of invoking the supernatural in political deliberations. I've given a few reasons as to why I think that religion has no proper place in public deliberations. You're going to have to defend religion as a justification for political actions more finely than you have so far.

No, I don't. Until the revolution, believing voters are going to continue to vote according to their beliefs, and you're just going to have to either live with it or move to North Korea.

Where is the straw man, and where is the beating?

The straw man consists in your maladroit attempt to pretend that I claimed that we hold to some kind of wishy-washy relativistic "it's true to us" epistemology.

I did no such thing.

I pretend nothing of the sort, sir.

Then sir, you had better accept the fact that we are just as entitled to our certainties as you are to yours.

Does this mean that you acquiesce the point that Latter-day Saints aren't as "live and let live" as you like to characterize them? Because that's the only claim I was attempting to rebut in the section of my post that you quoted.

No, it does not. It simply means that "brights" have no standing to make such a criticism in the first place. As for Latter-day Saints, I suppose that some individuals would share your "bright" desire to legislate their own certainties regardless of others; but I expect that the majority are every bit as "live and let live" as I like to characterise them.

My problem with injecting religion into the already-volatile mixture of political deliberations is that religion is systematically shielded from scrutiny in a way that other ideologies are not. Unlike religion, the pros and cons of Marxism can be debated and reasoned about, because they make claims about the universally observable world. The same goes for evolution and global warming (The God Delusion largely falls into the same category as religion because of the supernatural topics it broaches). If religious knowledge is inherently personal and private, and can't really be reasoned about in the public sphere, then why should have any place in political deliberations? Some religionists seem to want to have their cake and eat it, too: they want their religious knowledge to be "personal" so as to shield it from certain external attacks, but they also want it to be "public" so it can exercise influence in the world that is so hostile to it.

Again--tu quoque. In fact religious knowledge can "be debated and reasoned about," but only in situations removed from the political coal face; and it has that in common with Marxism, evolution and global warming as well. Banner-waving protest marchers, candidates providing TV sound bites, political rallyists trying to whip up the enthusiasm of a crowd are not providing a useful forum for reasoned analysis and debate, but such situations, and not reasoned debates, are where political mass movements gain their momentum.

So, "personal" or "public" -- what is your religion?

The answer, of course, is that it is a little of both. If the source of my certainty is beyond the reach of your mundane deliberations, the content is certainly not; that is at all times subject to discussion. And when it comes to decisions taken in the public square, I would not dream of asking you or anyone else to vote according to my conscience.

And I know of no Latter-day Saint who would.

Not an "unnecessary distraction" at all, you see.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Knock it off you two (and I see TD is willing, thank you). ~mods

For the record: I read TD's post. I chose to let him have the last word without any insults or accusations.

Perhaps I should have made some sort of insulting, sarcastic rejoinder so that you could thank me too.

I'll keep that in mind in future.

Regards,

Pahoran

[jwhitlock]

This thread appears to be confirmation of the desire of some atheists to eliminate religious people from the agenda - because of an irrational (as they define the rules) belief in God. Pahoran has made a solid point that in a democracy, "one person, one vote" means exactly that - without any other criteria for that vote. Once selective criteria for casting a vote are put into place, then democracy starts to cease and dictatorship takes over.

It is worth noting and repeating again that it is no one else's right to question WHY a person votes the way he / she does. To assert that a religious person should not be involved in the public process or to vote because an atheist disagrees with that person's belief in God is unconsciousable. This is one of the undercurrents of Hitchens rant, and it truly shows a very ugly side of atheism. Hitchens' adoration of Trotsky should give us a clue that Hitchens feels the governance of the masses by the enlightened few is something that appeals to him. And of course, Hitchens is one of the "enlightened".

Not all atheists are this radical. But it is disturbing that there are more than just a few out there who glory in the tone and direction Hitchens presents in his book.

[Bach]

In that it is the direct response to your little sophistry about how "believing Latter-day Saints don't say, 'Well, it's true... to us,'" etc, I suppose it is.

When I said, "I never said you did," I was referring to what immediately preceded it -- your point that Mormons don't insist that other people take their word for their spiritual claims. That's it. Now, please stop shifting the focus of our back-and-forth elsewhere -- it's disorienting.

Also, "little sophistry"? That kind of stuff is neither necessary nor appreciated.

Which means that when you indirectly accused me of lying, you chose to introduce this "unnecessary distraction." Introducing such "unnecessary distractions" and then crying foul when you are held accountable for them seems rather less than good sportsmanship.

Where did I indirectly accuse you of lying, Pahoran?

By the way, it's most certainly YOU who introduced the "unnecessary distraction" before me, in post #202:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...mp;p=1208243986

As do people who don't articulate any claim to "unqualified 'certainty'." I'm unaware of there being much of a point to democracy if it is somehow illegitimate for people to vote according to what they believe.

Please allow me to make my challenge to you simpler: should there be limits to what kinds of laws motivated by religion there can be? If you say, "No," how would you argue against the law of a hypothetical Muslim majority democracy that issues the death penalty for apostates of Islam? If "Yes," then where is the limit, approximately?

I'd agree that I'm not nearly arrogant enough to presume to judge the basis on which another person makes up her mind how to vote. In fact, I'd further agree that the reasons for another person's vote, much like the content of that vote, are none of my damned business, and only tinpot tyrants would want to make them the subject of censorship.

So, if someone were to say, "I don't think Pahoran should have any rights, because Pahoran is funny-looking," and he votes accordingly, you don't think that there's something fundamentally wrong with that person's civic attitude? Do you honestly not see this kind of political sentiment as incompatible with true democracy?

I agree that if that is all a voter has to contribute to the conversation, then it's not much.

Which is precisely why that is not what Latter-day Saints do.

And it is also precisely why that is relevant to this discussion and not, as you so counterfactually claimed, an "unnecessary distraction."

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -- not the members, mind you, but the Church itself -- has been remarkably unabashed about its interference in political affairs vis-a-vis "value" (e.g., merely religious) issues. That you would deny this clear fact is very odd.

Because in a real democracy--such as you and Hitchens so despise--a voter doesn't have to justify the reasons for her vote to anybody, no matter how "bright" they delude themselves that they are. In a real democracy--such as you and Hitchens so despise--a believer's vote counts just as much as a "bright's" vote.

This is NOT my position, Pahoran. I think that a believer's vote and an atheist's vote should have equal weight, and that votes should only be looked askance at if they are done using necessarily non-public information. If an atheist were to vote based on the results of a scientific study that he has locked away from the world, I would castigate him, too.

Yes, but this is, to coin a phrase, an "unnecessary distraction." Hitchen's vile outpouring of bigotry isn't based upon the premise that a believer might "kill in the name of God," but only that she is certain of the rightness of her position. Well, Hitchens is equally certain of the rightness of his position, only he does not call the source of his certainty "God."

So you agree that there should be limits on which God-based laws can be enacted -- good.

The straw man consists in your maladroit attempt to pretend that I claimed that we hold to some kind of wishy-washy relativistic "it's true to us" epistemology.

I did no such thing.

Yes, I "pretend"ed that Mormons hold a somewhat relativistic epistemology... because that was the antecedent of my conditional statement, which I never said was actually true. I brought it up to debunk your misconceived idea that Latter-day Saints don't attempt to foist the implications of their beliefs onto others.

Then sir, you had better accept the fact that we are just as entitled to our certainties as you are to yours.

I explained the difference between secular and religious public deliberations quite clearly. I see no reason to elaborate further, unless you have a more specific criticism than this (quite lame) equivocation.

No, it does not. It simply means that "brights" have no standing to make such a criticism in the first place. As for Latter-day Saints, I suppose that some individuals would share your "bright" desire to legislate their own certainties regardless of others; but I expect that the majority are every bit as "live and let live" as I like to characterise them.

Pahoran, the Church itself isn't even like this. Come, now.

Again--tu quoque. In fact religious knowledge can "be debated and reasoned about," but only in situations removed from the political coal face; and it has that in common with Marxism, evolution and global warming as well. Banner-waving protest marchers, candidates providing TV sound bites, political rallyists trying to whip up the enthusiasm of a crowd are not providing a useful forum for reasoned analysis and debate, but such situations, and not reasoned debates, are where political mass movements gain their momentum.

If religious knowledge can be debated and reasoned about, and used as a basis for voting and a potential touchstone in public debate, then surely religion itself is a fair target in political discourse. Either there are sacred cows or there aren't -- religion shouldn't get a pass anymore if what you say here is true.

The answer, of course, is that it is a little of both. If the source of my certainty is beyond the reach of your mundane deliberations, the content is certainly not; that is at all times subject to discussion. And when it comes to decisions taken in the public square, I would not dream of asking you or anyone else to vote according to my conscience.

Perhaps not, but if you support the Church in its actions -- e.g., its nakedly moralizing political interference vis-a-vis gay marriage -- then you certainly would have me live substantial non-voting parts of my life according to your conscience. That's what I find objectionable.

[The Dude]

This thread appears to be confirmation of the desire of some atheists to eliminate religious people from the agenda - because of an irrational (as they define the rules) belief in God. Pahoran has made a solid point that in a democracy, "one person, one vote" means exactly that - without any other criteria for that vote. Once selective criteria for casting a vote are put into place, then democracy starts to cease and dictatorship takes over.

!!!!! Who in this thread suggests people should be restricted from voting? Maybe I misunderstand you? Or you me?

It is worth noting and repeating again that it is no one else's right to question WHY a person votes the way he / she does. To assert that a religious person should not be involved in the public process or to vote because an atheist disagrees with that person's belief in God is unconsciousable. This is one of the undercurrents of Hitchens rant, and it truly shows a very ugly side of atheism. Hitchens' adoration of Trotsky should give us a clue that Hitchens feels the governance of the masses by the enlightened few is something that appeals to him. And of course, Hitchens is one of the "enlightened".

No, I guess understand alright. This sounds nuts to me. Sorry, but i haven't seen the part in the book where Hitchens asserts this. Or is it just an undercurrent you notice if you key in on the Trotsky?

So you don't misunderstand me: I think everybody should get their vote, even if the basis of their vote-choice has a delusional source (like Scientology). I'm a little more bothered when we have an executive who puts his personal spiritual convictions above the will of the people (see Bush's mutliple vetoes of a bill to change the 2001 stem cell ban). But what can you do? Politics is about change, and the next guy can only be better in this regard -- even Mitt Romney. (Or is that too much to hope for?)

Not all atheists are this radical. But it is disturbing that there are more than just a few out there who glory in the tone and direction Hitchens presents in his book.

Please name the atheists who are this radical so I know to avoid them. If you name Hitchens, you are going to have to do better than "undercurrent" and "Trotsky." Where is the part about overturing democratic processes?

Thank you.

[jwhitlock]

!!!!! Who in this thread suggests people should be restricted from voting? Maybe I misunderstand you? Or you me?

Bach seems very conflicted about this, claiming in one moment that everyone should have the right to vote and then in the next claiming that those who take their religious opinion into account when voting should be suspect. He's sending significant mixed messages (see the post I made of his quotes on the subject).

No, I guess understand alright. This sounds nuts to me. Sorry, but i haven't seen the part in the book where Hitchens asserts this. Or is it just an undercurrent you notice if you key in on the Trotsky?

The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species. It may be a long farewell, but it has begun and, like all farewells, should not be protracted.

I don't know how many times we need to be quoting this, but here's the undercurrent. His infatuation with Trotsky is acknowledged and documented in his book. His assertion here that we should be saying farewell to those of religious persuasion is confirmation of his desire to exclude them.

So you don't misunderstand me: I think everybody should get their vote, even if the basis of their vote-choice has a delusional source (like Scientology). I'm a little more bothered when we have an executive who puts his personal spiritual convictions above the will of the people (see Bush's mutliple vetoes of a bill to change the 2001 stem cell ban). But what can you do? Politics is about change, and the next guy can only be better in this regard -- even Mitt Romney. (Or is that too much to hope for?)

Odd - I don't see Bush putting much spiritual conviction into his decisions. But that may be just me, and I'm not a Bush supporter.

Please name the atheists who are this radical so I know to avoid them. If you name Hitchens, you are going to have to do better than "undercurrent" and "Trotsky." Where is the part about overturing democratic processes?

I'm sure you are familiar with how many atheist sites there are on the Internet that treat both religious belief and religious people with disdain. The tone of that trend of atheist thought is that such belief and those people should be marginalized as much as possible. I suggest that if you want to discuss such sites and attitudes in more detail, another thread be started.

[The Dude]

I'm sure you are familiar with how many atheist sites there are on the Internet that treat both religious belief and religious people with disdain. The tone of that trend of atheist thought is that such belief and those people should be marginalized as much as possible. I suggest that if you want to discuss such sites and attitudes in more detail, another thread be started.

I detect a tone of distain in your writing about atheists. Shall I extrapolate that as a trend and put words into your mouth that you may not agree with?

I suggest you retract your claim that many atheists want to curb democratic rights -- if you can't name any such atheists. You haven't shown it for Hitchens or anyone else.

Do Bill Hamblin and Daniel Peterson say that Hitchens and other atheists want to take away voting rights from religious people?

[The Dude]

Furthermore:

This thread appears to be confirmation of the desire of some atheists to eliminate religious people from the agenda - because of an irrational (as they define the rules) belief in God. Pahoran has made a solid point that in a democracy, "one person, one vote" means exactly that - without any other criteria for that vote. Once selective criteria for casting a vote are put into place, then democracy starts to cease and dictatorship takes over.

It is worth noting and repeating again that it is no one else's right to question WHY a person votes the way he / she does. To assert that a religious person should not be involved in the public process or to vote because an atheist disagrees with that person's belief in God is unconsciousable. This is one of the undercurrents of Hitchens rant, and it truly shows a very ugly side of atheism. Hitchens' adoration of Trotsky should give us a clue that Hitchens feels the governance of the masses by the enlightened few is something that appeals to him. And of course, Hitchens is one of the "enlightened".

Not all atheists are this radical. But it is disturbing that there are more than just a few out there who glory in the tone and direction Hitchens presents in his book.

You assert that Hitchens preaches an overthrow of democratic processes yet you have no smoking gun. You glibly link this fascism to people who posted on your thread (me and Bach, at least). You only meant some websites "out there"? Do you recognize that nobody in this thread has shown support for those ideas?

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

I have no interest in defending anything about Hitchens' book. Mainly because I haven't read it, and I haven't got much interest in reading it.

I just want to address one point:

claiming in one moment that everyone should have the right to vote and then in the next claiming that those who take their religious opinion into account when voting should be suspect.

I do find it suspect to use religious reasoning when voting. But there are worse reasons to determine a voting pattern. Say, based on which candidate has the best name. Or a die throw.

But all people should be allowed to vote according to their own dictates. I am allowed to express how 'suspect' I find certain methods, but I can't force anybody to vote in a certain way, or using certain rationale.

[jwhitlock]

I detect a tone of distain in your writing about atheists. Shall I extrapolate that as a trend and put words into your mouth that you may not agree with?

You read wrong, purposely ignoring the fact that I frequently qualify my comments with "not all atheists".

I suggest you retract your claim that many atheists want to curb democratic rights -- if you can't name any such atheists. You haven't shown it for Hitchens or anyone else.

Hitchens' quote stands on its own. He doesn't want religious people around. Period. I don't buy your contention as inferred that if it isn't stated specifically anywhere, then we're not allowed to extrapolate it out of related statements. For instance (from the excerpts on Slate):

We believe with certainty that an ethical life can be lived without religion. And we know for a fact that the corollary holds trueâ??that religion has caused innumerable people not just to conduct themselves no better than others, but to award themselves permission to behave in ways that would make a brothel-keeper or an ethnic cleanser raise an eyebrow.

The elevation of atheism above religion - and note carefully - in ways that would make "an ethnic cleanser raise an eyebrow". Gee, does he want to give the impression that religionists are all nutjobs who need to be locked up?

The Aztecs had to tear open a human chest cavity every day just to make sure that the sun would rise. Monotheists are supposed to pester their deity more times than that, perhaps, lest he be deaf. How much vanity must be concealedâ??not too effectively at thatâ??in order to pretend that one is the personal object of a divine plan?

Yep, let's connect those religionists to what the Aztecs did. Are we trying to set some stage of perception here about what ALL religious people are REALLY like?

Evidently, it was the other way about, which is the painless explanation for the profusion of gods and religions, and the fratricide both between and among faiths, that we see all about us and that has so retarded the development of civilization.

Yep, that's what religions and religious people really do - retard the development of civilization.

Such stupidity, combined with such pride, should be enough on its own to exclude "belief" from the debate.

What debate, you may ask? Well, it appears that Hitchens wants to exclude the religious from all debate, in any form, including the debate of public policy. Or does he qualify that anywhere? Let me know if you find somewhere that he does.

It will never die out, or at least not until we get over our fear of death, and of the dark, and of the unknown, and of each other. For this reason, I would not prohibit it even if I thought I could. Very generous of me, you may say. But will the religious grant me the same indulgence? I ask because there is a real and serious difference between me and my religious friends, and the real and serious friends are sufficiently honest to admit it. I would be quite content to go to their children's bar mitzvahs, to marvel at their Gothic cathedrals, to "respect" their belief that the Koran was dictated, though exclusively in Arabic, to an illiterate merchant, or to interest myself in Wicca and Hindu and Jain consolations. And as it happens, I will continue to do this without insisting on the polite reciprocal conditionâ??which is that they in turn leave me alone. But this, religion is ultimately incapable of doing. As I write these words, and as you read them, people of faith are in their different ways planning your and my destruction, and the destruction of all the hard-won human attainments that I have touched upon. Religion poisons everything.

Ah, Hitchens has no problem with leaving the religious alone. But gee, what does religion really want to do to us poor atheists? Destroy us. And so we have to "reluctantly" fight back.

We've touched on all this before about Hitchens, and yet you continually want to rehash it. Hitchens sets up the straw man of the destructiveness of religion and you expect us to believe that he (and his atheist followers) are actually benevolent about letting the religious enemy continue to have a fair and equal say in our society. Horsecrap.

How about some of these other "benevolent" atheist links:

A petition to make it illegal to indoctrinate children religiously before the age of 16.

Let's indoctrinate ID believing students with forced evolution classes or flunk them.

Passing by several atheist anti-religion sites with language that I can't post or link to on this site...

Belief causes terrorism - note the section entitled "What to do?"

Comments by Sam Harris about religion and its inevitable connection to violence.

There is a push by some atheists to link all religion to everything that is wrong with the world. Their conclusion is that only when we eliminate or minimize the influence of religion will mankind be able to fully progress.

I am at a loss to think how one can assert that despite such attitudes towards religion, there is absolutely no desire to reduce a religious person's right to participate in the public debate without regard to how or why that person's opinions are formed. I am very concerned about Hitchens' or Dawkins' or Harris' real attitude towards religious people; with such statements as they make, I don't think they really care about our equal rights as religious people at all.

Such an approach questions motivation and qualifications before addressing claims. Doing such is discriminatory and wrong.

[William Schryver]

The Dude suffers from a malady I have frequently observed in the newly-minted exmormon agnostic: a certain species of selective blindness and ill-founded idealism which is rooted in the naivete consequent to his Mormon upbringing. He fails to detect how much of his world view; how much of his approach towards life in general, is still shaped by his former religious tradition. He would never personally think of doing the kinds of things that some in this thread would impute to the radical atheists like Hitchens. He is comfortable in his disbelieving liberation, and willing to look with benevolent condescension on those friends and family members who continue to cling to the antiquated but largely harmless delusions of religion. He just canâ??t fathom the possibility that there are really people out there who would be willing to take the logical next step dictated by radical atheism: the obvious utilitarian conclusion to which one is inexorably drawn once it becomes clear that religion and the religious are an impediment (if not a bona fide threat) to the advance of our civilization.

So, you must forgive The Dude his charming innocence; his quaint naivete when it comes to these matters. He is not far enough removed from his past to make that kind of a leap into the cold, hard realities of the future.

On the other hand, his children and grandchildren â?? unencumbered by the nostalgic attachment to days gone by -- will no doubt find themselves willing to be persuaded by the stark necessities dictated by the â??enlightenmentâ? bequeathed to them.

[The Dude]

The Dude suffers from a malady....

Is this going to be your new shtick? You psychoanalyzed me in the evolution thread too.

[William Schryver]

Is this going to be your new shtick? You psychoanalyzed me in the evolution thread too.

Given enough sample data (and my experience on LDS message boards has provided an abundance) it becomes elementary for even an amateur analyst like myself to draw informed conclusions about such things.

The fact remains that you either fail to perceive the obvious implications of the things Hitchens says, or you are being intentionally obtuse in an attempt to obfuscate those implications in the minds of others who are more discerning.

I choose to believe that you are not far-enough removed from your childhood training to come to grips with a world filled with people who could easily move from the stance of considering religion as a cancer on the body politic to the willingness to do whatever is necessary to remove that cancer.

[Pahoran]

Where did I indirectly accuse you of lying, Pahoran?

Why, in post 206, of course, when you wrote:

I'm extremely skeptical of what you said here.

In fact, what I said was strictly true.

By the way, it's most certainly YOU who introduced the "unnecessary distraction" before me, in post #202:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...mp;p=1208243986

Which responds directly to a statement quoted from Hitchens himself. Did you really not realise that?

Incidentally, thank you for drawing attention to that post. In it, I wrote:

We do not attempt to tell anyone else that they should simply take our word for it when we claim that God has revealed some X to us via personal revelation. In fact, we don't even expect our co-religionists to do so, something I would really expect someone to know if he had ever really been one. All we really ask anyone to do is to accept that we ourselves believe X for that reason, and will therefore act on that belief.

Which, just BTW, I truly suspect is the rub for "brights." You congratulate yourselves that you are being extraordinarily broad-minded and tolerant by giving us your gracious permission to keep our nutty beliefs, just so long as we keep them entirely to ourselves and never permit them to influence our words or actions in the public square. We, however, as part of our non-"bright" irrationality, insist on treating our beliefs as integral to our thought processes, rather than as the encapsulated and easily detachable modules you'd prefer us to make them.

And thank you for demonstrating that I was right on the money. You suppose that you are embodying the epitome of liberality when you don't round us all up and lock us up in labour camps for the crime of daring to believe that "gay marriage" is morally wrong, but you draw the line at letting us actually vote according to such a belief.

Please allow me to make my challenge to you simpler: should there be limits to what kinds of laws motivated by religion there can be?

No.

There should, however, be limits to the kinds of laws there can be, without regard to the "motivation" behind them.

If you say, "No," how would you argue against the law of a hypothetical Muslim majority democracy that issues the death penalty for apostates of Islam? If "Yes," then where is the limit, approximately?

See above.

Religious believers are not a suspect class of people whose actions should be subjected to a higher level of scrutiny than others. Nor are atheists a demonstrably superior class of people whose opinions should be somehow privileged because they aren't religious (ugh!)

So, if someone were to say, "I don't think Pahoran should have any rights, because Pahoran is funny-looking," and he votes accordingly, you don't think that there's something fundamentally wrong with that person's civic attitude? Do you honestly not see this kind of political sentiment as incompatible with true democracy?

Unlike my argument to which you have objected, this really is an "unnecessary distraction." I don't intend to waste any time on it, except to point out that, once again, the motivation is irrelevant. What's objectionable is not that the person thinks I'm funny-looking (many might agree with him) but that I should somehow be stripped of the rights that others enjoy. That question is relevant; the "motivation" is not.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -- not the members, mind you, but the Church itself -- has been remarkably unabashed about its interference in political affairs vis-a-vis "value" (e.g., merely religious) issues. That you would deny this clear fact is very odd.

That you would falsely accuse me of denying this clear fact is not the least bit odd, since it is consistent with your previous attempt to indirectly call me a liar.

As you perfectly well know, I did not deny that either the Church or its members have an interest in upholding its principles in the public square. As you perfectly well know, I merely pointed out the obvious fact that believers, including and especially Latter-day Saints, do not merely dogmatically assert anything equivalent to "We are certain that X is right, therefore you should vote for X."

The reality--as you and Mr. Hitchens both know perfectly well--is that believers have long known that their certainties carry no weight with others. Therefore, when they argue for their certainties in the public square, they inevitably advance arguments based upon values or assumptions that are shared with others.

That's why Hitchens's suggestion that "belief"--not his, of course--should be excluded from "the debate" ultimately boils down to expelling believers from the debating chamber. Because that is the only way to really be sure that any position being argued is uninfluenced by belief. Farewell, indeed!

This is NOT my position, Pahoran. I think that a believer's vote and an atheist's vote should have equal weight, and that votes should only be looked askance at if they are done using necessarily non-public information. If an atheist were to vote based on the results of a scientific study that he has locked away from the world, I would castigate him, too.

Well there you are, you see. Believing as I do in the primacy of a person's conscience, thus being necessarily less censorious than you and Hitchens, I say that the reasoning behind a person's vote should remain forever out of reach of some elite group of atheist thought police. Only the impact and consequences of a vote should be subject to scrutiny.

So you agree that there should be limits on which God-based laws can be enacted -- good.

Wrong. See above.

Yes, I "pretend"ed that Mormons hold a somewhat relativistic epistemology... because that was the antecedent of my conditional statement, which I never said was actually true. I brought it up to debunk your misconceived idea that Latter-day Saints don't attempt to foist the implications of their beliefs onto others.

No.

You brought it up to misrepresent my actual position--that Latter-day Saints don't expect anyone else to vote according to certainties they do not share--as if I were asserting that "Latter-day Saints don't attempt to foist the implications of their beliefs onto others." It would be rather foolish to assert that, since "attempting to foist the implications of one's beliefs onto others" is the exact definition of the verb to vote.

I explained the difference between secular and religious public deliberations quite clearly. I see no reason to elaborate further, unless you have a more specific criticism than this (quite lame) equivocation.

As you know, I have made no "equivocation."

Pahoran, the Church itself isn't even like this. Come, now.

Oh yes it is. See above.

If religious knowledge can be debated and reasoned about, and used as a basis for voting and a potential touchstone in public debate, then surely religion itself is a fair target in political discourse. Either there are sacred cows or there aren't -- religion shouldn't get a pass anymore if what you say here is true.

That is a non sequitur. Believers argue from publicly shareable information, and that is what is subject to scrutiny. Again, see above.

Perhaps not, but if you support the Church in its actions -- e.g., its nakedly moralizing political interference vis-a-vis gay marriage -- then you certainly would have me live substantial non-voting parts of my life according to your conscience. That's what I find objectionable.

And since you oppose the Church's righteous influence against the "gay marriage" legal oxymoron, then you would have me live my life in a world where the institution of marriage is even more weakened and actually denatured. That's what I find objectionable.

But at least I'm not so damnably arrogant as to demand that your right to argue for your position should somehow be disqualified because you hold certainties I don't share.

I'm not as overbearing as Hitchens and his boosters.

Regards,

Pahoran