Santorum wants a spiritual war against liberal Protestants

[sandman]

Oh, no, I don't mean to walk on eggshells at all. I mean that it is common courtesy to not directly attack the belief structures of those who are not attempting to force them on you. A human being with simple decency does not seek to offend anyone deliberately. Some people will be offended no matter what you do, say, or do not do or say, but it is common decency to not walk around TRYING to offend people.

What I mean when I say that the wise non-believer steps carefully is that people invest a lot of their own identities in their belief structures, and a wise person does not charge around another's self-identity like a bull in a china shop.

Of course there are always exceptions. There are belief structures that deserve to be attacked regardless of the sensibilities of the believer, but these systems are always the sort that force themselves on all those around them, often violently, and have thus lost the right to courtesy.

As for Santorum, I find the man to be despicable. He panders to the worst traits of humanity in his quixotic lust for political power. I doubt he believes half of what he says. He only says it because it gets him the attention and acclaim he so desperately seems to need. As someone who has studied the Bible and the teachings and philosophy of Jesus (both his and the original sources they are derived from) extensively, I can state unequivocally that what he endorses, the Jesus of the Bible would not. His is a version of Christianity based on politics and prejudice, not philosophy and theology. A wise man once said that if Triangles had a god, it would have three sides. Santorum's god most definitely has three sides.

[Lithp]

A wise man once said that if Triangles had a god, it would have three sides. Santorum's god most definitely has three sides.

Well, it IS called the Holy Trinity.

I agree with that, then. Though I do think Santorum actually is stupid enough to believe what he says. If not, he is a very, very good actor, & definitely not planning on actually winning the race.

[Eniliad]

Oh, sandman said that line? That changes the context a bit for me, actually, as I was already pissed at Pod. Thanks for clarifying, sand.

[StallChaser]

Sandman said a lot of good things.  I base my responses on a lot more than how much truth there is to the idea.  For example, how hard is the opinion forced on unwilling participants?  How much potential harm can come from getting it wrong?  How malicious is it towards certain groups of people?  Is it a propaganda for a blatant money/power grab?  Is someone being an asshole, or is their belief sincere?  Those kinds of things have a lot more bearing on how much respect I'll give in a response than how factually right or wrong the opinion is.

[Podkayne]

Those kinds of things have a lot more bearing on how much respect I'll give in a response than how factually right or wrong the opinion is.

I was sort of done with this thread, but I have to ask...really?

Maybe I'm reading what you said wrong, but it seems to me as though you just said whether someone believes what they are saying is more important than the actual correctness of what they're saying?

Am I reading your post in completely the wrong way? I may well be

[sandman]

When it comes to things like spirituality and religion, which are inherently unprovable, the sincerity and social impact of the beliefs is the only thing you can really base your judgment on.

Let me explain. You have two preachers. One that walks the walk as well as talking the talk. He (or she) tries to live according to the teachings of their belief structure. While I may not agree with the actual beliefs, I do respect the conviction of those beliefs. The other preacher takes drugs, steals from the church, and is, oh, say, caught in a hotel room doing ecstasy off the abs of a gay prostitute. (Ted Haggard anyone?) This preacher then denies, denies, denies before spending a weekend in "counselling" before announcing he is totally cured and everyone should forgive and forget and besides, doing X off the stomache of a gay prostitute isn't a gay act, anyway, right? Now THAT guy, even though he claims many of the same beliefs as the first preacher, that guy is full of shit and I have no respect for his beliefs, even though they are supposedly the same beliefs as the first guy.

With the first guy I will be polite and considerate of his beliefs and the differences between those and my own. With the second guy? Probably not so much.

As for the social impact, I can explain it like this. I believe Buddhists to be wrong (and I base this on a lot of knowledge, I was Buddhist myself for a while), but I have a lot of respect and admiration for their beliefs. They do not try to force their beliefs on others. The core of the belief structure, while as irrational as any other religion, is essentially altruistic and compassionate. I think they take things a bit too far, say, in dietary and a few other aspects, but the belief structure is, on the whole, harmless and positive.

I generally like a sincere Buddhist. They tend to be good people who hold culturally and socially positive beliefs. As my granddad would say. "Tha's good neighbors."

Scientology, on the other hand, aggressively recruits for the sole purpose of acquiring money and power. The church blatantly abuses and threatens the faithful. They seek to enforce their "rights" and beliefs on all those around them while deeply obfuscating the actual nature of those rights and beliefs. Scientology is selfish, destructive, and hateful.

I generally can't stand Scientologists. They tend to be arrogant, disdainful, secretive people who are following a belief structure that is damaging and destructive to the culture and society. Granddad would dismiss them as "sticky basta'ds."

See? The sincerity of the beliefs and the social impact of their implication is about the only thing you can base your respect on, since the veracity of the beliefs can not be proven.

[TheL]

So, if you have already evaluated the facts, as you put it, then the answer to my question is a simple yes. I'm really unsure whence comes all the angst here.

Because generally, when a person says "Have you considered that X might be the case?" what they generally tend to mean is "I believe that X is true and you should too.  Please start believing X now."

It makes you look like a condescending jerk, and does a bang-up job of reopening the emotional wounds of people who've been hurt by ideas like X.

Perhaps a better way of saying what you apparently mean to say is, "Do you reject Santorum's ideas as a matter of course, or have you come to your conclusions logically?"

[StallChaser]

Those kinds of things have a lot more bearing on how much respect I'll give in a response than how factually right or wrong the opinion is.

I was sort of done with this thread, but I have to ask...really?

Maybe I'm reading what you said wrong, but it seems to me as though you just said whether someone believes what they are saying is more important than the actual correctness of what they're saying?

Am I reading your post in completely the wrong way? I may well be

I was referring to the dickishness of my response, not whether I'll correct them at all.  If it sounds like they're at least attempting to use reason, I'll use reason back.  But all bets are off for the fundie "true believer" types that are no good for anything other than being a chew toy.

[Podkayne]

Those kinds of things have a lot more bearing on how much respect I'll give in a response than how factually right or wrong the opinion is.

I was sort of done with this thread, but I have to ask...really?

Maybe I'm reading what you said wrong, but it seems to me as though you just said whether someone believes what they are saying is more important than the actual correctness of what they're saying?

Am I reading your post in completely the wrong way? I may well be

I was referring to the dickishness of my response, not whether I'll correct them at all.  If it sounds like they're at least attempting to use reason, I'll use reason back.  But all bets are off for the fundie "true believer" types that are no good for anything other than being a chew toy.

OK, thanks for replying.

[rookie]

Have I considered him being right about gods and satans and heavens and hells and so forth? Right when he said it, no. But years and years before I ever heard of Santorum, I heard other people saying much the same. I considered those beliefs seriously and strongly. I found them to be lacking. And now Santorum is saying what he's saying. I've heard it before. So I am rejecting his religious beliefs out of hand because they are no different than the others I've heard. Does that make sense, Pod?

Now, when looking at the political aspects of everything, that is another issue. I really don't care about a politician's religious beliefs until that person make me care about them. I look at Santorum's views on, um, birth control and that proposed bill to make employers put birth control in the health insurance packages. Santorum says it violates church and state or religious freedom or some such gobbledygook. I looked at that and found him to be wrong. The moment the RCC pays people, they are employers in addition to whatever product they put out (in this case, salvation). That is the view I consider to be right. When someone says something contrary (like Santorum), I'll try to see what they're saying. If it is right, then it's right. If not, it's wrong. And the more someone shows themselves to be wrong (in my eyes), the more my gut reaction will be to look at what they're saying as being wrong. Sorry, I can be very human that way.

Anyways, I think that answers what you were trying to ask.

[MadCatTLX]

Shan and others already said what I would have posted so I'll just second there opinions instead of typing it out again.

That said, some ideas ARE patently and obviously stupid....at least to us. The giant monkey jizm thing? There are cultures in history, and probably some today, who just might accept that.

Didn't the ancient Egyptian creation story involve the world being created from god jizz? I pretty sure jizz was important to the Egyptian mythology at one point.

[Eniliad]

Not... exactly. There are actually four major Ancient Egyptian myths. The one you're thinking of is the Heliopolis Myth, that Atum, a god similar to Ra, was "self-engendered" and engaged in a process similar to masturbation, but says his hand was female and therefore they somehow combined to bring the world out of the waters of chaos. The other three creation myths have different origin stories, but at least one of those involves incest, which I'm not sure is much better in terms of the "wtf" factor.

[Jack Mann]

Pod, here's one for you.  Extremist Muslims believe that worshipping Jesus as the son of God is blasphemy, women should be treated as the property of their husbands/fathers, and that those who do not respect Mohammed and follow his teachings should be killed.

Have you ever considered that they might be right?

[Yla]

Well, the question wasn't directed at me, but in the blasphemy issue, I'm not inclined to disagree with them. Calling Jesus the son of God dehumanizes him and implies that other (human) people cannot measure up to his example. Which in turn would mean that we humans are and forever will be limited in our love for other beings. Which is insulting and just a teensy little blasphemic against the Divinity in all of us.
And worshipping him as the idol for some death-cult misses the point of his example, too. We're supposed to imitate him, not pray to him.