wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

all you atheist ppl are on your well to hell in a hand basket!...cant say erica didnt tell you on judgement day..

Aside from this contentious discussion, I would point out that one caller to the show swapped the meanings of two Yiddish words.

Tzimmis is a delicious sweet veggie stew dish, often made with carrots and fruit, and Tzuris, or tsuris, is trouble and aggravation. I understand that there's a colloquial meaning for Tzimmis that means confusion, but I believe that the caller (and Brian) understood the meaning to be that of Tzuris.

"The heart of virtue is good intentions." -- Talmud, Megillah, 20a

There are strong dislikeness going on toward religion. The people are divided in this subject. Some blindly defend religion and some ignorantly hate religion both side have common factor.They never understood religion. They think religion is a rituality and religion come to play role in society by force.Some think religion is a motto and some think religion is a salvation.Let us be clear where religion stand than we could argue what is religion. My understanding of religion is fighting evil versus righteousness. The person who has the intellectual capacity to distinguish these two things they seriously understood the doctorine of religion. It is clear to every knowledgeable person that in what situations people were when the prophets came to teach them about God.

@ LVK: ???

@ mc: wow, your first Q is a big one. I personally was raised in a gently faithful context (mainstream Protestant), complete with Sunday school and so on. So not for me an issue of no background, or of ignorance. Difficult, in fact, to say when or exactly how or even why I relinquished faith as a way of thinking. Seems to have been around the dawn of adulthood -- 18, 19, 20 or so. It just stopped making sense. This is highly reductive, of course, but the shorthand for how it came to seem to me -- faith, I mean -- is just far too convenient, far too good to be true. A codification of wishful thinking that did not and does not square with any version of nature or the world I've experienced. I understand viscerally the attraction, but the fact that it would be so pretty were it so is actually for me a powerful argument against it. Life can be pretty, yes, but in small, surprising ways, unpredictably, not in grand narrative sweeps. To put it all another way (and quoting Phillip Roth), I discovered that "I have no taste for delusion."

Again, reductive; but what else can one be in a couple hundred words?

The vast majority of Muslims are far more moderate in their behavior than the terrorists of al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and other such movements.

So, how does one describe these movements? "Terrorist," as we have noted, is too imprecise, a reference to tactics, not ideology. What we need is a term that acknowledges that they are Islamic movements without implying anything invidious about Muslims who do not belong to such movements.

The answer: Islamic supremacy. The analogous term, white supremacy, is in no way offensive to whites, Indeed, condemnations of white supremacy generally succeed at shaming whites into shunning groups like the Ku Klux Klan, just as the West hopes to shame Muslims into shunning Islamic supremacist groups.

We would define Islamic supremacy as follows: a doctrine that seeks to subjugate or exterminate non-Muslims, or convert them to Islam by force. This is slightly different from white supremacy, in that there is no such thing as a racial conversion--but we think the analogy is close enough to be useful.

One might argue that supremacy is inherent in Islam, inasmuch as it claims to be the one true religion and (unlike some other faiths, such as Judaism) seeks converts. But the same is true of Christianity, which has largely made peace with secular modernity and religious pluralism. Reconciling Islam with religious pluralism is a task for Muslims. Combating Islamic supremacist movements is one for non-Muslims and nonsupremacist Muslims alike.

#41 David! From NYC
You are right, through history hundreds of thousands were killed by the aggressive nature of Islam which brought about the Crusades, especially of the Seljuk Turk variety which tried to invade Europe as late as the 17th C. But as far as the “enlightened secularists” since the Enlightenment, most atheists like the Communist Russian, Chinese, Cuban and South East Asian variety are exactly the mass murderers who secularist love to indulge and tolerate because of their fear and distain for religion. But this does not abrogate or mean secularist have no blood directly on their hands, look at Saddam Hussein and other secular mass murderers.
As far as the comment from the office worker, what intellectual rigor have you put into the “realization that there is simply no such thing as god”…you must be using the freewill you are forced to have!

Since neither God's existence OR his non-existence can be proved, both faith and athism are belief systems. We're all banking on something.

Eboo is such a great person. thank you for giving him time on your show!

I'm not anti-religion, I just don't believe a prez candidate should feel compelled to proclaim his/her religious fervor to appease the religious right.

I look forward to a day when any politician who repeats Mitt Romney's line that "freedom can't exist without religion" will be quickly and strongly condemned by 95% of the nation's newspaper editorials and op-ed columnists.

Hi, LVK,

Atheism is not an "anti-belief system."

It is not a belief system. It does not live in contrast to your religion. It is not defined by your religion or any religion. It is completely separate and apart from religion.

It's not about 18th century philosophers, it's about the realization that there is simply no such thing as god.

lvk
It is not clear to me what you take to be "laziness". Isn't packing everything we do not know nor understand into a single term at least as lazy?
Actually it is a more profound laziness, because as an atheist, you are left to do the work and research on your own without appealing to the warm hug of an almighty.
Religious people who appeal to sacred writings or the words of authorities without using their brain every single time they do what they are told, seem to be the laziest of all.
(And no, not all religious people are like that, but I am willing to guess that the majority is).

LVK,
I'm trying to follow you. Besides Lenin - Stalin and other totalitarian socialists, what are the secular mass murders? Compared to the loss of life brought about in religious conflict, I don't think you should be casting so much aspersion.

Obama has sold out the gay and lesbian community to get elected, and the gay and lesbian community has remained silent during the campaign.

It is disappointing to hear media commentators on WNYC and NPR minimizing Rick Warren's appearance at the Innauguaration. The media wants to get past this issue to join as celebrants. Everyone is worried about the economy.

Ignoring this issue bodes poorly for true progress in civil rights for everyone. A second religious representative does not mitigate this appearance of Rick Warren. He is a bigot. The world is watching at this moment and this man's appearance on the podium equals death for gay and lesbians worldwide.

Also, the black church and black media has a long way to go to embrace it's gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, many of whom suffer from violence. The issue of freedom and equality will continue to be the problem of this administration.

Advocates of religious tolerance are intolerant themselves. They propagate their lies in schools and victimize gay youth. The gay community continues to suffer. The media continues to blithely play nice.

I am not an atheist.

However, I don't see a good reason to include a religious component in the inauguration, or in government in general, at all, no matter what religion or denomination. The religiosity of the American populace simply has no bearing.

There is an inspirational quality to having a religious figure provide a prayer or blessing to the new administration. It does, one hopes, evoke our hopes and ideals for our country. Meaningful prayer is as much about intent as it is about reciting prescribed words.

However, there are other ways to invoke this kind of inspiration. There are inspirational figures who do not also happen to be religious leaders who have much to say to us. They may be divisive figures, but religious leaders are as well, whether they invoke a Jesus-centric worldview, something more ecumenical, or anything else.

The separation of church and state should simply be a mantra. We should be striving toward this ideal, the non-establishment of one religion or religion in general in the official realm, in practice in the most public spaces, including the presidential inauguration. Rather than a division, we should be thinking of it as a means of encouraging thoughtfulness on the part of all Americans, no matter what belief or non-belief they hold.

There are others aside from religious leaders who can provide us with a "blessing" on this momentous occasion.

I hope that we are not going in a direction in this forum of atheists and religious people finding fault with each other. I am a Quaker myself and I am always curious about atheism and how people got there. seth, and others who are atheists here, what led you to this? Or was it a matter of no particular religion leading you?

I share the distaste expressed by some about the oath and the Bible. Quakers have traditionally eschewed that. I also agree that atheists have been slammed over and over in the political discourse in the U.S.

Thank you Seth, and other atheists and agnostics who commented above. I wouldn't care that religious figures pontificate at the Inauguration if we had true representation, meaning the inclusion in the ceremonies of an agnostic or atheist who can emphasize the rational foundation of our man-made Constitution and the HUMAN basis for ethical principles - moral goodness and selflessness being in our view all the more extraordinary and to be treasured because they are creations of the human, not "divine" spirit.

they should have got Ted Haggard...

I think atheists are not accepted as much because they are come off as party-poopers. They (we) want to take away prayer in school, the comfort of heaven, and the like. If we saw atheists working together to solve world hunger, bring comfort to the dying, etc -- there would be a different view of us atheists.

It is funny to hear atheists call a major religion like Judaism or Catholicism “a belief system” while they somehow believe their own beliefs are not a blind following of an anti-system-system. Over 2000 years of philosophical inquiry that freed the world and developed the scientific method and the intellectual rigor required to insure the dissemination of scientific and philosophical truth as opposed to superstition, and atheists think 18th and 19th century philosophers have the correct answer, that is funny!
As far as the secular mass murderers of the 20thc, some people are hopelessly blind to the facts.

The problem I have with Rick Warren's place at this most public of altars is not a religious one, but rather a public one. His mission has gone beyond mere religious prostheletizing, but seeks to actively and politically disenfranchise tens of millions of American citizens and the very civil rights this country was founded to protect; the very same rights Obama championed during his campaign. I'm not suggesting he's a terrible person without conscience, but that such obscene shows of public and political interference in the lives of his fellow countrymen shouldn't be condoned with a place at the presidential inauguration.

Israel and Palestine don't need the example of a pluralistic ceremony in the U.S. on Inauguration Day -- although such a ceremony is not a bad idea. The Jews and Muslims of Israel and Gaza have plenty of examples of religious pluralism and tolerance in their own land. The hostility in that part of the world is not about religion and never has been.

Listen lady (the one that just called in) the reason gay people are upset is because this IS A HISTORICAL MOMENT.

As far as I'm concerned this man tarnishes a day that should go down in history books. Obama's entire story in INCREDIBLE. And yet here were are two steps forward and one step back.

Rick Warren is a disgrace. Just because this guy wants to be friends with a Muslim (Eboo) doesn't mean he is tolerant of gay people.

As a Christian seminarian and an interfaith activist I'm a big fan of Mr. Patel and have heard him on the radio many times. To learn that President Obama sought him after as an adviser is one more reason for hope.

I think Mr. Patel is correct - our cosmognies, our theologies, our scriptures may be different but what we can focus on is shared moral imperative. What matters is what can we do in the here and now. I don't have the same theology as Rev. Warren but I can respect his reverse tithing and his work in Africa.

Mr Patel noted, in response to comment 1, that there will be "plenty of atheists" present at the inauguration. Maybe -- but are they publicly so? Are their names known, and known in connection with their atheism? There are, after all, plenty of public intellectuals who are declared atheists -- Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, etc. Yet if any of them appear here it would shock me.

As an atheist, I don't mind there being a religious presence in our public life -- it's an important part of American culture. But it dismays me that it's simply nowhere near as acceptable for one to be publicly atheist. If we are to speak of true pluralism, and if Obama is to represent it, shouldn't this be as much and as loudly a part of the mix as those representing various faiths?

As we discuss religious pluralism, why is there no mention or inclusion of eastern religions at the inauguration , especially since many of these traditions tend to be less conflicted and more inclusive.

THE God of MANY Understandings is in fact the definition of THE massively immutable misunderstanding. Perhaps Gene Robertson is so blessed as to Divine the THEE of MANY!

I'd like to have a secular/atheist/agnostic speaker at the inauguration (& I'm none of the above). Hey, where are the agnostics above? Why aren't they writing in? That's not a slam or a joke, I'm actually curious.

Excellent point about the weakness of religious pluralism to move an orthodox position. Its the same problem as cultural relativism or any sort of relativism. Perhaps your guest could further explain the difference between relativism and pluralism?

I don't beleive in Santa, the tooth fairy or lepurchauns, so I'm called an adult. Why do I need a special title for not believing in other people's imaginary friends?

devout atheist...that's pretty funny!

Brian,

"May YOUR god bless you..."
As a step toward inclusive respect for all religions and peoples, let’s hear this line included in the Inaug. Address.
(What gets said typically excludes all those who are not Christian...)
Best,
dj

Please stop tying Jews and Muslims. It's just not fair.

It's only since I've become comfortable with my agnosticism that I've been able to become much more interested in offering service to those in need. I am excited by the idea of pluralism in religion and feel that agnostics and atheists can be part of this pluralism -- there is room for belief and non-belief when people are joined in making the world a better place for all people.

How does the Unitarian Universalist church fit into the idea of pluralism? Seems like they go hand in hand and might be a good solution for inclusion.

Gee, no Rev. Wright?

is obama inviting any mormon leader to his inaugural ceremonies?

I'm have not religious background to speak of but I hesitate to call myself and atheist because of the stigma.

I don't know how I feel about all this. I am also gay and highly offended a homophobic person is allowed to even speak.

I'm also offended so many Jewish leaders are speaking when the religious background only constitutes about 2% of our population. What about Hindus and Buddhists? Judaism is a teeny tiny sect of our population and yet it gets more attention that Islam and Hinduism.

WHAT ABOUT ATHIESTS???!!!!

Seth,
I don’t see how leaving philosophical questions unanswered can be considered “unreasonable and unjustifiable intolerance”. But this doesn’t surprise me as it goes to my point of lazy thinking on the part of many who would like to think of themselves as enlightened. Please don’t have an unreasonable hypersensitivity to philosophical questions. I really am interested in what brings people to their conclusions and personal beliefs.

Obama, who I voted for and generally respect, is an equal opportunity panderer (i.e. a good politician) when it comes to religion. I only wish he was able to separate religion from marriage.

Hi Brian, it's just Gene Robinson, not Eugene. :)

Atheists are lazy thinkers? Now I've heard it all. It can't be any more lazy than needing to ascribe to a belief system that allows you to bypass the reality of death and nonexistence.

Yeah, of course. "Lazy."

The criteria for atheist's morality is the intellectual and emotional certainty that one shouldn't harm others. We don't need an ancient book and an imaginary stalker-friend in the sky to threaten us into behaving. How preposterous.

As for atheist killers of the twentieth century? Give me a break. Murderers come in all stripes. Most of human history's murderers have been deists and many used their beliefs as justification for their attrocities. You don't really expect that argument to fly, do you?

As if genocide ever existed before the Holocaust and the gulags. Just...stop.

Not that I think this is the largest point against Rick Warren, but very few people mention that Warren also said that atheists are not fit for public office. I think it's worth a mention.

Another atheist here.

What about the swearing in *on a Bible* (or other religious scriptures), Seth?
Can someone be inaugurated President without a Bible in the ceremony? Would the populace that the President intends to lead accept the inauguration?

How about the etymology of "inauguration." Basically a religious ceremony from ancient times.

@LVK, the first cause is something nobody understands; when we do understand it the answer will come from physics, not from any religion. also, saying 'god did it' is not an explanation. as for the claim that atheism is responsible for mass murder - this is a complete lie and a logical fallacy. if a murderer happens to be an atheist it does not imply that he was driven to murder by his atheism. lastly, human morality is something that can be arrived at by reason, which is much closer to true morality than doing something because god told you to.

#6 LVK,

Thanks so much for proving my point about the unreasonable and unjustifiable intolerance many Americans feel towards atheists and agnostics.

Wow, atheists, how novel, I would like to hear your philosophy with regard to first cause. I have always thought of atheists as simpletons or lazy thinkers due to their lack of depth in their own thinking. Maybe you have a new take on it not thought of by the likes of Bertrand Russell? Please do inform! On another note, coming off the most murderous century in history caused by secularist and atheists alike; do you contend the “good atheist” are secular humanists and would not have caused the deaths of 180 million people in the 20th century? And what is the criteria for an atheist’s “morality” if not simply concern for one’s self? Have you thought of a new way to enforce the idea of “do unto others” except by force and threat at the point of a gun? Since Mr. Obama may populate his administration with folks of similar mind, I would like to see if there are any new ideas moving humanism to something more concrete.

i'm also an atheist and don't have any problem with the invocation. most of the country is christian and therefore the religious test you refer to is because most of the electorate chose to make it an important issue. so in that sense it is valid. what i do have a problem with is when religious beliefs actually have harmful effects on society such as preventing stem cell research, gay marriage, or interfering with science education.

btw i don't know why you think obama would improve the climate for atheists since he's an avowed christian.

#3 Mike,

It wasn't my point to imply that people will feel coerced to bow their heads at the inauguration. My point is why is an invocation simply regarded as an absolute necessity?

Are you not bothered by 2 candidate forums on faith and religion?

Are you not troubled to see prez candidates peppered with every question under the Sun concerning faith and religion?

There's clearly a religious test for anyone seeking the presidency. If you're an atheist, do you consider this test valid?

I'm an atheist myself but I don't share the feelings of the previous two posters. I don't believe in God, but a lot of, maybe even most, Americans do. They're free to act on an express those beliefs as much as they want. Even in public, political events. It's not the same as forced prayer in public school. Nobody at something like an inauguration is being coerced into bowing their head.

My hope is that Obama will improve the climate in this country for people who are atheists and agnostics.

As it stands now, the US is as intolerant of atheists and agnostics as Iran and Saudi Arabia are intolerant of non-Muslims.

As a devout atheist, I feel disillusioned regarding the invocation discussion. I resent the fact that it's simply taken as a given that an invocation should be part of a presidential inaugural ceremony. I don't think there should be any invocation at all. I don't want to hear from Rick Warren, Joseph Lowery, Gene Robinson, or any other religious figure on the day when a president gets sworn into office.
There is far too much religious fervor in this country for my taste. CNN held 2 prez candidate forums on faith during this election cycle. In prez debates, candidates were asked to cite their favorite Bible passage, answer whether or not Jesus would favor the death penalty, and answer whether they believed the Bible was literally. If there's no religious test for the presidency, why was there this avalanche of faith and religion questions posed to prez candidates?