32 points - Better informed than most Americans - not bad, I guess. Some of the questions are a little tricky, and some even taken out of context, but what do I expect from people who don't read the Bible with context in mind, and have an agenda. Oh well.

And then in the Seperation Quiz, I got 18 out of 21 - WOW! First Amendment Scholar.

Jordan .

x-ray
if your back's against the wall, turn around and write on it...

23 on the first.

11 on the second (but I've got an excuse for that one - I'm not from the US)

DMG

I hope they cannot see / The limitless potential / Building inside of me / To murder everything / I hope they cannot see / I am the great destroyer

Bunkum. It's like filling in one of those political fundraising questionnaires that are mailed out supposedly to measure concerns of the constituents. How's about a bunch of leading questions where you know what they're driving at?

i.e. How important is it to you that the Federal Government cramp down on the hoards of disease-ridden, criminal, illegal aliens swarming across the Mexican border and eating up your taxpayer dollars for their social welfare? Rank 1 to 5.

or

i.e. How important is it to you that the Evil Republicans, who control the White House, the Congress and the Supreme Court (for now, anyway) are trying to force you to bear the children that resulted from your father's raping you? Rank 1 to 5.

Congratulations! You scored 17 correct out of 21!

14 - 17: Congratulations! Better informed than most Americans

Nonsense! I knew how to take the test. 1 point away from being a "First Amendment Scholar" who recognizes that (hahaha) none of the founding fathers really gave much of a hoot about religion (haha, as if!) and all this uproar over school prayer really came from -- wow, how astounding -- the religious folks and not the atheists/agnostics as per Conventional Wisdom.

I feel so enlightened that I may actually go back to the religious questionnaire, which I stopped immediately after the misinterpretted "abomination" leading question, recognizing the lack of Biblical knowledge of the doctrinaire writers.

Yup, that American Theocracy is getting scarier all the time. That and Global Warming topped off with the government's involvement in plotting and executing 9/11 and by golly, I think we're in a world of trouble. To which all I can add is...

THE HORROR...

THE HORROR...

THE HORROR...

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Are you suggesting we SHOULDN'T have a separation between church & state?

Yeah, Chris, that is exactly the point I was making ever so pointedly with my post!  So pleased you were able to articulate it for the others!

It is obfuscation such as that just demonstrated that makes for dead-end discussions. 

"So what you're saying is..."  followed by the inane, the baseless, and a lame and clumsy effort to willfully misinterpret.  

Susan 

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Actually, I phrased it as a question that you could've answered.

Yeah, like that other popular question, "When did you stop beating your wife?" 

Actually, it does not deserve an answer.  

Really, Chris, give it some thought.  Have you not known me long enough to know what you THINK I might answer on a fundamental American concept like separation of church and state? 

If you are uncertain about the answer, then any elaboration would fall on deaf ears. 

If you are pretty sure you could ascertain if it would be a yes or a no, then why ask?

I think you're just upset that I'm not buying Neil Young's latest relevant recording.

Susan 

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

"Sure, the quiz has an agenda, but the answers are factual. That upsets me, because I don't care to live in that world."

Well, frankly, you don't live in a world like that! when is thel ast time a child was killed by a Christian or Jew because they didn't obey their mother or father? That's what I thought. You don't live in a world liek that, and it's ridiculous to even say that in many ways. Yes, those question are factual, but they lack an important context that is obvious the question writers don't have nor will ever understand because of their biased agenda.  

"I can forgive the Bible it's sins & inconsistencies. After all, it was written by a bunch of fallible human beings (just like EVERY book). It's when people try to hold it (or ANY "holy" tome) up as the "word of God". Let's all begin to take responsibility for our own actions, THEN we'll be on the road to a more perfect world..."

The very basic tenant of any religion is to behave properly in all situations. That by definition is taking responsibility for your actions. In the Christian view, you are responsibel for your own salvation - no one else. Talk about taking responsibility for your actions! Same with Judaism. It's your responsibilyt to follow the tenants of the Law --- no one else's. Religion, at one of its core, is about self-responsibility within the guildelines of the religion.

Even without religion, you wouldn't live in a perfect world, as you seem to suggest. In fact, I would argue that without religious thought, the world would be a worse place. Because then morality is created on a person by person basis, rather than a long-standign belief system. Religion creates a morality, it creates a structure that man can live by. That's what the Torah is really all about in the end. Here's a list of laws that as a Jew you should obey. The same with the New Testament - here's your "laws" to follow - "love your neighbor" and "do unto others as you would have them do to you." Very basic lessons to live by in some cases. As religious people. we don't always live up to those laws and rules, but we should try.

If you're going to be a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, etc you gotta be willing to accept that your holy book is the "word of God" - written by man, but inspired by God. I don't see how someone could call themselves a Christian and then reject the manual of that religion.

Jordan .

"The basic TENET of Secular Humanism is the "Golden Rule" you refer to. You can develop a moral core without following religious dogma. I'm suggesting we take responsibility for ourselves as a race, excluding all the hoo-hah about Divine intervention, lack of Free Will, Pie-in-the-sky, etc."

the basic TENET of Secular Humanism is to make a world a better place. That's about it, and frankly, that's the tenet for every single religion in teh world. I'm not saying you can't follow a moral core without religion - I am saying that morality becomes standard when religion is imposed.

Wikipedia has the following quote about Secular Humanism: "The term secularism was created in 1846 by George Jacob Holyoake in order to describe "a form of opinion which concerns itself only with questions, the issues of which can be tested by the experience of this life."" 

The underlined portion of that quote is the EXACT problem of secular humanism. Experience of "this life" (I'm assuming this life refers to my life experience versus your life experience and so on) will vary from individual to individual. So there is no standard or moral truths because they will span the vastness of everyone's life. Your life experience may say that it's okay for a poor hungry person to steal for food, while someone else's will say it is not. Who is right in this case? If the golden rule applies, it will vary from individual to individual even under teh philosophy of secular humanism. However, if you follow the moral law of Judaism or Christianity, it's already answered pretty clearly.

Again, I state that it is religious individuals who often are the individuals who accept responsibility because that is the very basic of those beleif systems. No one else is going to get you past those pearly gates. From  my  "life experience" it is actually secularists who seem prone to excuse things based on external reasons. "Oh he acts like that because of his childhood", etc. We hear it all the time in psychology, esp from individuals who I think would consider thsemves to not be religious, and may very well fall under the secular humanist category. And even though you may disagree, this is my life experience, so it must be "my truth" so it must be true. Talk about how the Bible is inconsistent....Secular humanism is at its core inconsistent because it's about personal truths rather than an external moral guidebook.

Jordan .

Cohesivity. No man is an island. We affect one another. We're like ants. I love to watch ants. Before I kill them, I observe. * They are all females, you know. The ones you see, anyway. The guys hang with the queen. Fertilize, then die. It's a full life. But the girls, they are marching in this long line. You can trace their point of egress say over to a light switch on the wall. Then they march all the way down the wall, across the counter, down the cabinets, across the tile floor to the cat food dish. Once they pick up their heavy load of a Meow-Mix crumb, they turn and head back to the light switch. But they rub antennae with every sister ant they encounter on the way back! Some kind of message is being transmitted. "Whadja got, Mabel?" "Meow Mix, Shelly." "Catch ya later!"

We do the same thing but it can be verbal, gestural, just a facial expression. We affect one another with our thoughts, our views, our dispositions. Every man for himself does not make for a functional society. Every man fashioning his own code of ethics, which could logically morph over the years since there are no actual guidelines but that individual's whims, is a recipe for societal and civilizational disaster.

Fortunately, most religious regressives -- freethinkers, I mean -- have a foundation in the Judeo Christian basics that formed their societies in the first place. They may think they've come to their ethics through rational thought but I believe much of it was assimilation of that religion they now reject.

Susan

* I kill them when they are on my turf.  A short spritz of Raid at the point of entry; another spritz at their destination.  As they pass one another and rub antennae, they infect one another.  Within a few minutes, there is a dead trail.  Being very adaptable, the next day a fresh group of sorority sisters may appear on the very same trail.   

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

But the girls, they are marching in this long line. You can trace their point of egress say over to a light switch on the wall. Then they march all the way down the wall, across the counter, down the cabinets, across the tile floor to the cat food dish. Once they pick up their heavy load of a Meow-Mix crumb, they turn and head back to the light switch. But they rub antennae with every sister ant they encounter on the way back! Some kind of message is being transmitted. "Whadja got, Mabel?" "Meow Mix, Shelly." "Catch ya later!"

If only religion/spirituality could be that simple. 

Kelly

How Do You Live Your Dash?

Check out the Kids' blogs:
The CaleBlog and the Zoe Blog

But we have deviated haven't we? I mean, look at all the relgions that have come to pass since the dawn of time. Each in their own way have deviated in some way from the original texts.

There are always going to be some that strictly adhere to the texts of the Bible, Torah, Koran, etc, but then you have more of the secular relgions that are based on these texts and then deviated to suit their religion and what they believe.

Kelly

How Do You Live Your Dash?

Check out the Kids' blogs:
The CaleBlog and the Zoe Blog

I don't think religion is the sole reason as to why homosexuals can't marry one another. Yes, relgions plays a part for some, but I think, personally, that people are not ready for that as mainstream just yet. You can call it religion not deviating all you want, but for most, religion probably doesn't play a part in it, imo.

And as for stoning, well, getting into religion, Jesus pretty much denounces that in the New Testament when he says, "Those that are without sin, cast the first stone". So that example you gave doesn't hold water...unless you are wanting people to be stoned to death for committing adultry, in which case, that's another topic all together

Kelly

How Do You Live Your Dash?

Check out the Kids' blogs:
The CaleBlog and the Zoe Blog

CCC - of course, you are thinking about all those silly commands that make no sense today. Obvously, there are some laws/commands that are no longer obeyed. Great example is animal sacrifice (from the Jewish tradition). From the Christian tradition, you have women being forced to wear scarves (or head coverings more specifically). Obviously, both are not practiced anymore (except in some Christian beliefs, women still do wear head-coverings in church). There are plenty of other laws within the Torah/Old Testament that are not followed either for a variety of different reasons. Religion changes from generation to generation, but the basic principles remain teh same, and many of these principles that are not involving a deity line up very much so with secular humanist beliefs. Of course, I guess that should be more phrased as "secular humanist beliefs line up more closely to religious beliefs."

But here's the thing - which one of these commandments/laws that you find stupid/silly affect you in anyway? Directly or indirectly. Getting back to the Passover - who cares if someone wants to scrub their house with a toothbursh. Yeah, you may find it silly, but does it affect you in anyway - so why should you even care?  How is not deviating from a tradition harmful unless it affects you directly? As I told you in the Passover thread, at least Jews have a reason to spend days cleaning, rather than just because it's "Spring." In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if "Spring Cleaning" actually originated from the Jewish tradition of cleaning house just before Passover.

"But that whole moral code is man made anyway." 

For sake of argument, we'll say the whole religous moral code is man-made, just like the "moral code of a secular humanist." Here's teh problem - secular humanist let individuals decide their morality, and when you have people deciding it's perfectly okay to go on a red light because that's what they want to do, then we have a problem in society. The problem is that secular humanist can read a cereal box this mornign and come up with a new truth just on the whim. So can religious people, but usually religious people will fit that whim within their religion. Secular humanism has no guideline except to make the world better. Boy I hate doing this, but I will say it anyway - I'm sure Hitler thought that he was making a better world by exterminating Jews. He didn't do it for religious reasons at all. Obviously, secular humanism would argue that extermination of a race is immoral so my example is extreme but whose morality are we talking about?

Let's go back to my original example of a poor hungry person stealing for food. This is a question of morality that anyone that has taken an ethics or philosophy class has probably discussed. From one moral view, you could argue that because he is hungry, he has the right to the food. From another moral view, you have the fact that he is stealing from another individual makes that very act immoral. So to answer your question just above Susan, you have a huge problem. Whose morality wins out? The guy who is hungry, or the guy who needs to sell that fruit to feed his own family who might go hungry if he doesn't? That's the problem in its most basic form.

When everyone has their own "truths" then morality is reduced to individualism, and THAT my friend is dangerous because then we open teh door for anyone to create their own truth and morality. Can you not see how everyone with their own truths can be a problem? We can't get a long now with the religous beliefs we have nor the political beliefs we have, and suddenly you are going to throw a wrench in by saying that everyone's morals are okay, but who is going to define that morality? And once you do define that morality, aren't you destroying the whole concept of freethinkers?

There does seem to be an innate need for morality in all human beings. The question is if this is built within us at birth, or do we develop through our environment, or is there a moral code created by life/God. The problem is when it gets down to trying to judge and handle mixes of society, esp as we become more and more intermingled.

Now don't get me wrong - religion has been and always will be a problem and it's not a solution for all things and people. And I agree in principle that secular humanism is a fine approach to life. But if today all of us just accepted secular humanism as our belief system, we will find ourselves stuck in the exact same place we are today - if not worse because there is no spelled-out guideliens because everything is based on life experience which varies from individual to individual.

We can't have a world in which the question of "can a hungry person steal food?" be answered multiple different ways by our court system based on someone's feelings/thoughts/experience.

Jordan .

Kelly

How Do You Live Your Dash?

Check out the Kids' blogs:
The CaleBlog and the Zoe Blog

oh whatever. you Knew what I meant

So, now back to our regularly scheduled program... 

Kelly

How Do You Live Your Dash?

Check out the Kids' blogs:
The CaleBlog and the Zoe Blog

Jordan .