Senate Atheism 4.0 - Now Discussing: Religiosity and intelligence

I think everyone would benefit from a thorough reading of the King James Bible.

That said, they aren't adding KJB class to the curriculum. They are just making an addition to every school's library.

I can't be against that (adding books to a library).

 

I think you'd have a much stronger case if you suggested the minister send out copies of the latest Star Wars novel instead of the Bible, rather than Origin Of The Species.

 

I quite agree. I myself am working my way through the King James Bible and hope to read the Koran and Torah at some point.

I also cannot argue with the addition of new books to a library. Following this I hope they also plan to be adding new copies of many works of literature with forewords by Michael Gove. Seems only fair.

 

Quick comment...

In England, Christianity is still the official, state-sponsored religion. And has been for centuries. The Queen is the Head of the Church of England, the Church is represented in Parliament, etc.

So it's really nothing new. I'd expect something like this. The only ways it's going to change is if Parliament institutes separation of church and sate.

 

Meanwhile, this is something to be outraged/embarassed about... a bunch of morons being outraged about Obama not thanking God is his Thanksgiving speech, and getting national coverage for it. Since when is Thanksgiving a Christian holiday?

Critics of President Obama felt little holiday cheer after the president did not thank God in his Thanksgiving-themed weekly Internet address. They immediately took to Twitter and the Internet to voice anger and disbelief.

"Holy cow! Is that one screwed up or what?" columnist Sherman Frederick of the Las Vegas Review-Journal wrote in a Thanksgiving-morning blog post.

"Somebody ought to remind Obama (and his speechwriter) that when Americans sit down around a meal today and give thanks, they give thanks to God."

Over on the website of Fox News Radio, radio host Todd Starnes also took issue.

"His remarks were void of any religious references, although Thanksgiving is a holiday traditionally steeped in giving thanks and praise to God," Starnes wrote.

"The president said his family was 'reflecting on how truly lucky we truly are,'" Starnes said. "For many Americans, though, Thanksgiving is a time to reflect on how blessed and thankful they are."

The popular website of London's Daily Mail has taken the issue global, with a story under the headline "What a Turkey! Outrage as Obama Leaves God Out of His Thanksgiving Address."

Obama mentioned God once in a closing "God bless you," to Americans watching the Internet address. However, the President explicitly thanked God earlier in the week in his written Thanksgiving proclamation, which called the holiday "one of our nation's oldest and most cherished traditions," and an occasion that "brings us closer to our loved ones and invites us to reflect on the blessings that enrich our lives."

"As we gather in our communities and in our homes, around the table or near the hearth, we give thanks to each other and to God for the many kindnesses and comforts that grace our lives. Let us pause to recount the simple gifts that sustain us, and resolve to pay them forward in the year to come," Obama wrote.

Ironically, the attacks on Obama came as the Republican White House hopefuls suspended their criticism of the president on Thursday in favor of a unified message of thanks to U.S. service members and their families.

Three of the Republican presidential candidates ? Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum ? issued Thanksgiving statements that omitted any references to God. Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain and Rick Perry mentioned God in their statements.

Obama, like his predecessors, records an address each week that focuses on an issue the White House wants to spotlight. The messages are typically posted on the Internet at the start of the weekend, but this week's address ? with its Thanksgiving theme ? was issued before the holiday.

In this week's address, delivered from the White House, Obama said, "We are especially grateful for the men and women who defend our country overseas," and he said, "We're also grateful for the Americans taking time from their holiday to serve in soup kitchens and shelters."

He acknowledged this Thanksgiving would be "more difficult than most" for many Americans because of the economy, but added, "No matter how tough things are right now, we still give thanks for that most American of blessings, the chance to determine our own destiny."

This "controversy" is easily one of the most stupid and ridiculous I've ever heard.

 

Really, what shows did he say that on? See, you just like to make stuff up. It's a bad habit. And there is nothing wrong with Carl Sagan. If it wasn't for his shows and earlier books, there would be far fewer younger people of my generation who went on to become scientists or even amatuer astronomers. But please, continue the disdainful attitude.

Well apparently YOU are the one between us two who is obsessed over his TV appearances and never bothered to listen to his radio program or read his books where he did go into greater length in describing theoretical physics.

 

London's Daily Mail? is that related to the tabloid?

Besides that one link you supplied, I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere else. It's not even featured on Fox New's page, so I don't know what kind of "national coverage" it is getting. I'd say it's firmly in no one really cares camp. Certainly not worth outrage.

 

Colbert, for one. The Universe on Discovery Channel, for another.

I absolutely never said there was. Do try to work on your reading comprehension, and maybe consider understanding what I'm saying instead of just trying to win an argument that exists primarily in your imagination.

 

Ah the joys of being President. No wonder he has aged 20 years. Mention God and you have the court obsessed atheist brigade alleging violation of "church and state" don't mention God and you have religious psychos casting aspersions about your moral character. He just should have thanked Allah and be done with the farce.

 

And yet we're a far more secularised country than the United States, which I find not only puzzling but wonderful. Irrespective of the standing of religion in this country, it's still a remarkable waste of money. Bibles are plentiful in English schools, so why the need to send out new ones containing a foreword written by a member of the Cabinet if not as some sort of vanity project?

I'd rather have atheists on my side any day.

 

Why does the foreword bother you so much?

 

Because it's not the place of a Member of Parliament to be writing forewords for religious texts, especially unnecessary ones.

 

I don't think he is considering it as a religious book, but rather as a work of literature.

And I don't know what you mean when you say it's an "unnecessary" book. If you mean that it is not a science book, then i agree with you, but I disagree that science books are the only "necessary" books.

 

He just should have thanked Allah and be done with the farce.

the Order of the Stonecutters aren't ready to reveal that yet.

 

Then, they should consider getting better literature.

 

I don't blame Kaku for trying to be Sagan. There are a few Sagans out there; Kaku, Tyson, Phil Plait. I'll take them, put them out there. Even if they were to pander in order to be the next Sagan at very least they are dealing with some form of reality rather than a mythology that people cling to.

 

What is this supposed to mean?

Are you denying, from a literary standpoint, the importance of the Bible in Western history, language, and culture? Because it just looks ridiculous to do so. You are quite welcome to feel that it's not a very engaging work, or that it's full of lies, or whatever else you want. But to deny that it is important in some of the ways that quote outlined is to be as ignorant of evidence and professional consensus as are creationists and global-warming deniers.

 

I don't think if he's talking about 'better literature', he's saying that the Bible is unimportant.

 

The Bible has certainly cemented the concept of the 'committee' in western culture, that's for sure. A history of the Bible should be required reading for every student. Clearly those who take the Bible literally have never embarked upon any serious or honest investigation as to how the Bible came to be what it is today.

 

I must be cracking up, that almost makes sense. Certainly priests will never go over the actual historic importance of the bible, since it would certainly detract from its religious meaning. However since a large proportion of the US population are believers, it would only make sense for them to learn the contrast. Given as advocates of the ID movement tried to inject their beliefs into school rooms, why not do the same and teach children the contrast about their beliefs?

 

The Bible as literature...Will Shakespeare got many of his ideas from the Bible--nothing new under the sun; pride goeth before a fall, etc.

I know many, many Christians who have never read the Bible completely or even partially. They just depend on their minister, pastor or priest to explain it to them. I've read the Bible cover to cover 3 times in my life and it is so full of contradictions, it is not funny.

My roommate has a calendar with monthly Bible quotes. This month's (November's) quote is from Psalm 24, vs. 1 & 2, which appear to contradict Genesis 1. The two verses give the impression that God merely separated the dry land from the ocean/waters and did not actually 'create' said dry land and/or water. It appears they already existed and He just separated them.

Some colleges offer classes in "The Bible as Literature." They don't teach it as a religious book, however.

 

Treating The Bible as a work of literature is actually how it should be treated IMHO. Just like ID would be in a philosophy class.

But The Bible has been written, re-written, edited, translated, re-translated, books thrown out, etc too many times over the years for there not to be inconsistencies. I expect a book comprised of works from numerous writers to have a different take on things.

 

Yeah, it's basically an anthology and some parts clearly have extensive backgrounds as oral history (with all the distortions that kind of transition of "facts" brings with it) before they were written down. There are writings whose literary roots eventually back as far to Sumerian legends in the late 3rd millennium BCE and the youngest are from the mid-2nd century CE. Not much reason to expect uniformity.

 

Does this show how good atheists are, or how vain they are???

 

No