News-Record.com

Seems that Ms. Davis has some other rather interesting ideas of what philosophies are acceptable for kids.

Quite a story, overall... :>

That's what happens when women are allowed to seek elective positions. And you want Hillary to be President . . . ?

Sounds like the same sort or rhetoric we are hearing from the global warming, er, climate change advocacy folks, who say that those who are sceptical of global warming are like holocaust deniers. Scientists who suggest that there might be flaws in the global warming theory are in jeopardy of losing funding or even their positions. At least the Illinoise Rep. has no authority (or design, apparently) to keep the athiest from spounting his nonsense.

Further, don't we all agree that ideas have consequences. Shouldn't we expect people who don't believe in God to act differently than those who do? Indeed, Christians are routinely criticized for not "acting like" Christians, i.e., acting like non-Christians. I infer from this critism that there is something socially beneficial about acting like a Christian. Are there similar benefits from being an athiest?

It's dumb to try to compare this to the debate on global warming, but oh well.

As for the original question, whether we should be surprised by stupid remarks by elected officials, the answer has to be no. My favorite: when I lived in Chicago, an alderman objected to the hiring of female police officers because he believed they'd miss work frequently due to their "minister periods."

Of course this Monique Davis doesn't understand much about religion and law in America. Yes, this is a highly religious country, and as the president of Temple Emanuel, that's fine with me. But Davis obviously doesn't understand that the U.S. Constitution's establishment clause has generally and widely been interpreted to imply both freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion.

Actually, some of the most ethical people I've ever met have been atheists. One of them is my father, who's baffled by those whose ethics are due to the threat of eternal damnation. He believes one should act ethically toward others because it's the right thing to do, period.

"some of the most ethical people I've ever met have been atheists.'

Odd that somebody who is prominent in a religious institution that is a caretaker of the Law should extol the virtues of disbelief in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. I guess liberalism trumps God's honor. The most wretched breech of ethics, Mr. Brod, is to deny the existence of Jehovah!

As I have pointed out before, no one - atheists, humanists, liberals, conservatives, Buddhists, etc. can live one day, outside a jail cell or as a non-sociopath, without adhearing to the Law of God. And it IS the Law of God. All this jive from atheists about loving humankind, their family and friends is drawn from the Scriptures, NT and OT. ALL their nice attitudes and social ethics is brrowed (stolen) from the truths of Scripture and the Law. And so, to deny this fact, and deny the existence of the supreme Lawgiver and Source of all genuine love, is the ultimate and most grievous sin.

Monique Davis may have been worked-up and out of line procedurally, but she was right is saying that atheism is dangerous. She is spot on! Any attempt to advance the cause of denying God and His Law/Word is the supreme act of sabotage in any culture. ALL of the things that make a culture (see Deuteronomy 28 - 30) great and prosperous, or cause it to fall are contigent upon its acknowledgement and love for God. It is dangerous, indeed, to seek to advance the cause of atheism.

Per Robert Ingersoll:

An infinite God ought to be able to protect himself, without going into partnership with State Legislatures. Surely he ought not act so that laws become necessary to keep him from being laughed at. No one thinks of protecting Shakespeare from ridiculy by the threat of fine or imprisonment. If there exists an infinite Being, he does not need our help - we need not waste our engergies in his defense.

"Odd that somebody who is prominent in a religious institution that is a caretaker of the Law should extol the virtues of disbelief in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob."

Looks like there is a serious deficiency in your reading skills - AGAIN - Nikos. Andrew said nothing about "virtues of disbelief." Only about the character of some people he knows who don't believe what you do.

Even a 1st grader could read between the lines here, Namtac. The import was crystal clear. He obviously has bought into the liberal idea that every belief system - and unbelief system - is just fine. Faith in God; or no faith in God; doesn't make any difference. Even his atheist father is a great guy (which he may well be). I understood his point very well indeed.

"As I have pointed out before, no one - atheists, humanists, liberals, conservatives, Buddhists, etc. can live one day, outside a jail cell or as a non-sociopath, without adhearing to the Law of God. And it IS the Law of God. All this jive from atheists about loving humankind, their family and friends is drawn from the Scriptures, NT and OT. ALL their nice attitudes and social ethics is brrowed (stolen) from the truths of Scripture and the Law. "

How do you account for the behaviors of people that lived long before the NT or OT were part of literature? What about people that have never seen or heard of the scriptures? There are people all over the world living ethical lives that have never been exposed to these belief systems. There are religious writings that pre-date all Jewish/Christian writings and they teach very similar ethical beliefs about living.

"How do you account for the behaviors of people that lived long before the NT or OT were part of literature?"

My guess would be the way he accounts for most everything: Magical thinking. Pointing out that people who never heard of his gods and the "laws" handed down by magic to "Sonny boy" Moses have some moral rules in common with his book's rules (but by all means not all of them) makes no difference. They couldn't have come to be in ANY other way than by his magical method.

Another thing that my father taught me was the wisdom of this old saying: "Never argue with an idiot in public, lest passersby be unable to tell the difference." So I'm out. Bravo to Holden, Liz, and namtac. Shalom to all.

Professor Brod:

Given your status and education, one would expect a higher level of discourse from you. We don't allow our children to use the "s" word, "stupid", or call others idiots. These are words reserved for use by people without anything of substance to say. Certainly we should expect better from influential public figures.

Andrew:

Why is it "dumb" to compare the two arguments. I need more than just ad hominems and certainly expect them from those with more than the meanest intelligence. Freedom of speech also appears in our first amendment (along side freedom of religion, or as you suggest, from religion). Should we be any less hostile to attempts to silence those who are sceptical of the latest zeit geist like global warming?

As to the second point, many hospitals, colleges, universities and charities have been founded by Christians and Jews as an outward symbol of their beliefs. These societies have benefitted people greatly. How many hospitals, etc. are founded by even "ethical" athiests? The bottom line is that the world would be immensely worse off without those who believe in God.

Finally, how do we tell if someone is "ethical"? What do we compare them to? Your opinion as to whether someone is ethical, is, hopefully, based on something besides your own opinion. Could it be based on, say, the Torah? And if so, haven't you just proven my point.

"How do you account for the behaviors of people that lived long before the NT or OT . . . There are religious writings that pre-date all Jewish/Christian writings and they teach very similar ethical beliefs about living."

This comment was the most intelligent and civil response above. You bring up some very good points, Liz. Although it is impossible to prove anthropologically, the teaching of Torah and the NT, and of orthodox Jewish and Christian theologians, is that the Law is eternal, and that where ever and however it is known and practiced across the millennia, it is because as St. Paul says, "it was written upon their heart." That is, it is intrinsic and organic to the human soul, and is woven into the very fabric of existence.

And ehy is the biblical rendition of the Law unique and crucial? Moses' revelation was unique in that it was in the context of the Creator's being in the very Presence of the Israelites. He gave the first Table of the Law to reveal that the Law emanated from Him (many accept the second Table, but not the first). This "framed" the Law so that it was given in a covenantal milieu, by means of which it was intended to influence mankind into the limitless future. And, of course, Messiah said that He did not come to destroy or abrogate the Law, but to fulfill and complete it. Even Islam admits to being heir to the Law, on which Sharia, they believe, is based. This is all very strong testimony to the universality and divine origin of the Law.

“Another thing that my father taught me was the wisdom of this old saying: "Never argue with an idiot in public, lest passersby be unable to tell the difference."

Mr. Brod, Here is a quote that easily trumps the above “authority:”

The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” It is not the one who rejects and opposes atheism that is an “idiot,” according to the Tenach, but the one who embraces or supports it – whoever that person may be – nice, ethical or whatever. And I thought this comment by “anonymous” said it better than I could:

“We don't allow our children to use the "s" word, "stupid", or call others idiots. These are words reserved for use by people without anything of substance to say. I must say I was quite amazed to see a synagogue officer chumming it up with those who have no problem with atheism. I support freedom of speech for EVERYONE, even atheists, but I vehemently oppose (civilly) atheists, and their ideology. Are you a religious atheist or agnostic? Or, do you love and live by Torah and the God of Torah, but just got mixed up on this issue? As Joshua said, ”Choose you this day whom you will serve.” As for me and my house we will serve the Lord.

"Bravo to Holden, Liz, and namtac. Shalom to all."

you have applauded two atheists and one who advertises for a church who is headed by a homosexual minister. i find this more than interesting considering you are the president of temple emanuel. like nikos i am curious to know if you are a believer in G-d or something other.

I am always surprised when Christians slam atheists on this blog. Any atheist who posts here is still in the conversation.

Anonymous:

Why are you surprised about Christians "slamming" Atheists? Are Christians supposed to act in a certain way, i.e, be opinionless dormats for the rest of the world. Disagreement is not necessarily "slamming" anyone. By the way, do you have a problem with Atheists or anyone els slamming Christians?

You make my earlier point that we expect Christians to act "different" or better than non-Christians don't we. Ergo, wouldn't the world be better if there were Christians?

I was more surprised at her saying it in her official capacity, in 2008, when people are so PC-conscious even in heated debate. I do agree that Christians are sometimes unreasonably held to higher standards. Then again, "suffering" is nothing new for Christians.

When a Christian is derisive or condescending of another person, it reflects poorly on the Christian.

Nikos said:
"That is, it is intrinsic and organic to the human soul, and is woven into the very fabric of existence."

This says to me that the desire for and basic knowledge of ethical living is something we are born with--the inherent worth and dignity of each and every person. This is something that we can agree on!

Nancy said:
"Then again, "suffering" is nothing new for Christians."

Suffering is nothing new for anyone who holds steady to their beliefs and truly lives them. History is full of religious faiths that have suffered at the hands of others that did not share their beliefs. Even in pre-Christian eras, Pagan sects took over other sects and persecuted those that did not follow their beliefs. I don't know of a religious tradition that does not have a history of persecuting others or of being persecuted themselves.

"I am always surprised when Christians slam atheists on this blog".......

i'm assuming that is a response to my post reflecting my curiosity of a man "of the cloth" seemingly siding with non believers in God and those who preach 'another' gospel. if you consider my comments 'slamming' then you are pretty thin skinned (imo) and for the record i was not slamming anyone , simply expressing my pov civilly.

Buz, I certainly understand that from your POV, I am
being thin-skinned. However, please know you did not hurt my feelings one bit.

Pretty hot-button stuff.

The representative was clearly taken away emotionally. Since when, in civil discourse, is there so incredibly dangerous (and, by implication, proper to make a target of for shouting down or gagging) an IDEA, especially any intelligently presented IDEA (even if done so less than perfectly)? Short of outright sedition, the notorious cry of fire in a crowded theater, concrete plans for acts of violence, etc., the Supreme Court has seen fit to support the Constitution's guarantees of liberty in all thought and most forms and places of speech (the latter more often associated with "expression" and particularly political sorts). Woe to us if the likes of 1984 befall us, instead. Public officials cannot be trusted to decide the anointed appropriate forms of thought and philosophy for legions of children, lest we all be treated as wards of the state!

The argument that all truth is the truth of someone's particular faith or god is begging the question...there's no way to argue it, since it presumes all knowledge and argument to start!
Hence, it is truly a non sequitur. Wittgenstein would consign it to the dustbin of silence.

I, too, have known many an atheist, including those with open checkbooks for fine humanitarian causes, hospitals among them. I don't know Bill Gates, but he and Warren Buffett are the largest philanthropic donors in the world, and both are admitted non-believers.

Ethics have been practiced and theorized quite well throughout many cultures with no reference or requirement for any god or gods at all. Not believing in a deity (and I don't see myself converting via any logic or compelling reason) has not hampered my relationships with thousands of people, and I strive to live by the highest strictures of ethical conduct.

The real issue is always trying to discern for oneself how much more one can do, while protecting those most reliant upon one's resources and time. Would we each had coffers much more, that we could do that much more good. Or that those with the most somehow had not received so much rather than having it shared among more of the poorest to begin with? Witness the inanity of the current worldwide food shortage. For what? For ethanol? What does the Bible say about the use of natural resources for biofuels?