I hadn’t heard about this “famous” example, so I went ahead and looked it up. The specific quote appears to be, “they cling to guns or religion […] as a way to explain their frustrations.”
That doesn’t sound to me like criticizing people for “clinging” to religion. If there’s criticism there, it’s criticizing the use of those things as excuses.
The Pope has devoted his entire life to his religion, and did not alter his stance for political purposes. I’m sorry, but I don’t think there’s much of a viable comparison between the two.
So, because popes are clergy, they are automatically exempt from scrutiny of manicuring their views to secure election? It might be naive to assume that there aren’t certain politics involved in becoming pope. A little study of the Catholic church over time suggests to me that its offices are at least as political as they are religious.
So, no, that’s a straw manning of my point. If you get into trouble over a scandal centering around your lack of involvement in your church, like the Jeremiah Wright situation, you’re going to get scrutinized more than, say, someone like the Pope, who, for example, did doctoral work in theology.
However, you bring up a great point about the politicizing of the Catholic church, and on that issue, it appears that we are in complete agreement. I should note that chgoliz’s use of a Pope quote using the same “clinging” wording was also very clever; check it out if you haven’t already.
It was merely a question.
I understand what you mean, but I think that it is, in practice, an over-simplification. One can be devoutly religious and not go to any church. Maybe Obama attended to satisfy family obligations to his wife or parents. There are any number of possibilities which I could only guess at. And as regards doctoral work in theology - many theologians do not even literally believe in their deity the way their followers do. Many high-ranking clergy consider their vocation more of a philosophy about life, or a form of Earthly service to people.
There are entire spectra of personal belief/non-belief in practically anything. And I am too busy to be bothered researching what others may or not believe. Partly because there is no way for me to conclusively know, and partly because I think belief matters very little in comparison to what people actually do in life. But I agree that people often try to secure some sense of certainty in their lives, and are as likely to fool themselves as anyone else to obtain this.
One can be a Jew and believe in Jesus: Jews for Jesus - Wikipedia . There is no blood test for religion. Anyone can make a claim about their religiosity that is extremely difficult to conclusively disprove, which is why I characterize my position as my “belief”, and not as fact. This is perhaps also why the original false claim, that Obama is a Muslim, can be believed by some. Perhaps we may one day see politicians who claim to be members of multiple religions, but who practice their multiple religions privately.
Agreed on fooling yourself. I love the Feynman quote: “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.”
The overwhelming majority of Jews, including secular Jews, would strongly disagree with that statement. Well at least in the Jesus-was-a-diety way.
Believing there might have been some guy named Jesus who inspired a book and religion? Sure.
Believing Jesus is a god and the new testament is divine? You’re a Christian.
Here we are in a thread where you have taken a lot of flak for saying you don’t think Obama is really Christian, but when it comes to Jews for Jesus you are on board with their self-identification? These are strange fights to choose.
Agreed completely. But strong disagreement can’t disprove their position that they are Jews. I don’t even know if you can disprove someone saying that they’re both a Jew and a Christian, or that they’re “devout” practitioners of multiple religions.
Anyway, my point in making that comparison is that the overwhelming majority of Christians would disagree that someone is a “devout Christian” if that person rarely attends church, when a wide variety of churches of various denominations are readily accessible. Can someone not attend church and be a devout Christian? You betcha! Just like someone can be a Jew and believe in Jesus. It’s not a perfect comparison, but, IMO, it’s applicable and reasonable.
On another note, I was actually surprised to learn over this past year that the existence of Jesus as strictly a historical figure is a lot less disputed among historians than I had previously thought: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus .
I’m not really on board with their self-identification. I think it’s a bit out there. I’m bringing it up as an example to flesh out the discussion.
So if self-identification doesn’t matter, who gets to decide who fits in what category and why?
Wait, did you not get your “Official JonathanR Religious Identification” kit? You should have gotten it by now.
Also, watch out for impostors, who are often just out to get a quick buck.
There is no getting to decide, no formal valid categorization, and no ultimate decider. We get to have opinions and beliefs, and we get to share them.
…and then judge others when we believe they are falsely portraying themselves as one religion or another.
But one’s own view of oneself has no place in the discussion? Why do you get to decide if what others profess to believe is viable or not?
If you had your Kit you’d know…
From where I’m sitting, it looks like racism is still decreasing in the Republican party, but religious bigotry has been rising, particularly since the 9/11 atrocities.
Keep in mind that locally the party’s been shrinking for twenty years or so, so when I say incidence of some characteristic is “rising” it’s usually the result of people who don’t display that characteristic leaving. Places where the GOP is strong would no doubt be different.
Again, I don’t get to “decide”. I get to have a belief, and I get to share it. Also, I don’t believe that one’s own view of oneself has “no place” in the discussion. Either we’re bordering on straw man here, or I failed to clarify my belief. Self-assessment, especially when dealing with politicians, is rightfully accorded significant skepticism.
Not sure if you see my belief in this matter as absurd, or unreasonable, or you see it as a reasonable viewpoint with which you disagree, or something else.
Can we take this as confirmation that at least 54% of republicans are fucked in the head?
