Bias

6 Responses for "Bias"

1. Skeptigator April 9th, 2008 at 3:48 pm 1

   Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square.

   As much as I like Obama, I (of course) have to disagree, or at least I think I do, since the context is bit lost in the quote. I’m not sure if the problem with his statement is that the “secularists” that he speaks of either don’t exist or the whole comment is a bit of non sequitur.

   If we’re talking about “forcing” a Christian city councilman from praying before a council meeting that would be wrong, just like the city councilman forcing everyone to observe his religion by opening the city council meeting with prayer is wrong.

   If the latter is what Obama is referring to then he’s wrong if he’s referring to the former then those secularists don’t exist (by definition they wouldn’t be a secularist).

   Just a couple thoughts

   

2. writerdd April 9th, 2008 at 3:56 pm 2

   I like Obama, but I am going with JFK on this topic:

   While the so-called religious issue is necessarily and properly the chief topic here tonight, I want to emphasize from the outset that we have far more critical issues to face in the 1960 election; the spread of Communist influence, until it now festers 90 miles off the coast of Florida–the humiliating treatment of our President and Vice President by those who no longer respect our power–the hungry children I saw in West Virginia, the old people who cannot pay their doctor bills, the families forced to give up their farms–an America with too many slums, with too few schools, and too late to the moon and outer space.
   These are the real issues which should decide this campaign. And they are not religious issues–for war and hunger and ignorance and despair know no religious barriers.

   But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected President, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured–perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again–not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me–but what kind of America I believe in.

   I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute–where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote–where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference–and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

   I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish–where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source–where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials–and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

   For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew–or a Quaker–or a Unitarian–or a Baptist. It was Virginia’s harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson’s statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim–but tomorrow it may be you–until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.

   Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end–where all men and all churches are treated as equal–where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice–where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind–and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.

   That is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the kind of Presidency in which I believe–a great office that must neither be humbled by making it the instrument of any one religious group nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding its occupancy from the members of any one religious group. I believe in a President whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.

3. hoverFrog April 9th, 2008 at 5:53 pm 3
   Skeptigator, I would say that he was talking about making decisions from a secular point of view rather than a theistic one. That way all members of society (or the constituency) are represented rather than just one denomination. The personal religious bias is left at the door and the mantle of representing people is taken on. That’s how I read it anyway.

   Writerdd, JFK said some good things didn’t he. It’s my take that Obama has similar sentiments but is saying them in a world where religion is much more prominent.

   Anyway, although I chose the words of a politician to highlight the idea of “leaving bias at the door” I hadn’t intended to discuss politics at all. My instinct is to reject all things religious. That doesn’t help me to understand the point of view of a religious person. If I can put this aside I can learn more.

4. Bad April 9th, 2008 at 10:41 pm 4

   I have to agree: I think by and large, secularists are grossly, and often deliberately misrepresented on this score. There’s a huge difference between the public square and the actions of government. Secularists want restrictions on the latter, not the former, and in fact many of us believe that this benefits the former.

   People that want the government to lead citizens and prayers often portray secularists as wanting to stop people from praying period. And it just ain’t so.

5. Skeptigator April 10th, 2008 at 11:25 am 5

   I agree completely with Bad, protecting the separation of church and state is (so far) the best way to ensure that religious freedom is protected.

   I’ve been trying to come up with a good one-liner that goes something like,

   “If you love Jesus, keep him out of the government”

6. Ted Goas April 14th, 2008 at 10:13 pm 6

   I agree with Bad and Skeptigator: the separation of church and state is paramount; best interest for theists and non-theists.

   Would there be anything to stop the US government from treating US churches like businesses come tax season?