Root Of All Evil on Network 2 7pm 5/01/09

Zamboni

I cannot believe they are showing it. :eek:
Fair play to RTE for having a set.

The complaints will roll in.

Chardee MacDennis

shocked RTE are this open minded - loving it...

meldrew

Hopefully they'll list it under "factual" ! Listen out to Joe Duffy tomorrow theres bound to be loads of outraged aul wans when they see Dawkins in Lourdes!

MackDeToaster

My ould fella was watching it there, in total agreement with the D., tut tutting at the hypocritical evangelicals and mad muslims going on about letting the women dress like whores in the street. He even agreed with the tea-pot hypothesis, but yet he'll be back in mass on Sunday. Religion is just a cultural/social crutch after all, what else is there to do on Sunday

D.S.

Fair play to RTE for showing this. Think I'll actually send RTE a mail to commend them.

I am sure there will be loads of complaints but Dawkins hit the nail on the head for me. His book is a must read also for anyone interested..

Don't know about anyone else but thought he came across as slightly arrogant in some of his conversations???

sink

I don't think he should have gotten as confrontational and angry with Ted Haggard even if he is the biggest hypocrite on earth. Dawkins just came across as arrogant and almost fundamentalist like. But the program is still well worth watching.

MatthewVII

In fairness, he couldn't have just let Haggard get away with his patronising, smug tone of voice and small-minded opinions without showing some sort of resistance. I think it's hilarious when R.D. raises his voice. He's such an @ss-kicker

*sets alarm to remind about Joe Duffy*

toiletduck

All the usual 'Marys' who ring Joe Duffy will have missed it, Nationwide was on one!

D.S.

I thought it was more a battle of the egos than an intellectual debate when it came to the Haggard interview..I found Dawkins a little patronising with a number of his interviewees..

That, clearly, in no way detracts from the validity of his argument...

kelly1

I only got to see the 2nd half of the program.

As usual Mr. Dawkins generalizes too frequently and is uncritical in his thinking.

It is certainly true that religion has been (ab)used to justify violence but that alone doesn't make all religion bad does it? It's very easy to pick the example of the Muslim extremist who believes Islam should be spread throughout the world by force but then he conveniently ignores the excellent self-sacrificing work done by missionaries and Christian aid organizations to bring relief to suffering people.

He also conveniently ignores the evil acts of genocide commited by atheist communists.

If everyone lived according to Christian principles, the world would be a far better place in which to live.

MackDeToaster

:rolleyes: I'm new here, but cmon, honestly, the evil atheist communists canard ??

MatthewVII

kelly1 wrote: »

I only got to see the 2nd half of the program.

As usual Mr. Dawkins generalizes too frequently and is uncritical in his thinking.

It is certainly true that religion has been (ab)used to justify violence but that alone doesn't make all religion bad does it? It's very easy to pick the example of the Muslim extremist who believes Islam should be spread throughout the world by force but then he conveniently ignores the excellent self-sacrificing work done by missionaries and Christian aid organizations to bring relief to suffering people.

He also conveniently ignores the evil acts of genocide commited by atheist communists.

The argument isn't entirely that religiosity or atheism causes evil, it's that religiosity causes small-mindedness and a propensity to ignore common sense, a result of which is the evil that ensues from Muslim extremists, terrible domestic policy and suppression of basic human rights.

kelly1

kelly1 wrote: »

He also conveniently ignores the evil acts of genocide commited by atheist communists.

But genocidal communist atheists didn't do their deeds in the name of atheism, did they?

But, I have to agree with you. Religion does instill a will in some people to do damage to society in the name of their religion; but it's certainly not common with religious people, extremely uncommon probably. And it's definitely not indicative of religious people as a whole.

I've come to live by a new motto: As long as fundamentalist, or any other kind for that matter, religious people don't confront me, and don't try to influence my beliefs; as long as they don't affect me in any sense that is important to me: Then I can live with them. I certainly wouldn't interfer with their beliefs. So be it (Ironic, amen is hebrew for 'so be it') is all I can say.

Nothing annoys me more than both fundamentalist bible bashers and militant atheists.

MatthewVII

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

as long as they don't affect me in any sense that is important to me: Then I can live with them. I certainly wouldn't interfer with their beliefs. So be it (Ironic, amen is hebrew for 'so be it') is all I can say.

Agreed, I fully accept that people want to believe in God and am perfectly happy to let them do so. I only get annoyed when Catholic ethos influences government policy and inflicts itself on the rest of us.

MatthewVII

MatthewVII wrote: »

Agreed, I fully accept that people want to believe in God and am perfectly happy to let them do so. I only get annoyed when Catholic ethos influences government policy and inflicts itself on the rest of us.

I couldn't agree more. The government, and all of it's decisions, in every single Country, should be completely and absolutely secularist. It's completely unfair that in most Countries it isn't.

What I find amusing is that Americas founding fathers were mostly atheist or agnostic, they founded the Country to be a secularist one; but yet we see 'In God we trust' on their coins and whatnot. Shows what respect they have for their constitution I suppose.

PDN

MackDeToaster wrote: »

:rolleyes: I'm new here, but cmon, honestly, the evil atheist communists canard ??

If it looks like a duck ....

brianthebard

PDN wrote: »

If it looks like a duck ....

it might be a strawduck (decoy)?

Húrin

MatthewVII wrote: »

The argument isn't entirely that religiosity or atheism causes evil, it's that religiosity causes small-mindedness and a propensity to ignore common sense, a result of which is the evil that ensues from Muslim extremists, terrible domestic policy and suppression of basic human rights.

What is common sense? If it is anything more than a set of culture-specific prejudices, what monopoly does religion have on ignoring it?

Without Christianity, especially Protestantism, there would be no guaranteed human rights. In Christian belief, states only last a few hundred years. Christians however, live eternally, so their rights are indeed more important than those of a state.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

But genocidal communist atheists didn't do their deeds in the name of atheism, did they?

That's a very simplistic understanding of history.

Relatively few of the atrocities commited by Christian tyrants were done in the name of God. Rather, there is typically a pretence that what is being done is in accordance with his will, or Christian morals even, even if not ostensibly in the name of advancing the Gospels.

Stalin was just the same. His atrocities were done in accordance with "progress", his methods uninhibited by notions of divinely-ordained moral law.

Húrin

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I couldn't agree more. The government, and all of it's decisions, in every single Country, should be completely and absolutely secularist. It's completely unfair that in most Countries it isn't.

What I find amusing is that Americas founding fathers were mostly atheist or agnostic, they founded the Country to be a secularist one; but yet we see 'In God we trust' on their coins and whatnot. Shows what respect they have for their constitution I suppose.

I agree. However, I find the American tendency to deify their "founding fathers" (language remeniscent of the Old Testament view of Abraham) and their way of treating the words of their constitution as holy scripture to be disturbing.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

If it looks like a duck ....

Then you should perhaps smell it. The duck could be from Bombay after all.

pH

Still feeding the same old tiresome trolls are we?

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055253389

bnt

If you folks saw the program, then surely you saw the part where Dawkins complained about the title? Channel 4 imposed it on the show, and he had to fight to get the question mark on the end. He didn't make a programme called "The Root Of All Evil".

Húrin

Húrin wrote: »

That's a very simplistic understanding of history.

Yes, I was over simplifying history. I've no doubt that such dictators had complex motivations for carrying out what they did, and perhaps atheism was one of these motivaitons; personally I don't have the historical knowledge to come to any conclusions about it. But, I still believe many more atrocities have been carried out under the cape of religion. What happened in South America is a prime example; but, perhaps I'm just bitter about what happened there as I've an interest in it. So any conclusions I come to about that will no doubt be biased.

Húrin wrote: »

Relatively few of the atrocities commited by Christian tyrants were done in the name of God. Rather, there is typically a pretence that what is being done is in accordance with his will, or Christian morals even, even if not ostensibly in the name of advancing the Gospels.

Perhaps you're right. But, I believe very few atrocities have been actually commited for the sake of God, I personally think that his name was used (and is still) as an excuse; that the tyrants and whatnot had other motivations. But, even the ability to use religion as an excuse is just as bad as doing it in the name of religion.

newbie2

I enjoyed the prog. I tried reading the book but was beaten back by the long sentences and lack of pictures.:eek: I do believe however that he seems to try too hard to convince people that religion is bad. I'm a firm believer in non believing - but i also think that people have a right to believe in whatever they like - no matter how stupid it is..... IMO

Dave!

newbie2 wrote: »

I enjoyed the prog. I tried reading the book but was beaten back by the long sentences and lack of pictures.:eek: I do believe however that he seems to try too hard to convince people that religion is bad. I'm a firm believer in non believing - but i also think that people have a right to believe in whatever they like - no matter how stupid it is..... IMO

I've never seen you here before, welcome

eoin5

newbie2 wrote: »

I enjoyed the prog. I tried reading the book but was beaten back by the long sentences and lack of pictures.:eek: I do believe however that he seems to try too hard to convince people that religion is bad. I'm a firm believer in non believing - but i also think that people have a right to believe in whatever they like - no matter how stupid it is..... IMO

I agree that people should believe whatever they like but its they actions they take because of their beliefs is the tough part. Every set of beliefs can be taken on its own merit. None of my RC relations could be called religious extremists but I feel very disappointed when they indoctrinate their children with this garbage. What many people call harmless I call abuse, thats my opinion.

Rb

kelly1 wrote: »

If everyone lived according to Christian principles, the world would be a far better place in which to live.

Rofl.

If everyone lived according to Muslim principles, the world would be a far better place in which to live.

If everyone lived according to Jewish principles, the world would be a far better place in which to live.

If everyone lived according to the principles of Scientology, the world would be a far better place in which to live.

Why?

Because each teaches to take care of those in your group, and destroy those who aren't so of course if everyone was in the same "group", things would be a lot better than what we currently have i.e loads of different groups killing eachother.

Then you should define what is "better"?

Undoubtedly if stem cell research got the go ahead, we'd see much more progress in modern medicine, yet due to the role of Christianity in the USA they're not allowed do so. The one thing they're saying *could* cure such horrific things as cancer, and they're not allowing it to be researched, developed and used because their "Lord" says it's killing babies?

So would it be better off all Christian? No, I don't really think so.

However, Christianity is much more progressive than Islam, for example. So yes, the world may be more peaceful, but depending on your definition it could be a whole lot worse if Christianity was fully spread.

Dades

Húrin wrote: »

Without Christianity, especially Protestantism, there would be no guaranteed human rights.

Especially for homosexuals - a guaranteed right to discrimination!

Tim Robbins

kelly1 wrote: »

I only got to see the 2nd half of the program.

As usual Mr. Dawkins generalizes too frequently and is uncritical in his thinking.

It's called atheist propaganda. You take the very easiest argument from your opponent and argue it. Then you add some trendy music for all the pro-atheist bits and haunting stuff for anything to do with Religion.

I wish they'd shown the atheist tapes, with Jonathan Millar. A far more intellectual piece which even includes Dawkins himself.

brianthebard

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Perhaps you're right. But, I believe very few atrocities have been actually commited for the sake of God, I personally think that his name was used (and is still) as an excuse; that the tyrants and whatnot had other motivations. But, even the ability to use religion as an excuse is just as bad as doing it in the name of religion.

That's the worst anti-religion spiel yet; because someone can use religion as an excuse for a war, that makes it bad? So if I use the green movement as an excuse to bomb a country, the green movement is bad? Or vegetarianism? Your argument makes no sense.

PDN

Dades wrote: »

Especially for homosexuals - a guaranteed right to discrimination!

Here's an interesting project. Get a black & white map of the world with national boundaries marked. Leave white all the countries that have the most liberal laws concerning homosexuality. Then colour in pink all the countries where homosexuality was legally proscribed up to the last 40 years or so. Then colour in dark red all the countries where homosexuality is still illegal or where homosexuals regularly suffer violence or severe discrimination.

Now get another black and white map of the world with national boundaries marked. Leave white all the countries that have experienced a dominant cultural Protestant influence for more than 200 years (eg Reformation Europe, Scandanavia, colonies in North America, Australasia and South Africa). Then colour in pink all the countries whose dominant cultural influence was Catholic or Orthodox Christianity. Then colour in dark red all those countries where Christianity has little cultural effect on the majority population or is a recent transplant.

There will be a few differences between the two maps (I'm thinking Jamaica, Japan, Cuba & Russia). But overall they will be very similar.

PDN

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

What I find amusing is that Americas founding fathers were mostly atheist or agnostic, they founded the Country to be a secularist one; but yet we see 'In God we trust' on their coins and whatnot. Shows what respect they have for their constitution I suppose.

I think you're in danger of creating an urban legend here.

Four of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were current or former full-time preachers, and the others were, for the most part, active churchgoers and contributed significantly to their churches both with contributions as well as their service as lay leaders. The signers were members of religious denominations at a rate that was significantly higher than average for the American Colonies during the late 1700s.

A few of of the founding fathers were very critical of organised religion (eg Jefferson) and some were Deists, but it is a total fabrication to state that they were mostly atheists and agnostics.

The Country was founded to be secular in the sense that no one denomination or religion would be supported by the state and thereby infringe on the liberty of all citizens (well, white ones at least) to hold whatever religious belief they chose.

I quote from a letter written by John Adams to his wife in 1774 describing how the Founding Fathers conducted themselves in the Continental Congress:

When the Congress met, Mr. Cushing made a motion that it should be opened with prayer. It was opposed by Mr. Jay of New York and Mr. Rutledge of South Carolina because we were so divided in religious sentiments — some Episcopalians, some Quakers, some Anabaptists, some Presbyterians, and some Congregationalists — that we could not join in the same act of worship.

Mr. Samuel Adams arose and said that he was no bigot, and could hear a prayer from any gentleman of piety and virtue who was at the same time a friend to his country. He moved that Mr. Duche, an Episcopal clergyman, might read prayers to Congress the next morning. The motion was seconded and passed in the affirmative.

...Accordingly, next morning the Rev. Duche appeared with his Episcopal vestments and read the 85th Psalm. I never saw a greater effect produced upon an audience. It seemed as if heaven had ordained that psalm to be read on that morning.

George Washington was kneeling there, alongside him Patrick Henry, James Madison, and John Hancock. By their side there stood, bowed in reverence, the Puritan patriots of New England, who at that moment had reason to believe that an armed soldiery was wasting their humble households. They prayed fervently for America, for Congress, for the Province of Massachusetts Bay, and especially for the town of Boston [whose port had been closed and in which British troops were being quartered.

And who can realize the emotions with which they turned imploringly to heaven for divine help. It was enough to melt a heart of stone. I saw the tears gush into the eyes of the old, grave, pacifist Quakers of Philadelphia.

As a secularist I often argue with Americans who have swallowed a lie that theirs is a Christian nation that was founded exclusively by born-again Christians. However, that does not excuse peddling an opposite, and equally untrue piece of propaganda, that their nation was founded by atheists and agnostics.

Ruskie4Rent

kelly1 wrote: »

He also conveniently ignores the evil acts of genocide commited by atheist communists.

If everyone lived according to Christian principles, the world would be a far better place in which to live.

That's a pretty silly argument.

The genocide you speak of was done in the name of a totalitarian state. They believed that if everybody submitted to the state, the world would be a better place to live.

The problem that most athiests(well me anyway) have with religion is very similar to the problem that those who want freedom have with totalitarianism.

Also by that same logic you could say that about any religion or lifestyle or political belief.
If everybody lived by the exact same principles the world would be perfect. Be it fascism, communism, christian, muslim or scientology,..... there would be be no dissent, war, or any of the bad things that plague the world today.

But there's the problem, for some people it is hard to live by certain principles if it means ignoring that nagging feeling that its all based on something that simply wasn't true.

PDN

PDN wrote: »

I think you're in danger of creating an urban legend here.

It's typically agreed that the main founding fathers were George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton & Benjamin Franklin.

George Washington - '...I beg you be persuaded that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.' Click.

John Adams - 'Let the human mind loose. It must be loose. It will be loose. Superstition and dogmatism cannot confine it.' Click.

Thomas Jefferson - 'Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies.' Click.

James Madison - 'Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize, every expanded prospect.' Click.

Alexander Hamilton - He was religious.

Benjamin Franklin - 'The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.' or how about 'Lighthouses are more helpful than churches.' Click.

I think you can see that I'm not "creating an urban legend". I think you'll find what I've said is clearly backed up.

brianthebard

Its typically agreed that the founding fathers were the people who signed the Declaration of Independence, all of them. You can get around that to suit your needs. Also your quotes back up PDN's argument as much as your own.

philologos

And how are the Founding Fathers relevant? The US Constitution is compatible with Christianity and vice versa. What exactly do you suggest that people are meant to do on discovering the Founding Fathers were secularists, to cause them to influence them to reject faith? I just don't see how this point is of any gravity or even worthy of consideration. It's an argument made by Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris the whole time.

That's like saying that Eamonn DeValera was Catholic, and the Constitution of Ireland was originally very strongly motivated towards emphasising the special position of the Catholic Church. Should we in all seriousness all hold the same view as DeValera? I wouldn't be too bothered to be honest, but I don't think it would be agreeable with most of the people in the A&A forum.

brianthebard

brianthebard wrote: »

Its typically agreed that the founding fathers were the people who signed the Declaration of Independence, all of them. You can get around that to suit your needs. Also your quotes back up PDN's argument as much as your own.

I know that there are many more Founding Fathers than I quoted, I just couldn't find substantial information on who the others were/what their beliefs were (at this time any, can't exactly get into a research project at the minute). I've no doubt that many, maybe even the majority of them were religious. But, the one's I've quoted are undoubtedly the most well known, and the most influential. And I think the quotes speak for themselves.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

And how are the Founding Fathers relevant? The US Constitution is compatible with Christianity and vice versa. What exactly do you suggest that people are meant to do on discovering the Founding Fathers were secularists, to cause them to influence them to reject faith? I just don't see how this point is of any gravity or even worthy of consideration. It's an argument made by Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris the whole time.

That's like saying that Eamonn DeValera was Catholic, and the Constitution of Ireland was originally very strongly motivated towards emphasising the special position of the Catholic Church. Should we in all seriousness all hold the same view as DeValera? I wouldn't be too bothered to be honest, but I don't think it would be agreeable with most of the people in the A&A forum.

I'm not saying that it should change current circumstances. It's just a topic that came up in the middle of the debate, perhaps by me. How is it not worthy? And because it's an argument made by Dawkins and kind, doesn't mean it's an argument that can't be used here.

PDN

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

It's typically agreed that the main founding fathers were George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton & Benjamin Franklin.

Stop cherrypicking.

wikipedia wrote:

The Founding Fathers of the United States are the political leaders who signed the Declaration of Independence or otherwise participated in the American Revolution as leaders of the Patriots, or who participated in drafting the United States Constitution eleven years later.

Jammy Dodger wrote:

George Washington - '...I beg you be persuaded that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.'

I think you need to get out more. Or at least to start reading real history books instead of propaganda websites.

First of all, I am a Christian pastor and I would wholeheartedly agree with the above quote of Washington's. That is in no way an indication of atheism or agnosticism. However, I think it highly unlikely that an atheist or agnostic would have come out with the following statements:

"It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible." (George Washington)

"Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." (George Washington)

“The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained." (George Washington)

“I am sure that never was a people, who had more reason to acknowledge a Divine interposition in their affairs, than those of the United States; and I should be pained to believe that they have forgotten that agency, which was so often manifested during our Revolution, or that they failed to consider the omnipotence of that God who is alone able to protect them.” (George Washington)

“I earnestly pray that the Omnipotent Being who has not deserted the cause of America in the hour of its extremest hazard, will never yield so fair a heritage of freedom a prey to Anarchy or Despotism." (George Washington)

"While we are contending for our own liberty, we should be very cautious not to violate the rights of conscience in others, ever considering that God alone is the judge of the hearts of men, and to him only in this case they are answerable" (George Washington)

"The ways of Providence being inscrutable, and the justice of it not to be scanned by the shallow eye of humanity, nor to be counteracted by the utmost efforts of human power or wisdom, resignation, and as far as the strength of our reason and religion can carry us, a cheerful acquiescence to the Divine Will, is what we are to aim." (George Washington)

"I now make it my earnest prayer, that God would have you, and the State over which you preside, in his holy protection, that he would incline the hearts of the Citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to Government, to entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another, for their fellow Citizens of the United States at large, and particularly for their brethren who have served in the Field, and finally, that he would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all, to do Justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that Charity, humility and pacific temper of mind, which were the Characteristicks of the Divine Author of our blessed Religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy Nation." (George Washington)

Old George was a regular Richard Dawkins, wasn't he?

John Adams - 'Let the human mind loose. It must be loose. It will be loose. Superstition and dogmatism cannot confine it.'

Again, I as a Christian would agree with that sentiment entirely. Adams was a very forthright critic of what he saw as the corruption of Christian truth - particularly in Roman Catholicism. But, I contend, only a buffoon would argue that the man responsible for the following quotes was an atheist or an agnostic:

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." (John Adams)

"The Hebrews have done more to civilize men than any other nation. If I were an atheist, and believed blind eternal fate, I should still believe that fate had ordained the Jews to be the most essential instrument for civilizing the nations." (John Adams)

"Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure than they have it now, They may change their Rulers and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty. They will only exchange Tyrants and Tyrannies." (John Adams)

"I am well aware of the Toil and Blood and Treasure, that it will cost Us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. Yet through all the Gloom I can see the Rays of ravishing Light and Glory. I can see that the End is more than worth all the Means. And that Posterity will triumph in that Days Transaction, even although We should rue it, which I trust in God We shall not." (John Adams)

"I am surprised at the suddenness as well as the greatness of this revolution... It is the will of Heaven that the two countries should be sundered forever. It may be the will of Heaven that America shall suffer calamities still more wasting, and distresses yet more dreadful. If this is to be the case it will have this good effect at least. It will inspire us with many virtues which we have not, and correct many errors, follies, and vices which threaten to disturb, dishonor, and destroy us. The furnace of affliction produces refinement in states as well as individuals. And the new Governments we are assuming in every part will require a purification from our vices, and an augmentation of our virtues, or they will be no blessings. The people will have unbounded power, and the people are extremely addicted to corruption and venality, as well as the great. But I must submit all my hopes and fears to an overruling Providence, in which, unfashionable as the faith may be, I firmly believe." (John Adams)

"The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epocha in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forevermore." (John Adams)

"We have now, it Seems a National Bible Society, to propagate King James's Bible, through all Nations. Would it not be better to apply these pious Subscriptions, to purify Christendom from the Corruptions of Christianity; than to propagate those Corruptions in Europe Asia, Africa and America! ... Conclude not from all this, that I have renounced the Christian religion, or that I agree with Dupuis in all his Sentiments. Far from it. I see in every Page, Something to recommend Christianity in its Purity and Something to discredit its Corruptions. ... The Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount contain my Religion." (John Adams)

"Twenty times in the course of my late reading have I been on the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!!!" But in this exclamation I would have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean Hell." (John Adams)

"The substance and essence of Christianity, as I understand it, is eternal and unchangeable, and will bear examination forever, but it has been mixed with extraneous ingredients, which I think will not bear examination, and they ought to be separated." (John Adams)

So, on the basis of the above quotations, which one are you arguing? That John Adams was an atheist or an agnostic?

Fanny Cradock

Is it part of a series? I wouldn't mind watching it if it's on next week.

Well, whatever books I've read have obviously been giving a biased view. I'm not too proud to admit when I may have been wrong, nor am I so stupid as to argue a flawed case. I'll have to look into it more, as I know very little about the founding fathers; what I've been saying has, as you said, been coming from biased websites and books. Certainly, from the quotes you've provided, it seems some of the founding fathers were indeed religious. I'll have to look into it more before I say anything else, as I certainly don't want to make a fool of myself.

Rb

Regardless of the religious views of the founding fathers of the USA, I think most of us can agree that there should be a separation between church and state, particularly now that most of the modern world is both multi-denominational and multi-cultural.

PDN

Rb wrote: »

Regardless of the religious views of the founding fathers of the USA, I think most of us can agree that there should be a separation between church and state, particularly now that most of the modern world is both multi-denominational and multi-cultural.

Amen. I agree wholeheartedly with that.

Dave!

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Is it part of a series? I wouldn't mind watching it if it's on next week.

It should all be on YouTube mate

Dades

PDN wrote: »

Here's an interesting project...

That fact that First World countries underwent Christianity first does not bestow any bragging rights such as "without Christianity... there would be no guaranteed human rights".

Human rights derive from morality which Christianity does not have a monopoly on.

My caustic comment referred to an example of a human right which is habitually trod on by Christians.


@ Fanny Cradock...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2epvSAGuLc

Gadfly

Good documentary. I was really surprised at RTE for showing it but delighted at the same time. Particularly like the reference to Bertrand Russells 'teapot' analogy.

MatthewVII

Húrin wrote: »

Without Christianity, especially Protestantism, there would be no guaranteed human rights. In Christian belief, states only last a few hundred years. Christians however, live eternally, so their rights are indeed more important than those of a state.

Rights of christians more important than the rights of a state? How incredibly self-centred of you. According to your beliefs, when you die you will go somewhere that man-made rules can have no hold on you. As long as you're here, a nation will last far longer than you will and it has to cater for everyone, not just what you think is right.

If god exists in the capacity that you says he does, he doesn't care whether a country is run by his rulings, just that people obey his laws in their own ways. A state has to have a much broader view of things and has to take into account the outlandish possibility that people are mortal and that it's a state's duty to improve life on earth for them.

philologos

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I'm not saying that it should change current circumstances. It's just a topic that came up in the middle of the debate, perhaps by me. How is it not worthy? And because it's an argument made by Dawkins and kind, doesn't mean it's an argument that can't be used here.

I don't find the argument poor just because it is made by Dawkins and the "new atheists", however I do find the argument poor because I am just wondering what is it meant to motivate us to do exactly? Sure American people might hold different religious views to some of the Founding Fathers, however does that mean that they should stop believing just because of that? Certainly not. I don't understand what the point is by making that argument, apart from to debunk a myth that suggests that America wasn't so Christian a country when it started out. So what? It's grown to the position where faith is important in society, and I don't see that as so bad a thing. Actually I think much can be learned in how a lot of American people treat religion for us in Europe, and maybe some lessons can be learned by Americans from the Europeans.

PDN

Dades wrote: »

That fact that First World countries underwent Christianity first does not bestow any bragging rights such as "without Christianity... there would be no guaranteed human rights".

Human rights derive from morality which Christianity does not have a monopoly on.

My caustic comment referred to an example of a human right which is habitually trod on by Christians.

Well, they didn't undergo Christianity first. That 'honour' went to places like North Africa and Turkey. What those first world countries did undergo first was a long enough exposure to Christianity for the faith's inherent values to sufficiently override our human nastiness so as to create a culture where human rights came to be respected to at least some degree.

It is surely not conicidence that such tolerance developed sooner in first world nations where Protestant forms of Christianity were dominant and somewhat later in those first world nations that were shaped more by Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity. This, I believe, is because cultures that allowed translation and distribution of the Scriptures thereby encouraged people to explore and apply the ethical teachings of the New Testament rather than hiding them under an unquestionable reinterpretation by a religious establishment.

The map drawing project I suggested does not just apply to tolerance for homosexuals. You could try the same experiment in regard to the abolition of slavery with broadly similar results.

Now, obviously this process took a long time - human greed and nastiness are very powerful forces to overcome, and they can, like a dormant volcano easily erupt once more as in Germany in the 1930s.

Please note that this is not an argument for the truth or otherwise of Christianity. Nor am I arguing that Christianity has a monopoly on human rights. But I think that Hurin was correct, on both historical and sociological grounds, that we can thank Protestant Christianity for much of the progress (small as it sometimes appears) that has been made in the areas of human rights. I think that, if we were discussing anything other than the faith of 'the enemy', you would readily acknowledge this connection rather than dismissing it as a coincidence that the same countries that first experienced significant Christian influence on their culture also just happened to generally be the first ones to promote meaningful tolerance.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't find the argument poor just because it is made by Dawkins and the "new atheists", however I do find the argument poor because I am just wondering what is it meant to motivate us to do exactly? Sure American people might hold different religious views to some of the Founding Fathers, however does that mean that they should stop believing just because of that? Certainly not. I don't understand what the point is by making that argument, apart from to debunk a myth that suggests that America wasn't so Christian a country when it started out. So what? It's grown to the position where faith is important in society, and I don't see that as so bad a thing. Actually I think much can be learned in how a lot of American people treat religion for us in Europe, and maybe some lessons can be learned by Americans from the Europeans.

I didn't bring up the argument to change anything, or to motivate people to do anything. Going by your reasoning, no debate on Boards should exist. What are any of them going to achieve? You've basically said that if an argument doesn't change something, then there's no point arguing about it. Why are you arguing with me now? What will that achieve? Nothing. What will any argument or debate on Boards achieve? Probably nothing. Does that mean there shouldn't be debates on Boards? Well, by your reasoning, yes. But, some of us just like to have a debate for the sake of a debate. Unlike you, apparently.

philologos

I didn't say that -Jammy Dodger-, what I am saying is, I don't see how referring to the Founding Fathers is meant to impact the viewer, or how it is purposeful in making the argument that they are making to convince people. It most certainly doesn't convince me any more than anyone referring to DeValera's role in forming the Irish Constitution was.

If the US Constitution is compatible with religious believers in the US, I don't see how that is going to convince them of Richard Dawkin's point. Just because they are who they are (in the case of the Founding Fathers) doesn't mean that it will convince religious people across the world to adopt the same view as them. It's an argument based on authority, and not really much more.

The program was to convince people that religion indeed is a negative influence, and I don't think the point of the Founding Fathers leaves them any closer to their conclusion.