|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 04/19/2009 : 08:33:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Oh, for crying out loud. This is advocating death for apostasy, a religious "crime," not treason. (Besides, advocating a death penalty for treason would seem a bizarre thing for a university chaplain to be doing, anyway.) |
How is advocacy for the death penalty for some crime or other under a theocracy a firing offense? It's not a failure to perform his duties, and you can't fire someone just because their privately stated religious ideas embarrass you (even if those private expressions are made public by someone else). At worst, what he said was that in a Muslim theocracy, the state should put to death people who reject Islam. How is that a firing offense for anyone, much less someone whose job it is to discuss that religion?| Really? Does the First Amendment apply to all expression by employees of a private university? I'm not sure this is correct. Are you sure, Dave? |
Almost all religious expressions, absolutely yes. The exceptions would be if he were advocating violating some law or other, or otherwise committing a legally actionable offense. He's not saying that Joe Muslim on the street should gun down any apostate he encounters, and he's not creating a legal burden that he's expecting Harvard to shoulder for him. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 04/19/2009 : 10:20:00 [Permalink]
|
Dave is right. This is protected speech. A good thing too. I suppose if he were actually promoting his views on school time, he might be subject to termination based on school policy.
The irony of course is that he is that he has first amendment protection to say what he wants to say. A right he would gladly take away from others. But that's theocrat's for you. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 04/19/2009 : 17:50:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Almost all religious expressions, absolutely yes. The exceptions would be if he were advocating violating some law or other, or otherwise committing a legally actionable offense. He's not saying that Joe Muslim on the street should gun down any apostate he encounters, and he's not creating a legal burden that he's expecting Harvard to shoulder for him. |
That would come as a surprise to all the bible colleges that fire professors and expel students all the time for minor religious disagreements. And those schools use religious freedom arguments to justify such acts.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/19/2009 : 19:38:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
That would come as a surprise to all the bible colleges that fire professors and expel students all the time for minor religious disagreements. And those schools use religious freedom arguments to justify such acts. |
I only know of one case of that happening, on those grounds, but religious organizations (and a Bible college would probably count as one) have an excemption from the equal-employment laws: they are legally allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion. Harvard probably does not count as a religious organization (if it did, it's open to everyone anyway).
And not every abuse of civil rights results in a lawsuit.
On the other hand, liberal teachers who get hired at Bible colleges to teach creationism but instead sneak evolution into their classes get fired for failure to do their jobs.
And my reading of Massachusetts labor law says that Harvard will have to come up with a very good reason to fire the guy, or else open themsevles up to a wrongful termination lawsuit.
What is Harvard's take on all this, anyway? Have any spokespeople spoken? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 04/19/2009 : 20:15:43 [Permalink]
|
Okay, Dave, I won't argue that you're wrong on the law.
But clearly the laws are set up so that religions themselves can freely discriminate on the basis of religion, and then use the Constitutional protection of religions to cry foul anytime someone wants to take them to task for advocating the killing of religious dissenters.
That's not right. It's like Animal Farm, where "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." It's time for the pigs to lose their "more equal" status.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 04/19/2009 20:21:02 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/19/2009 : 21:48:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
But clearly the laws are set up so that religions themselves can freely discriminate on the basis of religion, and then use the Constitutional protection of religions to cry foul anytime someone wants to take them to task for advocating the killing of religious dissenters.
That's not right. It's like Animal Farm, where "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." It's time for the pigs to lose their "more equal" status. |
Well, I'm certain that you know how much I agree with that. The day that Abdul-Basser and the rest of the theists lose their protected status will be a great day, indeed!
However, even if that were to happen during my lifetime (ha!), and the whole world were secular, I would still be arguing that people should be free to opine, even if their opinions are harsh and ugly. What would be a secular analog to Abdul-Basser's statements? "I think that criticizing the government should be a hanging offense." Should that kind of statement, when made by a university professor, lose someone a job? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 04/20/2009 : 07:50:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Okay, Dave, I won't argue that you're wrong on the law.
But clearly the laws are set up so that religions themselves can freely discriminate on the basis of religion, and then use the Constitutional protection of religions to cry foul anytime someone wants to take them to task for advocating the killing of religious dissenters.
That's not right. It's like Animal Farm, where "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." It's time for the pigs to lose their "more equal" status.
|
Are these 'Bible college' publicly funded?
That'd be the difference. |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2009 : 07:01:05 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote: | How is this any different from someone who advocates the death penalty for treason? The First Amendment says that he can't be fired just for advocating an extreme and unpopular religious position. Especially if what he's saying is that some hypothetical government should put apostates to death. He certainly isn't calling for Muslim vigilantes or the overthrow of the U.S. government. |
Yes, you are right. It is purely a bias against extreme opinions inspired by religion (opposed to political or other ideology) that caused me to say perhaps he should be fired. But you are right, there is no difference in principle between him saying what he said and someone advocating the death penalty for treason. And frankly, I disagree with both opinions and also think both should be able to be freely expressed without fear of losing employment.
I'll respond to the clergy stuff later today. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2009 : 12:22:27 [Permalink]
|
Mooner wrote: | I also agree that tossing out all chaplaincies isn't about to happen at Harvard. So let us at least get chaplains who are all on one page in opposing the principle of killing members of their flocks who might want to leave. Somebody "certified" these people. Those somebodies should be held to basic standards of universal human rights. |
Why? The United States government isn't even held to any basic standards of universal human rights. In fact, you want to point to a document that spells out what those human rights are and then provide evidence that they are broadly accepted at least in the developed world?
| That he exposed his murderous ideology in a private email is essentially irrelevant to the question of his beliefs. And if he's only saying the radical stuff to his flock in private, that's scary in its own way. |
I don't think you or anyone else has made an iron clad argument that the guy's opinions are radical or extreme offensive to common notions of decency in our society. Did you read my 2nd and 3rd posts in this discussion? To repeat myself, Abdul-Basser did respond to the criticism and said he: | Never expressed the position that individuals who leave Islam or convert from Islam to another religion must be killed. I do not hold this opinion personally. |
So here the guy is denying, quite explicitly, exactly what you say he believes. Have you considered for one moment that maybe, just maybe, you and PZ and others have misinterpreted what the guy was saying in that email because you are unfamiliar with the cultural, religious, and historical context of it?
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 04/28/2009 12:23:17 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2009 : 12:58:18 [Permalink]
|
In response to Dave: | Yeah, that's one of the things PZ is faulting Harvard for. |
Considering that religious extremism tends to be grass roots and spring up among the young and less educated, I think it is a good thing that respected and high profile academic institutions have schools of theological study. It helps provide arguments against the most dangerous types of religious from within the religious mindset. Considering that most people are still believers in some sense, that is very valuable, perhaps even essential to the fight against grassroots fundamentalism.
| If everyone sent all the religionists packing, there would be no need for any secular humanist chaplains. The religious aspects of secular humanism were contrived in order to compete with superstitious religions. Get rid of them all, Epstein can find other work, I'm sure. |
Sure, send all the chaplains packing and let the students who are seeking some kind of spirituality follow or create their own lower profile, more grassroots, and less transparent religious entities. Personally, I think that would make things worse. Universities, like prisons and the military, are unique environments, and so the way students are served should be different from the way the general public is served. That's also why I have no problem with universities giving funding for religious student groups so long as they give money to any student group which forms under pre-stated guidelines.
| Actually, the widespread legal argument is that government-employed preists are unconstitutional, but no Supreme Court has had the balls to say it, yet…I'm sure clergy from nearby churches would be more than happy to volunteer part of their time. |
That certainly doesn't apply to military personnel with a minority worldview who are posted in areas which are religiously homogenous. It also discriminates against religious groups which have little funds (such as humanists.) Also, if they are not employees of the military, then they don't have to abide by certain rules and the only consequences if they are inappropriate is losing a volunteer gig opposed to a career.
| Why would anyone who is non-religious see a chaplain of any sort? Or did you mean "nontheistic inamtes" who are still religious (or "spiritual")? |
Several of my humanist celebrant colleagues have volunteered as secular chaplains for prisons. (We have to volunteer because they won't hire us since we don't represent a “faith based” group) Also, several other humanist group leaders I know have had prisoners write to their groups seeking fellowship from a distance. Contemplation of the meaning of life and death and the desire for a community of individuals who share one's values and worldview are not exclusive to people who believe in the supernatural.
| Only because superstition is both tolerated and even encouraged in society today. |
The type of supernaturalism which is studied academically is a far removed from the sort of hard-line, ignorant, drivel that is preached by self-taught evangelical. The best that can be said about study is that it is humble because it tends to be educated and contemplative. Jennifer Hecht set out to write a history of atheism and ended up learning just how deep and nuanced the gradation between belief and doubt has been throughout history. She ended up calling her book “Doubt” and herself a “Doubter” rather than an ath |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 04/28/2009 13:00:13 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2009 : 13:48:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Sure, send all the chaplains packing and let the students who are seeking some kind of spirituality follow or create their own lower profile, more grassroots, and less transparent religious entities. |
Nonono, I meant all of the religionists. Ship 'em to Mars colonies or something.| Only because superstition is both tolerated and even encouraged in society today. |
The type of supernaturalism which is studied academically is a far removed from the sort of hard-line, ignorant, drivel that is preached by self-taught evangelical. |
I meant all gradations of superstition. Liberal theists tolerate and encourage superstition as much as radical fundamentalists, they just tolerate lots more different kinds of superstition than the extremists.| Jennifer Hecht set out to write a history of atheism and ended up learning just how deep and nuanced the gradation between belief and doubt has been throughout history. She ended up calling her book “Doubt” and herself a “Doubter” rather than an atheist because she now discourages the polarization of the two extremes. No one position should be encouraged by society, including generalized supernaturalism. |
Well, what can I say but that I strongly disagree, because I think society as a whole should reject superstition in all its forms. We have a moral obligation to believe things only to the extent of the evidence (it's the only way to progress as a society) and superstitious people reject that duty by definition.| Religion is not foolishness. Religious beliefs taken as facts without evidence is foolishness. Considering all religion to merely be blind faith is ignorance. |
You must, again, be using the word "religion" in a different manner from me. I'm not talking about ceremony, I'm talking about faith. And when you boil it all down, all faith is blind (as in, supported by invisible "evidence"). In other words, I can't think of a single religious belief that is not a fact-without-evidence. If you can provide a counter-example, I'm all ears. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2009 : 14:49:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
| If everyone sent all the religionists packing, there would be no need for any secular humanist chaplains. The religious aspects of secular humanism were contrived in order to compete with superstitious religions. Get rid of them all, Epstein can find other work, I'm sure. |
Sure, send all the chaplains packing and let the students who are seeking some kind of spirituality follow or create their own lower profile, more grassroots, and less transparent religious entities. Personally, I think that would make things worse. Universities, like prisons and the military, are unique environments, and so the way students are served should be different from the way the general public is served. That's also why I have no problem with universities giving funding for religious student groups so long as they give money to any student group which forms under pre-stated guidelines. |
How is the university environment unique in that sense? Students can freely seek spirituality outside as well as anyone else.
| Religion is foolishness. The drive to eliminate religion from the world is a reaction to the society-wide embrace of foolishness. |
Religion is not foolishness. Religious beliefs taken as facts without evidence is foolishness. Considering all religion to merely be blind faith is ignorance. |
What is the valid way in which religious beliefs could be taken if not as fact? I'm taking "believe" to mean "to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so." Although believing may not close the door to challenges to the beliefs in question, is one not still making a logical error by giving one unproven idea credence over another unproven idea? |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2009 : 10:25:42 [Permalink]
|
Dave | Nonono, I meant all of the religionists. Ship 'em to Mars colonies or something. |
Dang it, Dave, I thought we were having a serious conversation. Silly me! ;-)
| I meant all gradations of superstition. Liberal theists tolerate and encourage superstition as much as radical fundamentalists, they just tolerate lots more different kinds of superstition than the extremists. |
No, there is a profound difference. The difference is whether the beliefs are held tentatively and humbly or whether they are taken as either facts or even as more real than facts. Humble beliefs held by people who champion healthy amounts of doubt and skepticism are completely different from self-righteous beliefs of fundamentalists. Fundamentalists usually don't even have real faith. They actually think their beliefs are supported by facts, evidence, science. While those with sophisticated faith take their beliefs as ever-evolving thought experiments and subjective experiences which gives them a sense of great meaning in their life but shouldn't influence public policy or be pushed on others.
| Well, what can I say but that I strongly disagree, because I think society as a whole should reject superstition in all its forms. We have a moral obligation to believe things only to the extent of the evidence (it's the only way to progress as a society) and superstitious people reject that duty by definition. |
I totally disagree. We have a moral obligation to accept things as fact to the extent of the the evidence. Belief in the supernatural is fine so long as the believer acknowledges that beliefs are not facts and facts are more reliable and applicable to reality while beliefs are merely for personal use and ever changing.
| You must, again, be using the word "religion" in a different manner from me. I'm not talking about ceremony, I'm talking about faith. And when you boil it all down, all faith is blind (as in, supported by invisible "evidence"). In other words, I can't think of a single religious belief that is not a fact-without-evidence. If you can provide a counter-example, I'm all ears. |
If you are talking about faith, then say faith. Don't say religion. Sorry, Dave, but that's simply inaccurate. Religions have ALWAYS been about community, ceremony, traditions and rituals as well as a set of beliefs and values. That is how it has been defined and studied by scholars and that is the evidence reality throughout history and today.
And, no, not all that is called “faith” is blind. I'd argue that fundamentalists' faith is often supported by false information and false evidence, rather than genuine blind faith. Lots of them actually think evolution is poorly supported and that there is extremely strong evidence for creationism and the Christ story as told by the Gospels. They don't have blind faith, they have been fed bullshit information by leaders, and since many of them want to believe stuff that reinforced their communities and lifestyles and worldview, they remain willfully ignorant of any information which conflicts with that information. There are plenty of examples of atheists who were raised fundamentalist and believed in it until their natural curiosity brought them to learn new information, and as soon as they realized that the info they'd been fed was unreliable and weak, they lost their “faith.” But I'd say they never had real faith.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2009 : 10:47:30 [Permalink]
|
Machi4velli wrote: | How is the university environment unique in that sense? Students can freely seek spirituality outside as well as anyone else. |
University life is for most students a sort of extended adolescence. Obviously there are exceptions, especially among part time, graduate, and older adult students, but student life for full time students just out of HS clearly presents its own lifestyle, culture, and influences. Students typically don't have responsibilities outside of their classes, and they have a lot of free time and their first taste of real freedom.
I will admit that my thoughts on this are influenced by my own personal experiences. I was first exposed to organized freethought in college and it became a lasting part of my life in the form of strong friendships, communities, and even my career. What students get involved with outside of their classes in college can have a lasting impact on society.
| What is the valid way in which religious beliefs could be taken if not as fact? |
Valid? I don't think that word is very applicable to beliefs. Beliefs, opposed to facts, can be harmlessly accepted as personal, tentative conclusions based on subjective experiences. To give an example: Someone who believes that abortion is wrong because each human life is sacred from the point of conception, but who also refrains from using that belief as an argument against legal abortion since laws which apply to everyone should be based on facts, not personal beliefs. There are plenty of examples of these humble ways of believing in pop culture.
| I'm taking "believe" to mean "to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so." |
Yes (what are quoting btw?) and if someone is fully aware that their belief is without absolute proof, opposed to facts which do have objective evidence to back them up, then they will always put facts before beliefs, and thus their beliefs are not harmful. Beliefs only become harmful when believers fool themselves into thinking beliefs are more reliable than facts instead of the other way around.
I fail to see how someone believing in reincarnation or heaven and hell it of itself causes any harm to the world. Other aspects of those kind of beliefs are always necessary to make them harmful to society. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2009 : 13:09:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
No, there is a profound difference. The difference is whether the beliefs are held tentatively and humbly or whether they are taken as either facts or even as more real than facts. Humble beliefs held by people who champion healthy amounts of doubt and skepticism are completely different from self-righteous beliefs of fundamentalists. Fundamentalists usually don't even have real faith. They actually think their beliefs are supported by facts, evidence, science. While those with sophisticated faith take their beliefs as ever-evolving thought experiments and subjective experiences which gives them a sense of great meaning in their life but shouldn't influence public policy or be pushed on others. |
Bolding mine. That's the problem. It's not a virtue.| I totally disagree. We have a moral obligation to accept things as fact to the extent of the the evidence. Belief in the supernatural is fine so long as the believer acknowledges that beliefs are not facts and facts are more reliable and applicable to reality while beliefs are merely for personal use and ever changing. |
So you're saying that these beliefs are fine so long as the person knows the beliefs are not true. These are "beliefs?" I don't know of anyone who holds an opinion that they think is false, marf. And as soon as parents fostering beliefs in the supernatural in their kids is the exception and not the norm, you can tell me about these beliefs being "merely for personal use."
Besides, I disagree with your statement even if these beliefs were wholly personal. You can't build anything on them. They are society's dead weight, not its wings.| If you are talking about faith, then say faith. Don't say religion. Sorry, Dave, but that's simply inaccurate. Religions have ALWAYS been about community, ceremony, traditions and rituals as well as a set of beliefs and values. That is how it has been defined and studied by scholars and that is the evidence reality throughout history and today. |
The part that PZ Myers and I object to is the faith. You'll note that I'm not advocating the elimination of chess clubs and tearing down the VFW halls, or demanding an end to highschool graduation ceremonies and Sunday socials. We don't have any problem with community, ceremony, traditions, rituals or values. There are plenty of groups which encourage all those things, but we don't call them religions. Religions distinguish themselves from Dungeons & Dragons gaming groups (which have nearly all those qualities, too) by being primarily about faith. Sure, there's the occassional group we would all call a "religion" which doesn't emphasize faith, but they are few and far-between, and the everyday meaning of the word "religion" really doesn't include them. Don't make this about the exceptions.
And PZ wasn't calling for an end to university chaplains because of community, ceremony (etc.), he was calling for an end to them because they encourage irrationality.| And, no, not all that is called “faith” is blind. I'd argue that fundamentalists' faith is often supported by false information and false evidence, rather than genuine blind faith. Lots of them actually think evolution is poorly supported and that there is extremely strong evidence for creationism and the Christ story as told by the Gospels. They don't have blind faith, they have been fed bullshit information by leaders, and since many of them want to believe stuff that reinforced their communities and lifestyles and worldview, they remain will |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Harvard Chaplain supports death for apostates
