Sunday School

Sunday School September 17th 2023

Viewing 6 posts - 16 through 21 (of 21 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #50257
    Participant

    However, that statement is a prime example of a non sequitur fallacy. It does not follow that the criticism of Islam, however hostile the vocal or written appraisal of it may sound, has anything to do with a fear or dislike of even a single Muslim.

    Why do people keep conflating two separate things?

    Three events happen:
    Bill punches James.
    Alex punches Marshall.
    Liam punches Pat.

    With only that info, we could call them all assault, yeah? Unless we realize that even though there is a cosmetic similarity between these acts, the nature of them is quite different. Bill punched James because James came at him with a knife and it was legitimate self-defence. Alex punched Marshall because it was a boxing match, so it’s considered sport, not assault. Liam, however, punched Pat in a domestic dispute and it is and assault.

    There is no non-sequitur there. Not only is there no non-sequitur, but if we reexamine each separate event, we can realize there may actually be some degree of overlap or ambiguity between where the act of punching a person is assault or sport or self-defence.

    Likewise with criticism of Islam and Muslims. It is not one or the other that it must be fair game or bigotry across the board. We can distinguish between the two things instead of making wholesale proclamations.

    #50267
    TheEncogitationer
    Participant

    Unseen,

    The Freedom to Harm article raises an interesting question in my mind. Atheism may not be a religion per se, but it is a religious position (a position on religion), and the day may come when we want to assert a right to a “religious exemption” using the same sort of law that in Mississippi and elsewhere gives religious people an exemption.

    Let’s suppose a state brings back starting classrooms with a prayer or an oath like the swearing allegiance to the flag I can still remember from my early school days.

    We could then claim an exemption for our children under the same sort of religious exemption that allows people to exempt themselves from vaccination?

    I always look at both restrictions and requirements from the “What’s good for the goose (you know the rest)” angle.

    I’m pretty sure this will stir up a discussion.

    Here’s the problem: You can’t have Equal Rights And Justice Before The Law and special cut-outs in the law for religion, politics, or arbitrary, immutable “protected classes,” not in the same mind or in the same society.

    As long as Gummint Skoolz exist and operate under the doctrine of in loco parentis (acting in a parent’s stead,) they do have to keep all children safe from infectious diseases. Hence, I see no problem with requiring vaccination to be inside of an educational facility. *

    Where I differ with many is with the notion of State-sponsored religious exercise, State-sponsored pledges of allegiance, and the whole notion of State-compelled attendance of Gummint Skoolz. (The last was first proposed by Martin Luther as a tool of religious indoctrination and brought to the American Colonies in 1642 by the Puritans in Massachusetts for the same indoctrination purpose.)

    No State-sponsored or State-compelled attendance of indoctrination should be imposed against any parent or child, regardless of belief or unbelief.

    Laws should equally apply to all and laws should be limited to protecting the Individual Rights of all. If a law equally applied infringes Individual Rights it should be repealed by Legislatures, vetoed by the Executive, or overturned in the Courts.

    *(How this applies with COVID-19 is another matter also. Very few children caught COVID-19 and fewer still died compared with the millions of adults, which is almost the opposite of the Spanish Flu of 1918, which primarily affected children.)

    • This reply was modified 2 years, 8 months ago by TheEncogitationer. Reason: Addendum
    • This reply was modified 2 years, 8 months ago by TheEncogitationer. Reason: Correction of word
    #50270

    Just rereading a book that mentions the Puritans. It is over 100 years old now.  From ‘The Necessity of Atheism’ by Dr. D.M. Brooks;

    When the Puritan Fathers landed in this country, they began an existence that has revealed to the world for all time the value of a “burning religious zeal.” In a sense they showed this zeal in regard to the Witchcraft Delusion.

    Coming as they did, to avoid religious persecution in their own native country, they should have established a colony which for meekness and beneficence would have shown the value of a true religious fervor. Instead, the persecuted immediately became the persecutors—again proving the worth of a mind that is imbued with a dominating religious zeal.

    Secondly, the principal vocation and recreation of these Fathers was their religion. It is only reasonable to suppose that in such a truly religious atmosphere morality should have reached its zenith of perfection. What actually happened is well illustrated in a very informative and case reporting work by Rupert Hughes, the novelist, “Facts About Puritan Morals”:

    “Everybody seems to take it for granted that the behavior of the early settlers of New England was far above normal. Nobody seems to take the trouble to verify this assumption. The facts are amazingly opposite. The Puritans admitted incessantly that they were exceedingly bad. The records sustain them…. The Puritans wallowed in every known form of wickedness to a disgusting degree. Considering the extremely meagre population of the early colonies, they were appallingly busy in evil. I do not refer to the doctrinal crimes that they artificially construed and dreaded and persecuted with such severity that England had to intervene: the crimes of being a Quaker, a Presbyterian, which they punished with lash, with the gallows, and with exile. I do not refer to their inclusion of lawyers among keepers of disorderly houses, and people of ill-fame. I refer to what every people, savage or civilized, has forbidden by law: murder, arson, adultery, infanticide, drunkenness, theft, rape, sodomy, and bestiality. The standard of sexual morality among the unmarried youth was lower in Puritan England than it is today for both sexes.

    “It is important that the truth be known. Is religion, is church membership, a help to virtue? The careless will answer without hesitation, Yes! of course. The statistics, when they are not smothered, cry No!

    “If church-going keeps down sin, then the Puritans should have been sinless because they compelled everybody to go to church. They actually regarded absence from church as worse than adultery or theft. They dragged prisoners from jail under guard to church. They whipped old men and women bloodily for staying away. They fined the stay-at-homes and confiscated their goods and their cattle to bankruptcy. When all else failed they used exile. Disobedience of parents was voted a capital offense and so was Sabbath-breaking even to the extent of picking up sticks.

    “Yet, as a result of all this religion, the sex life of the Puritan was abnormal…. Their sex sins were enormous. Their form of spooning was ‘bundling,’ an astonishing custom that permitted lovers to lie down in bed together in the dark, under covers. They were supposed to keep all their clothes on, but there must have been some mistake somewhere for the number of illegitimate children and premature children was stupefying. Dunton tells us that there hardly passed a court day in Massachusetts without some convictions for fornication, and although the penalty was fine and whipping, the crime was very frequent.

    “Nothing, I repeat, would have surprised the Puritans more than to learn that their descendants accepted them as saints. They wept, wailed, and refused to be comforted. They were terrified and horrified by their own wickedness. The harsh, granite Puritan of our sermons, on statues and frescoes, was unknown in real life. The real Puritan Zealot spent an incredible amount of his time in weeping like a silly old woman. Famous Puritan preachers boast of lying on a floor all night and drenching the carpet with their tears. Their church services according to their own accounts, must have been cyclones of hysteria, with the preacher sobbing and streaming, and the congregation in a state of ululant frenzy, with men and women fainting on all sides.

    “The authorities are the best possible, not the reports of travelers or the satires of enemies, but the statements of the Puritans themselves, governors, eminent clergymen, and the official records of the colonies. Hereafter, anybody who refers to the Puritans as people of exemplary life, or morality above the ordinary, is either ignorant or a liar. In our own day, there is an enormous amount of crime and vice among the clergy. Most horrible murders abound, by ministers, of ministers, and for ministers. Published and unpublished adulteries, seductions, rapes, elopements, embezzlements, homosexual entanglements, bigamies, financial turpitudes, are far more numerous than they should be in proportion to the clerical population.

    “Governor Bradford breaks out in his heart-broken bewilderment and unwittingly condemns the whole spirit and pretense of Puritanism. The Puritans fled from the wicked old world for purity’s sake, they were relentless in prayer, they were absolutely under the control of the church and clergy, and yet, their Governor says that sin flourished more in Plymouth Colony than in vile London!

    “If our people are wicked nowadays because they lack religion, what shall be said of the Puritans who were far more wicked, though they lived, moved, and had their being in an atmosphere so surcharged with religion that children and grown persons lay awake all night, sobbing and rolling on the floor in search of secret sins that they could not remember well enough to repent? It is well to remember that there has perhaps never been in history a community in which Christianity had so perfect a laboratory in which to experiment.

    “The very purpose of the Colony was announced as the propagation of the Gospel. The Bible was the law book. The Colony lacked all the things on which preachers lay the blame for ungodliness; yet, every infamy known to history, from fiendish torture to luxurious degeneracy flourished amazingly. This ancient and impregnable fact has been ignored. The records have been studiously veiled in a cloud of misty reverence, and concealed under every form of rhetoric known to apologists.”

    We can only conclude that religion does not seem to act as an effectual check against sexual immorality. Furthermore, high moral principles can be inculcated without any religious background, and have been in spite of religion. A man who is moral because of his reason and his sensibilities, and his comprehension of the necessary social structure of the world is a far better citizen than the man who feebly attempts a moral life because he expects a mythical existence in a delusional heaven or wishes to avoid hell-fire. A secular code of morals based upon the best experiences of communal and national life would place its highest obligation not to a deity but to the welfare of all fellowmen.

    #50273
    TheEncogitationer
    Participant

    Reg,

    I think you’ve posted the Dr. D.M. Brooks passage before, but it is well worth re-reading, especially for all who like Peyton Place-style trashy beach novels. 🌤 📚 😎

    Not that there’s anything wrong with Sodomy, “homosexual entanglements,” or “bigamies” among consenting adults, of course, but doing these things while professing a morality that condemns these things is definitely not a good ethic.

    I mean, if I condemned Sodomy and then told my partner: “so do me,” or if I condemned Bigamy while taking two spouses, that wouldn’t be very big of me, right?

    😉😁

    #50275

    @Enco – Yes, I think I did post it previously. I re-read the book every few years. Same with Fear  and Loathing in LV, just to make sure I am living correctly 🙂

    As for what two or more people do together as consenting adults is of no interest or concern to me unless I am one of them. Here in Ireland the penalty for bigamy is two wives!

    #50281
    TheEncogitationer
    Participant

    Reg,

    “It’s still not weird enough for me.”–Hunter S. Thompson. 😱 😁

    As for what two or more people do together as consenting adults is of no interest or concern to me unless I am one of them. Here in Ireland the penalty for bigamy is two wives!

    Polygamous marriage would not be a problem in a free society…but Polygamous divorce might be.

    We might need to build high-capacity divorce courts, then charge a user fee for each spouse a person has, then establish the rule of “loser pays all” to discourage such cases from coming to the docket in the first place. 😁

Viewing 6 posts - 16 through 21 (of 21 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.