click on image to enlarge
Dedicated to all those tolerant people who want everyone who doesn’t agree with them to shut up.
With a handshake,
Joshua / NAA
Weekly apologetics cartoons for the faithful, the faithless, and the full-of-its.
click on image to enlarge
Dedicated to all those tolerant people who want everyone who doesn’t agree with them to shut up.
With a handshake,
Joshua / NAA
And when was the last an atheist came knocking at your door to spread the Good News!?
Yeah. That’s what I thought. Never… unlike several evangelical religions.
If there is any kind of common thread for atheism, its summation is simply non belief in god.
If there is any kind of common thread for NEW atheism, it is that religion is a problem. A social problem. There is compelling evidence that it is not a harmless. There is clear an unequivocal evidence that religious belief is not an unquestionably beneficial but at its heart a forms of paternalistic theocratic belief based on a number of profound errors about the nature of reality.
In stark contrast to this benevolent assumption about religion, consider John Shook’s point:
From human rights to civil liberties enshrined in secular constitutions around the world, to the secular colleges and universities spreading the light of knowledge, and on to all the arts and sciences benefitting humanity in countless ways, I’d say that those worldly institutions and their entirely secular values have elevated human existence during the past 400 years far more than the last 40,000 years of religious domination.
It is those secualr enlightenment values that are worth our collective respect. If you want to list a kind of constitution for which atheist would gladly support, you can’t pretend the negative dribble you present is anything but temporising the truth in the name of a coniving apologetics for an evangelical Christianity of the most mindless sort.
The so-called secular values are almost universally siphoned from theism. Human worth? Groundless on secularism; on theism, it is grounded. Secularism just assumes human worth. Ending suffering? Christianity. Secularism–suffering is just an epiphenominal mental state. Theism grounds the desire to end suffering.
And so on.
And when we’ve allowed secularism to rule a country? Millions dead.
Firstly, let me apologize (even though that goes against the name of the blog) for my atrocious editing job earlier. You’ve been very brave reading it through.
Secondly, find me a theocracy that respects human rights to be at least equal to the rights determined by some supposed deity and then we’ll talk. You’ve got nothing but your imaginings to go by.
Secularism does ground many countries in today’s world; these are called liberal secular democracies for a reason and it here where we find human rights, human freedom, and human dignity entrenched in law. You see, secularism depends on legitimate political authority coming from those who are subject to it, whereas in any theocracy you can name, we find its antithesis: authority derived from above and then imposed. Granted, in cases like Israel, we find a democratic version of it with secular values favoured here but not there, but the point remains: the basis of legitimate authority comes not from those governed but by from the state. Pretending that we get legal human rights and freedoms from theology itself fails to be made manifest in history and is, in fact, exactly backwards to what’s true in reality. But don’t take my word for it; investigate it for yourself. You’ll find nothing but evidence against your own blanket assertion wherever a theocracy is established.
Thirdly, JW, you have confused secularism with totalitarian states; look at the political power structure in these countries and you do not find secularism as I’ve described (enlightened secular values, in case you missed it in my previous comment); instead, you find a duplicate power structure of a theocracy… where the political power comes from above and imposed on those who have no choice but to suffer under it.
This leads me to conclude that theocracy is just another name for tyranny; the only difference is that the tyranny is justified under different names.
Solid points there, JW. It is always interesting to me that in atheist / theist discussions, you don’t often see any Chinese-born Chinese or North Koreans participating. One wonders why. But I think the reason is obvious: Nobody really wants what they had or have. (And by 1978, even the Chinese didn’t want what they had.)
Perhaps it may have something to do with them living under totalitarian regimes.
In the same way teldeb, find me an officially atheist (yes I know that your talking about secular (not officially sanctioned atheism) that respects human rights.
The point being is that your assume, based on the new atheism, that religious trumps humanity as the reason for evil.
Atheists often cite places like Norway or Sweden as examples of secular nations with low crime rates, good civil liberties, etc, but you would find this to be true when they were largely religious countries.
The logical outcome of your statement is that a society free from religion would be free from evils such as war, racism, etc. Yet, history paints a very different picture.
Atheists and secularists don’t always have the best track record either. You don’t have to go so far as to talk about Communist Atheist practices, just look at the Eugenics movement.
What I have not seen is proof that it is religion, over simple human stupidity, that leads someone to do evil things.
Also, what is so bad about knocking on doors with the good news.
Is it the knocking on doors part. Perhaps as secularism increases we find that sense of community decreases. I will look up the stats on that for secular nations, this is only a theory at this point.
Or is it the good news part?
The claim, tobeforgiven, from Wartick was that secularism kills millions. This is false, which is why I asked for evidence. Notice that none was provided. And I can offer oodles of evidence that secular states do in fact have a much better track record to respect human rights than any theocracy you care to name. Because secular states require no divine authority to justify implementing enlightened values in law, the evidence is plain that religious values are not needed to establish states that respect human rights. Wartick’s claim that this respect comes from theism is laughable.
You seem to suffer no difficulty attributing to me claims I have not made and then arguing against these imaginary claims. You make the common mistake of peddling the same trope that attributes evils perpetrated by totalitarian states to be caused by atheism. Again, this is false. Non belief does not cause immorality nor does theism cause morality (watch and learn). You could just as easily argue mustaches are the root cause of this totalitarian misery, and this is plainly ridiculous reasoning.
As for the knocking on doors part, I was merely pointing out from the cartoon that it is not a typical behaviour of atheists to try to get a literal foot-in-the-door tactic to spread some fictitious manifesto but a fairly popular evangelical one to push the manifestos of religion.
Reblogged this on The Mind of Chadman and commented:
Add your thoughts here… (optional)
This is exactly the shift I see every atheist take. It’s okay to associate bad religious people with bad governments and claim it is because of religion. But claim that atheism leads to bad governments and instantly you’ve committed a fallacy or confused the beliefs of the leader.
Sorry, apparently I replied to the wrong comment. That is to tildeb.
I made no such claim, Wartick. But I can argue with compelling evidence that states that derive their political justification from divine authority (or any authority other than from the consent of the governed) are intrinsically disconnected governments from respecting the rights and freedoms of those they govern.
Okay… and track record shows that states which attempt to secularize themselves destroy human rights.
Example please.
China, the Soviet Union, and North Korea are some good examples.
Yeah, that’s what I thought.
You wrote that the track record shows that states which attempt to secularize themselves destroy human rights.
This is ludicrous.
Secularism means a neutral policy from government towards religion and not a hostile one as your examples maintain.
Historically, the process of secularising states typically involves granting religious freedom, disestablishing state religions, stopping public funds to be used for a religion, freeing the legal system from religious control, freeing up the education system, tolerating citizens who change religion or abstain from religion, and allowing political leadership to come to power regardless of religious beliefs (Wiki).
None of your examples fit. They are totalitarian states where secular values of equality and freedom are not practiced. The fact that religious practice is outlawed in these countries you use as your examples clearly demonstrates that they are not secular states, although you grossly misunderstand the secular value of separation of church and state to mean outlawing personal freedoms like religious belief. You own this gross misunderstanding and you are the one who needs to correct it.
Right, that’s exactly the move I already said atheists take. Disassociate atheism with the governments run by atheists.
Amen, JW!
No, that’s the underhanded bait and switch tactic you use to dishonestly present secularism as atheism and then try to suggest that atheism causes totalitarian states, which kills people, leading you in this tortured thinking to claim that secularism reduces human rights and supports killing.
Hey, here’s a tactic you might want to try for a change: honesty and integrity.
To anyone reading these comments, please see the history of the establishment of the People’s Republic of China. As a person who lives in the Republic of China with friends around the world, the idea that secularist and/or atheist states are somehow different in practice (as they might be on paper) and “tolerate” religion is more than ill-informed. For example, Article 36 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China reads thus:
I can tell you that phone calls, e-mails, and interactions within the PRC are carefully monitored. You are not free to speak about religion, especially if you are a citizen. (Friends of ours have to move every few months.) In addition, there are legions of Christians who have escaped China to talk about the “loving, religious tolerance” of the PRC government who is as secular as any other country on paper.
No, a secular state doesn’t abolish or tolerate a religion. It just replaces the existing religion(s) with a one that places its leaders as the clergy.
Oh, NAA, you came so close!
A state isn’t secular because some document tells us so; a state is secular if and only if it bases its laws on secular values.
China, Soviet Union, and North Korea do not do this. They do the opposite: they curtail all rights to come not form the governed but from the governing. This value is antithetical to secularism.
If you simply replaced your misuse of the term ‘secular state’ in your final paragraph with the accurate term ‘totalitarian state’ we would be in full agreement!
Fortunately, there’s still just enough wiggle room in your comment for us to disagree. That’s important, because if that full agreement ever happened, we would obviously have a strong sign that we were rapidly approaching End Of Days territory.
That would be bad.
Let readers ponder what in the world “secular values” might be and who has the right to define them. And just what “secular values” are will differ depending on who you ask. On paper and in practice, the Chinese government exercises secular ethics.
The irony is that the gnat-straining ignores that the Chinese government, like many other atheist states, is a socialist state. Socialist states derive their name from socialism, whose concepts include a sort of “power to the people” idea. In fact, the first article of the PRC Constitution reads:
The Preamble further emphasizes:
So, the world’s third largest nation says that its power and laws are derived from the people they are meant to serve. They don’t say they are a totalitarian state run by a dictator. But that’s inevitably what happens when you establish a country on atheistic socialism. (Look at North Korea, the Soviet Union, China.) Man comes in to fill that void. Man establishes himself in the place of God.
But rather than engaging in further gnat straining, I would just like for readers to see consider all these things themselves.
Joshua
[...] Constitution of the Divine Foot-in-the-Door Resistance Army- No Apologies Allowed constantly puts out great comics which allow for Christian engagement. This one is no different. Thought-provoking and insightful. [...]
NAA, you write, But that’s inevitably what happens when you establish a country on atheistic socialism. (Look at North Korea, the Soviet Union, China.) Man comes in to fill that void. Man establishes himself in the place of God.
I agree that totalitarian states are set up to elevate the leadership into positions of power equivalent to some deity. In this sense, totalitarian states are no different than theocracies: power is derived from above and imposed on the people. This is the same kind of authority used in organized religions: authority for political power comes from god.
This is not what’s at issue.
What’s a issue is attaching the term ‘secularism’ to this same kind of government that removes the ‘god’ component and substitutes some mustached man in god’s place. But this is not what secularism in political authority means. A secular state in the narrowest of terms simply means (as I’ve already explained) “a neutral policy from government towards religion.” China, Soviet Russia, and North Korea do not exercise a neutral policy towards religious belief whatsoever, so it’s understandable if to be criticized for claiming that these states represent secularism. They don’t. At all.
States that represent a neutral policy towards religion with a legal and enforced requirement for maintaining this separation between church and state are represented by such constitutional republics as any of what we call ‘secular liberal democracies’. This is what we’re talking about when we mention ‘secular’ states. They are of a kind. All use this basis of authority brought to us not by China or Soviet Russia or North Korea but the original founding secular republics: like the US and France. None of these are totalitarian. None of them are theocracies. Some maintain a traditional monarchy subject to a constitution, but all derive legitimate political authority only from the consent of those who are governed and not from some ‘above’ source. None of these political entities have imposed mass murder on its citizens and all exercise legal systems that are based on personal autonomy of its citizenry, personal rights and personal freedoms and personal equality and personal right to ‘exercise the franchise’ of voting for their political representatives. Again, totalitarian states do not respect in law this personal autonomy of its citizenry and so are not examples of secularism.
The association of secularism with atheism is a ploy to reduce religious freedom. The purpose of this ploy is to get religious people of different and even conflicting beliefs all on one side against an imaginary common enemy: the atheist. It is a misguided attempt to create legal privilege for one religious belief legally imposed on all. To support this vilification of secularism – of religious neutrality – in order to privilege one religious belief is jaw-dropping stupidity if one wishes to exercise religious freedom. ONLY in a secular state can individuals have the legal freedom to believe whatever religious tenets they want… so long as they do not reduce the freedom of others to do the same. Too many religious adherents fail to appreciate why secularism is their best friend in this exercise and so it’s hardly a surprise that the strongest supporters of the secular state should be but are not those who wish to maintain religious freedom.
And this exposes the totalitarian impulse so many citizens who are religious have to grant political power to those who represent their religious beliefs, those who campaign on reducing the rights of their neighbours through state privilege of the shared religious belief in the public domain… voters who think themselves pious for this civic capitulation of protecting their legal autonomy from the state. This willingness to give away personal autonomy to the state in the name of promoting and protecting a favoured religious belief by the state is a failure of responsible citizenship and a great danger to the very basis of all our legal rights and freedoms.
To prove the point to yourself, would you give away your right to religious freedom from the state if the replacement was, say, Islamic or Scientology or West Burrow Church baptist?
Secularism protects you from exactly that, regardless of how uncomfortable standing shoulder to shoulder with atheists may make you feel.
Readers, please note the stress of “neutral policy towards religion” that defines a country as “secular” in the comments above. What is a policy? Well, a written or unwritten rule that governs decisions. In fact, it is not the same as “procedure”, where the disagreement seems to be coming in. Who wrote the policy? Who enforces it? (See below.)
As I’ve already shown, China has a policy that is religiously neutral. Again, it states in article 36 of the PRC Constitution:
The government isn’t promoting or discouraging any one religion or religious practices. They are neutral.
I challenge anybody reading this to go ask the PRC government or any of its members, “Are you neutral in policy only? Do you exercise religious neutrality?” To put it bluntly: I wouldn’t believe you if you told me their answer was “No”. Of course they will say that they are religiously neutral, not only in policy, but in practice. But don’t forget that having a policy means nothing if there is not a body to draft it and enforce it. And the PRC Constitution maintains that its policy is the result of collective input from the public and that it is enforced by a group gathered from out of the public.
But to bring everything back to the point of the cartoon: People are always looking for ways to use their viewpoints to silence any and all critics. Many genuinely want only their particular opinion to be labeled “truth” and that their view of the universe and its mechanics be accepted as “true”. Anything else should be censored and ridiculed, they think. It happens in the sciences (ref. Robert Gentry). It happens in academia. It happens in many other areas of life. I say, let everyone have a say even if I disagree with them. That’s real education, not indoctrination. That’s why I keep an open comments policy here.
And this is why it is important to properly identifying whether or not a state is secular in legal practice.
To claim that secularism causes this kind of totalitarian state is shown to be false considering the historical evidence: many states that are secular in legal practice are not and never have been totalitarian (US, France, etc.) and Germany became totalitarian along side a strong religious tradition firmly embedded in the Nazi regime (Catholic, Lutheran). Wartick’s claim is wrong – secularism does not cause the death of millions – as is the supporting cast that believes it is true.
As for ‘silencing the critics’, I say let reality – and not people’s beliefs – determine what is true about it. As for those who try to dishonestly portray this respect for truth in reality to be some atheistic plot with some secret agenda, I say we need to confront these facetious claims not with force, not with censure and censorship, (ridicule is fine because many beliefs are richly deserving of ridicule) but with reasons better informed than the beliefs presented that stand contrary to what reality shows us to be true about it.
You can continue to believe Oogity Boogity is a causal factor in reality but until you show compelling evidence for this belief from reality I’ll continue to insist that the causal claims made from this unsupported assumption do not determine what is and is not true.
Readers, please notice how the conversation has now turned from “policy” to “practice”. The concept of “practice” was brought to the poster’s attention since it seemed that his definition of “secular state” only stressed “neutral policy” and had very little, if any, emphasis on action. The poster also stated in a previous comment:
I’ll assume the poster hadn’t read the Constitution of the PRC before making the comment. (The PRC Constitution isn’t high on my reading list, either.) Doing so would have made it evident that the PRC doesn’t outlaw religious practices. Again, it states:
So, using the posters own criteria to define a secular state (at least in that post), which would be one that doesn’t outlaw religious practices (which China does not), China is a secular state. If you go to them and ask, “Do you just say you for religious freedom (in belief and in practice), but you don’t do it in action?” They would say, “No! We promote religious freedom, both belief and practice.”
To the readership I ask:
Surely the last sentence of (3) is not disagreeable to a person who would espouse something labeled “secular values”? After all, what if the religious practices of some groups entail human sacrifices or animal mutilation or kidnapping? Would a “secular” state remain neutral?
All in all, that there are any laws and any governments are due to a simple fact that any honest person will admit: Human beings are evil at heart. We need a heart transplant. If we are to believe that all humans are essentially good, then it makes any laws, even secular ones, redundant.
Got to get off this topic, all. There are many other things to do.
God bless!
We’re not disagreeing about what the policy states; we’re disagreeing that it makes China an example of a secular state. The Council on Foreign Relations clarifies in detail why this policy is not legally implemented in China.
Contrary to Wartick’s claim, secularism does not rule China, nor can secularism be held accountable for the death of millions. This claim he makes is entirely a fabrication and it gains traction only in the imaginations of those determined to believe in it contrary to compelling historical evidence. Again, if believers would respect what’s true in reality over and above their beliefs contrary to it, we would not be having this discussion. But because a false charge has been leveled at that secularism is the cause of death of millions when there is no evidence from reality to inform this belief, someone has to step up to the plate and challenge this intentional deceit. It is a lie, plain and simple.,
Why is this lie not being challenged but supported by the administrator of this site? It appears to me that the administrator assumes reasons of piety rather than what’s true in reality matter more and if lying helps promote the pious belief by falsely vilifying secularism, then somehow this intentional deceit is okay.
Well, it’s not… not if you value what’s true. I don’t think it is okay to lie and we should not disagree on this point. No doubt you have a policy that assures us you don’t.
Readers, please note that once again the conversation then turns into a rant against the level of honesty of the people involved (a practice common to the poster). However, the poster wrote:
The evidence given? An assessment by a third party. (And I have to wonder if the poster has ever read anything about the history of China in the past 100 years.)
The disagreement comes in when different people define “secular” differently. The poster has shown an inconsistency in saying that “a neutral policy” towards religion defines a state as “secular”, but says nothing of “procedure”. When shown that a self-proclaimed atheist nation has a neutral policy towards religion (and thus fits at least the poster’s criteria), the poster protests that its actions prove it is not secular. That is why we should challenge anyone (the poster included) to visit China and ask any of the people in charge whether or not they practice what they preach. They would surely say yes. Why? Different people define “secular” differently because there is no real, objective standard on which they can base and implement their policies. It’s just whatever this group of people affirm as “true” or “legal”, that’s “true” and “legal” for them. Even Wikipedia definition of “secular state” wouldn’t align with the poster’s definition, though it fits ours very well, stating:
So readers can decide for themselves whether or not Warwick and myself have the right to attribute deaths to “secularism” as defined and practiced by the PRC.
I urge readers to read the link posted here to The Council on Foreign Relations’ view of Religion in China. Then consider whether or not its atheist bent has anything to do with its exercise and abuse of power, or if it’s just peripheral and inconsequential. And ponder who has the right to define what “secular values” are and dictate that to the rest of the world.
And I’m all for the separation of church and state, but I’m not really sure anymore what the separation of “church” and “state” means. If it now means that public policy is drafted and implemented completely separated from values and moral principles of the people making them, that’s not just impossible, but a little scary.
Maybe sick-o Warren Jeffs wished the US was a secular state…
Joshua
Different people define “secularism” differently because there is no real, objective standard on which they can base. It’s just whatever this group of people affirm as “true” or “legal”.
Oxford English Dictionary:
secular
Pronunciation: /ˈsɛkjʊlə/
adjective
1not connected with religious or spiritual matters: secular buildings secular attitudes to death. Contrasted with sacred.
2 Christian Church (of clergy) not subject to or bound by religious rule; not belonging to or living in a monastic or other order. Contrasted with regular.
3 Astronomy of or denoting slow changes in the motion of the sun or planets.
4 Economics (of a fluctuation or trend) occurring or persisting over an indefinitely long period: there is evidence that the slump is not cyclical but secular
5occurring once every century or similarly long period (used especially in reference to celebratory games in ancient Rome).
Origin:
Middle English: secular (sense 1 of the adjective), secular (sense 2 of the adjective) from Old French seculer, from Latin saecularis, from saeculum ‘generation, age’, used in Christian Latin to mean ‘the world’ (as opposed to the Church); secular (sense 3 of the adjective), secular (sense 4 of the adjective), secular (sense 5 of the adjective) (early 19th century) from Latin saecularis ‘relating to an age or period’
“Not concerned with” is the normative sense of ‘neutral’. A secular government means it is not concerned with religion. In other words, its policies and practices do not favour or discriminate on the basis of religious affiliation. Does the China that killed millions of its own citizens reflect in its actions this principle of religious neutrality? Clearly, the answer is No. During these times in China’s history, religious affiliation was indeed cause for discrimination – and still is, if your affiliation falls outside of proscribed and acceptable religious faith or your religious practices are judged to be ‘officially’ unacceptable! This state sanctioned action cannot be seen by any rational person as official neutrality in practice, which lies at the heart of describing a state as secular.
But I want to point out that nowhere does the administrator and other commentators who claim a causal link between secularism and the death of millions show evidence for this causal link! The claim is factually wrong in reality but finds a nice cozy and welcoming home only in the minds that prefer to believe it’s true for those who wish to demonize those who stand against religious privilege.
Secularism does not cause the death of millions.
Readers, please do read the comments from the poster above. Then you decide for yourself who is making sense.
Again, I submit that if you ask the PRC government if they practice religious neutrality, they will say “yes”. The poster above says “no”. Well, OK. Fine. They can argue it amongst themselves. It just highlights the problem with drafting and implementing standards that are derived from subjective sources; this group says “yes”, that group says “no”. In the end, we can merely shrug and say, “Says who?”
The poster says a secular government is for the benefit of the people. PRC government will say that is exactly why it chooses to crack down on us dangerous religious sorts. (Did anyone else notice that throughout these exchanges, religion has pretty much been left undefined up to this point?)
To add one last piece of the evidence, I submit the work of Richard Madsen, who says:
Notice he calls modern China “post-secular”, implying that it was once secular. And just when was it secular?
Consequently, I fail to see how even countries like the US can be considered “secular” according to the above poster’s interpretation of “secular”, since they do not sit idly by while some people practice the tenants of their religion. Let me drop some names here so that the tired tactic of saying “no evidence” will stop (one can hope): Branch Davidians. Warren Jeffs. Any homeschoolers in California and many other states (homeschoolers are mostly religious families).
Also, to constantly fall back on the tired, old “you just believe” is more apt to apply to the accuser. After all, who can truly stand as a neutral party in matters of morals and ethics? All laws presume some sort of morality. Now, anyone is free to believe that they are somehow neutral and that other people can be, but in the end they just believe it.
Now, we’ll all wait for the previous poster to reply yet again, stating that everything I wrote is wrong (again). He’ll probably add a personal insult or two (under a nickname, no less!), then maintain that his interpretation(s) alone is the correct one. He’ll probably imply or directly state I and other posters don’t know anything, and the PRC government doesn’t know much, either. Thankfully, this is exactly the sort of thing I wanted to point out in this particular cartoon. There are those from the opposition are not interested in any dialog or even listening. They are only interested in being right. That, after their opposition promises to become silent, admits ignorance and defeat, and learns how to come to the high priests of materialistic atheism for their understanding of life and the mechanics of the universe.
Never forget: Only their explanations are right and true. They alone comprehend the universe, life, and their respective meanings.
Peace,
Joshua