Is defense of the separation of church and state enough?

[More Than A Feeling]

I read Sam Harris' Atheist manifesto, and I realize that he does not speak for all atheists, but I did see many favorable comments attached to the thread containing it, so at least a few people did agree. Also, the suggestion of removing religion from 501(c)3 tax status, so that churches pay taxes, always receives many favorable responses.

Now, the rise of the religious right has put all liberals, religious or not, on the defensive regarding the separation of church and state. On that issue, I think that we are mostly united. I also understand that atheists have more of a problem with fundamentalists that those of us, while not fundamentalists, have a religious position closer to theirs.

Atheists/agnostics, is it enough that religious liberals defend the traditional understanding of church and state (pre-W)? Would you have us support it even further (churches paying taxes, or other new measures?) Or will we not be acceptable until we have renounced our faith and become atheists/agnostics as well? (When I say acceptable, I mean that some of the bitterness that I see in non-believers posts about faith won't be taken out on those who measure up to your standard, and the sentiments expressed in the manifesto mitigated)

Given the amount of conflict in this forum over basic believer/non-believer differences, as opposed to focusing on the First amendment and other progressive issues that unite us, I fear that it may be the latter, but I hope I am wrong. I like discussing theology as much as anyone, but when the discussions I read/participate in are clouded by the various issues people have before coming to the table, well, it may be more trouble than its worth.

I apologize if the above is incoherent. I am trying to put my feelings regarding the current state of affairs in this forum into words, and it may not be as clear as I would wish.

[Az]

1. Here is another manifesto

From http://www.americanhumanist.org/3/HumandItsAspirations.htm


HUMANISM AND ITS ASPIRATIONS
Humanist Manifesto III, a successor to the Humanist Manifesto of 1933*
Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.

The lifestance of Humanism—guided by reason, inspired by compassion, and informed by experience—encourages us to live life well and fully. It evolved through the ages and continues to develop through the efforts of thoughtful people who recognize that values and ideals, however carefully wrought, are subject to change as our knowledge and understandings advance.

This document is part of an ongoing effort to manifest in clear and positive terms the conceptual boundaries of Humanism, not what we must believe but a consensus of what we do believe. It is in this sense that we affirm the following:

Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies. We also recognize the value of new departures in thought, the arts, and inner experience—each subject to analysis by critical intelligence.

Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change. Humanists recognize nature as self-existing. We accept our life as all and enough, distinguishing things as they are from things as we might wish or imagine them to be. We welcome the challenges of the future, and are drawn to and undaunted by the yet to be known.

Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. Humanists ground values in human welfare shaped by human circumstances, interests, and concerns and extended to the global ecosystem and beyond. We are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity, and to making informed choices in a context of freedom consonant with responsibility.
Life’s fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals. We aim for our fullest possible development and animate our lives with a deep sense of purpose, finding wonder and awe in the joys and beauties of human existence, its challenges and tragedies, and even in the inevitability and finality of death. Humanists rely on the rich heritage of human culture and the lifestance of Humanism to provide comfort in times of want and encouragement in times of plenty.

Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships. Humanists long for and strive toward a world of mutual care and concern, free of cruelty and its consequences, where differences are resolved cooperatively without resorting to violence. The joining of individuality with interdependence enriches our lives, encourages us to enrich the lives of others, and inspires hope of attaining peace, justice, and opportunity for all.

Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness. Progressive cultures have worked to free humanity from the brutalities of mere survival and to reduce suffering, improve society, and develop global community. We seek to minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability, and we support a just distribution of nature’s resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life.

Humanists are concerned for the well being of all, are committed to diversity, and respect those of differing yet humane views. We work to uphold the equal enjoyment of human rights and civil liberties in an open, secular society and maintain it is a civic duty to participate in the democratic process and a planetary duty to protect nature’s integrity, diversity, and beauty in a secure, sustainable manner.

Thus engaged in the flow of life, we aspire to this vision with the informed conviction that humanity has the ability to progress toward its highest ideals. The responsibility for our lives and the kind of world in which we live is ours and ours alone.

* Humanist Manifesto is a trademark of the American Humanist Association—© 2003 American Humanist Association

[More Than A Feeling]

2. Beautiful and practical ideals.

It would be interesting to find out how many would choose that one over Harris'.

I just feel like this forum has become a place where believers and non-believers challenge each other's basic identities with regard to faith. Winning support for the political concerns of non-believers and believers doesn't seem to be as a high a priority as said challenges, and I think that is counterproductive.

I think that religion and theology can be discussed in an atmosphere of honest dialogue and mutual respect by making statements about our respective worldviews/beliefs and explaining them, while recognizing that posts on an internet board are not likely to alter something as basic as one's worldview, and so that isn't the goal. Rather, the goal is to better understand each other, become familiar and comfortable with each other, so we can go out and win back our country, together.

[shrike]

11. Secular Humanism, at least from what I've read in this manifesto

sounds a lot like what we need. And what the Dalai Lama (an unpopular figure on DU, I know) was discussing: a set of principles, unrelated to any religion in particular, which we all can agree on and follow -- any spiritual beliefs would then be a private matter.

Ethics are extremely important -- I remember reading "A Beautiful Mind," the bio of the great mathematician John Nash, with a good deal of dismay. The story discusses, in addition to Nash's life, the attitudes of Nash' milieu: the great minds of Princeton who were:

A. Very anti-semitic
B. Distressingly elitist (their ideas would have fit in well with Strauss' theory of the ruling class.)
C. Misogynistic, for the most part.
D. Outright racist, in some instances.
E. Dismissive of almost anyone who did not breathe their rarified air.

To a man, these men were secular non-believers. They were also some of the best scientific minds of their age. It was quite depressing, to see men of such brilliance and education (some of whom had even come from poor backgrounds) close their minds.
Anyway, this post is rambling, but I think a dialogue is necessary; one that goes beyond religion -- the earth is such a polygot right now we cannot pick ONE religion -- and takes on the topic of what is good for us as human beings, and for the planet, what is right and wrong -- surely different cultures and mindsets can come to some consensus. As to how this dialogue can start, I have no idea.

[beam me up scottie]

3. This is Richard Dawkins' response to Sam's article:

Coming Out Against Religious Mania

Congratulations to Sam Harris on a characteristically brilliant broadside. His book, The End of Faith is one of those books that deserves to replace the Gideon Bible in every hotel room in the land.

Articles like Harris's are valuable, not because they will change the minds of religious idiots like Bush or those who voted for him, but because they will have a 'consciousness-raising' effect upon the intelligent.

There are millions of intelligent atheists out there who are too frightened to come out and admit it, because American society has allowed itself to drift into a state where religious mania has become the respectable norm. But every time a Sam Harris raises his voice in public, it will give courage to other intelligent people to come out. Maybe there are some – intelligent but not well educated – who didn't even realise atheism is a respectable option.

I know, I agree, it is easy for me, living in Britain where religion has no power and it is religious people who feel the need to apologise (despite the paradoxical existence of an established church with the queen as its head). But America will change only when a critical mass of people is prepared to 'come out'. The more that do, the more that will.

I really don't mean to sound presumptuous or condescending, but my appeal to my American friends is this. When you read something like this Sam Harris article, don't just nod in silent agreement and go on keeping quiet yourself. Start shouting, to encourage the others. I am hard at work on my own book, The God Delusion, for precisely this reason.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-dawkins/coming-out-against-religi_b_5137.html

I think that he is right when he says such articles are valuable because "they will have a 'consciousness-raising' effect upon the intelligent."

It seems to have worked for you.

[trotsky]

4. I don't think religion has a role in politics, period.

Even if your religious beliefs line up well with liberalism, practice your religion at home or in your church. Because the moment you start using your religion to justify policies, it automatically legitimizes the right-wingers to use THEIR religion to do the same. And since you & they will never ever agree on religious items and have absolutely no way to resolve differences, you end up with a gridlocked political system where for either side to give in makes them think they're losing ground to Satan.

And if churches stick even one small toe into the pool of politics, they deserve to be taxed like any other business.

[More Than A Feeling]

5. What do you think practicing one's religion involves?

Religion is more than just a service in a church, or a prayer before dinner. Its supposed to affect one's whole life, because it addresses those very basic questions: "What is the world like?" and "How shall we live?". Since human life is lived against the backdrop of society, the answers to those questions would include political beliefs and actions.

Don't your answers to the questions "What is the world like?" and "How shall we live?" affect your political beliefs and actions? If you believe that science is a useful guide to the world, you want political actions that would benefit the pursuit of science, right? If you believe that society cannot function when governments promote one religion, then you support political actions that defend the separation of church and state, right?

Why are you right to justify your political goals based on your beliefs about the world and the good life, but I am wrong to do so (even if they are the same goals) if my answers come out of my faith? I mean, yeah, it justifies the fundies, but we don't have to agree with their goals. We weren't going to convince them to agree with us anyway. We can work for their defeat politically. It's harder, but more just than saying "If you do something based on religion, its wrong, even if I would have done the same thing, for other reasons."

I don't want the government to stop feeding the poor, just because many religions say feeding the poor is good, and I don't think you do either.

[Az]

6. Ideas vs Authority

When operating in the arena of the public square and specifically our government it is true that you cannot seperate your beliefs from your politics. They are the source of your ideas. But they cannot be the authority upon which the laws are based.

If your ideas have merrit beyond the moral authority of a belief system then you must present your argument from that position. Others are not going to share your particular beliefs. Thus trying to base your arguments on the basis of belief is contradictory to our system.

Argue your ideas. But do not use god as a bat to force them on the public square.

[More Than A Feeling]

7. I think i stated previously that I support church/state separation

but as I said, that doesn't seem like its acceptable or enough for some people who wish there was no religion, period, and have a corresponding low opinion of believers in general. Its even more frustrating that the reason for their position has nothing to do with anything I or other church/state supporters who are religious have done.

Then there are the expectations that religious liberals can "take back" their church, when it is very clear by now that fundamentalists can't be convinced of anything, and that they will not stop. Its a much taller task than tossing off the glib phrase "take back your faith."

I'm just very frustrated, I guess. I've tried stating my opinions on matters of faith without forcing anything or belittling anyone, and I get scorn in return. I don't want to accept that believers and non-believers can't come together for political goals and theological discourse and bridge the basic divide between them in an honest and respectful way.

[Az]

8. There is a lot of frustration

On all sides.

The problem with civil discourse is it is so easy to disrupt. Two people can engage in a conversation civilly only to be drawn into a spitting match because someone not interested in a civil conversation enters the fray.

The trick to avoiding this pitfall is to not look for insults to take issue with. Instead stick to the issue being discussed. If someone obviously is not interested in civil discourse there is no reason you have to respond to them.

I fear the heated discussions that are more about how angry people are drive away many people that would like to enjoy a difficult but civil discussion of these matters. It really is a choice. You can choose to allow the disparaging words to affect you or you can choose to focus on conversing with those that wish to be civil. Also too remember that comments may not be meant as uncivil. They merely be reflective of a different view of a matter. And that is part of the gap we are trying to bridge through conversation.

[trotsky]

9. You recognize the problem, but you don't understand it.

it is very clear by now that fundamentalists can't be convinced of anything, and that they will not stop

Why is that, do you suppose?

Is it because of their political beliefs?

Or their RELIGION?

[More Than A Feeling]

10. Thank you for illustrating my point. n/t