Devil's Advocate Posted August 17, 2012 Report Share Posted August 17, 2012 Objectivists are like smokers who have kicked the habit, thereby becoming doubly resentful of those who continue to smoke in their presence. Freedom of religion and freedom from religion are two very different goals; Franklin and Reagan were advocates of the former, and Ayn Rand was an advocate of the latter. It may be possible to practice the ideal separation of church and state, or unregulated commerce, but we're a long way from agreeing on how to accomplish that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ninth Doctor Posted August 17, 2012 Report Share Posted August 17, 2012 FYI I got a PM from the OP complaining that he's been censored. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted August 17, 2012 Report Share Posted August 17, 2012 XX every XXXX thing XXXXX XX is XX XXX XX fine XXX XX , go XXXXX XX on X XXXX about XXX X XXX your XXX X XXXX XX business XX X XXX ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FeatherFall Posted August 17, 2012 Report Share Posted August 17, 2012 Devil's Advocate, can you please explain to me the difference between freedom of religion and freedom from religion? It seems to me that one implies the other, so I'm not quite sure where you are drawing the distinction. If I am free to practice any religion I want, it follows that I am free to refrain from practicing any religion. Am I mistaken? By the way, Doctor, the OP has yet to be "censored." He was merely put on moderator review; since then he hasn't tried to post anything that I know of. If his future posts don't violate the rules of this forum, you will get to see them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted August 17, 2012 Report Share Posted August 17, 2012 Devil's Advocate, can you please explain to me the difference between freedom of religion and freedom from religion? It seems to me that one implies the other, so I'm not quite sure where you are drawing the distinction. If I am free to practice any religion I want, it follows that I am free to refrain from practicing any religion. Am I mistaken? I believe the difference becomes apparent in social interactions. For example, Unitarian Universalists embrace and promote a wide range of beliefs, including atheism; at the other end of the spectrum are those who object to any public display of spiritual belief. Freedom of religion defends even the heretic, whereas freedom from religion censures him. I would argue that a freedom from religion weakens the protection of individual rights, but that might be better addressed under another topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted August 17, 2012 Report Share Posted August 17, 2012 ... at the other end of the spectrum are those who object to any public display of spiritual belief.Public or public-sponsored (i.e. government-sponsored)? FeatherFall 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FeatherFall Posted August 17, 2012 Report Share Posted August 17, 2012 I'm interested to see your reply to Softwarenerd's last question. I can think of some follow-up questions, but it seems best not to muck up the thread with a premature line of inquiry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted August 17, 2012 Report Share Posted August 17, 2012 Public or public-sponsored (i.e. government-sponsored)? The kind of things that come to mind are "In God We Trust" and "The Ten Commandments" in courthouses, but Christmas music in shopping centers certainly applies too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ninth Doctor Posted August 18, 2012 Report Share Posted August 18, 2012 By the way, Doctor, the OP has yet to be "censored." He was merely put on moderator review; since then he hasn't tried to post anything that I know of. If his future posts don't violate the rules of this forum, you will get to see them. Sounds fine to me, I think I was the first to call Troll on him. I was just letting y'all know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FeatherFall Posted August 20, 2012 Report Share Posted August 20, 2012 Thanks for the heads-up, Doctor; I guessed as much. Devil's Advocate, I still don't understand what you mean. I have never heard anyone object to Christmas music at shopping malls (except for my own objections when I hear that crap the first week of November. Any time before Thanksgiving is too damn early.). "In God We Trust" is a different matter; I don't trust in god, and my first amendment rights are still violated when tax dollars go to print such nonsense on our money. As far as the Ten Commandments in courthouses, there really is no Objectivist policy on the matter. Some think it's a rights violation, others don't. I tend to think it isn't a rights violation, but it's in poor taste (the Ten Commandments are opposed to a proper conception of justice). It seems like you're packaging a lot of stuff together that deserves a separate discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted August 20, 2012 Report Share Posted August 20, 2012 ... It seems like you're packaging a lot of stuff together that deserves a separate discussion. My initial comment points to the root of the "ethical conflict" between Ayn Rand and the Founding Fathers, and others like Reagan. Phrases like, "one nation, under God" and "in God we trust" are loathsome to an Objectivist, whereas to Franklin, Reagan, et al, these phrases simply acknowledge the source of the right to life our government is tasked to protect. I believe it's fair to say that Objectivists would prefer being free from religious expressions, as opposed to interacting with those who enjoy a freedom of religious expression. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FeatherFall Posted August 20, 2012 Report Share Posted August 20, 2012 (edited) Putting aside the fact that "God" wasn't on our money or in the pledge of allegiance until the 1950's, the way you write about this topic creates confusion. When you wrote, "... would prefer being free from religious expressions..." your use of the word, "free," is ambiguous. Your writing offers no indication of whether or not you draw a distinction between political freedom, which involves the force of law, and the broader colloquial meaning of freedom, which speaks more to preferences or tastes. I regard the distinction to be crucial to this discussion, and I don't know how you treat this distinction; do you mean "free" in the legal sense, the colloquial non-legal sense, or both? Edited August 20, 2012 by FeatherFall clarity Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 Putting aside the fact that "God" wasn't on our money or in the pledge of allegiance until the 1950's... God was in our declaration of independence, before we were free. ... your use of the word, "free," is ambiguous. Your writing offers no indication of whether or not you draw a distinction between political freedom, which involves the force of law, and the broader colloquial meaning of freedom, which speaks more to preferences or tastes. I regard the distinction to be crucial to this discussion, and I don't know how you treat this distinction; do you mean "free" in the legal sense, the colloquial non-legal sense, or both? I mean 'free' as in uncoerced; free to be a dissident, in every sense of the word. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FeatherFall Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 (edited) I mean 'free' as in uncoerced; free to be a dissident, in every sense of the word. In that case, no, it isn't fair to say this: Objectivists would prefer being free from religious expressions, as opposed to interacting with those who enjoy a freedom of religious expression. There is no opposition here where Objectivists are concerned. That's because freedom of religious expression necessitates that such expression be uncoercive. Putting "God" on the money is one tiny example of coercive religious expression. It's insignificant in comparison to other transgressions, but it's still wrong. Objectivists will object to any example of state-endorsements of religious ideas on the grounds that such endorsements violate the freedom of expression of every person. If that kind of, "in God we trust," nonsense was on privately-issued money, no Objectivist would care. But the US mint is a state-run monopoly, and as such, it may not constitutionally or morally establish religious opinions of any kind. So we have both freedom to endorse religious ideas and freedom from endorsing religious ideas; one implies the other. But this is very different than being free from exposure to religious endorsements or ideas. Religious endorsements funded by private coffers are fine, as they are uncoercive. While Objectivists may come to some sort of consensus that a sculpture of the ten commandments is out of place in a courthouse, there will be disagreement as to whether or not hosting such a sculpture is coercive. As long as it's really just there to make the place pretty and provoke thought about ancient attempts at discovering morality, then I'm ok with it. Of course, Objectivist ethics is different than the founders' deistic/monotheistic ideas about natural rights. Ethical advancements have been made over the last 300 years. I can't fathom why anyone would object to Christmas music in a shopping mall. Such music is uncoercive and fun (in very small doses); can you link me to some examples of Objectivists opposing this? Edited August 21, 2012 by FeatherFall clarity Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 (edited) I can't fathom why anyone would object to Christmas music in a shopping mall. Such music is uncoercive and fun (in very small doses); ...I agree. Personally, I have a few Christmas carols on my playlist. A few are just catchy and fun; others, like "Silent Night", sung well, can be beautiful. I believe it's fair to say that Objectivists would prefer being free from religious expressions, as opposed to interacting with those who enjoy a freedom of religious expression.(Emphasis mine) I interact with a lot of people who enjoy freedom of expression, and I hope all Objectivists themselves enjoy freedom of expression. Also, I assume that most Objectivists interact with people who believe in God, enjoy these interactions, and place many of these relationships above many other specific relationships with atheists and other Objectivists. I know I do. Edited August 21, 2012 by softwareNerd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicky Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 I believe it's fair to say that Objectivists would prefer being free from religious expressions, as opposed to interacting with those who enjoy a freedom of religious expression. Is this is a roundabout way of conducting a poll on the issue, add me to the "Nay" camp too. It's not even that I hate religious expression less than I hate censorship, it's that I have no problem with free religious expression whatsoever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.