1. Obama Wants to Expand Role of Religious Groups

Comment #203196 by Thelonious on July 2, 2008 at 12:59 pm

Does anyone know how what he's proposing differs from the way things worked pre-Bush?

I belive religious organizations could get federal money for secular programs.

To what extent is he just rolling back?

2. Evangelical Christians sign up to a 'Church within a Church'

Comment #203175 by Thelonious on July 2, 2008 at 12:43 pm

What was that bit about paying off people who left over the issue of ordaining women? Priests, vicars (whatever?) quit the church because they couldn't stand the thought of women preaching and they got compensated for that?

3. Obama Wants to Expand Role of Religious Groups

Comment #203167 by Thelonious on July 2, 2008 at 12:35 pm

When I first saw this, I thought "Oh, no! So now Obama really becomes just the lesser of two evils"

When I got to the part about non-discriminatory hiring and not using federal funds to proselytize, I thought "OK, this is a good way to gut the faith-based program Bush set up - remove the faith"

Then there's the bit about proving the programs effectiveness - can you say "abstinence-only"?

Reading between the lines, this looks like a very savvy political move to reassure the religious right that he will "respect religion" (and thereby get their votes) but in reality, he's going to strengthen the Wall.

Then again, maybe this is wishful thinking on my part

4. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #143079 by Thelonious on March 13, 2008 at 12:19 pm

Civil partnerships are "an abuse" of the church's teaching on marriage

What exactly do civil statutes have to do with the church's teachings? How exactly does passing a law not in keeping with the church's views qualify as "abuse"?

And he claims that gays are trying to "gain persecuted status"? Ridiculous!

5. Admitting that you have no religion is not politically correct

Comment #122504 by Thelonious on February 5, 2008 at 11:03 am

I sent a protest email to the departments of Public Affairs and Public Accountability at

tfrost@wlu.ca; wpirker@wlu.ca

Making noise might help

6. Larry King Interviews Kathy Griffin

Comment #71654 by Thelonious on September 19, 2007 at 12:19 pm

Janus - chip on your shoulder much?

I'm sorry if I come off as pompous - I just think that, while religious doctrine is largely superstitious nonsense (and I say "largely" because many of the ethical principles, for example, are sound so it's not ALL nonsense), religion IS the way that most people have attempted to grapple with certain very basic, important and deep issues. As such, many of the concepts in the religious sphere are important concepts, even if they are misconstrued as requiring a supernatural entity to ground them. That, I thought, was Mr. Khiyal's original point.

I might be with you on worship, but then again maybe it applies to the reverence and awe inherent in what Dawkins calls "Einsteinian religion" - naturally you're free to reject that as well, but it's not incompatible with an atheist worldview. But "worship" might well be the wrong word.

Sin, on the other hand, need not be tied to the notion of a deity. At base, it's about guilt and shame resulting from a moral transgression - it's tied to morality, but not necessarily to a deity (it seems so only because people keep insisting that morality is necessarily theistic - something we both understand to be incorrect). As I said before, I have issues with the notion of sin, but it plays an important role in the psyche. It's not specifically Christian, by the way - many cultures have a similar notion.

I think Mr. Khiyal has adequately addressed the notion of the sacred in his follow-up post - it has nothing to do with superstition.

Just to make it clear, I disagree with Mr. Khiyal on Ms. Griffin's speech - I thought it was great and I'm glad to see the "I thank G*d for giving me this award" crowd skewered. Taking on Islam might have been braver, but would have entirely missed the cultural point.

7. Larry King Interviews Kathy Griffin

Comment #71408 by Thelonious on September 18, 2007 at 5:38 pm

Fanusi Khiyal: While the metaphysical claims of religion are bullshit, much of what it describes is real. Devotion, the Sacred, Sin and Redemption, Worship - these are all real, human characteristics and are among the most important ones. Jeer all you like.

Janus: *jeers*

What nonsense. Devotion to and worship of something that doesn't exist? Not what I would call an "important characteristic". Sin and redemption? Among the silliest and most harmful of Christianity's tenets. The Sacred? What the fuck is that?

If there's anything wrong here, it's that you think these things are in any way opposed to shallowness and pointlessness.

This is precisely the attitude that allows mainstream folks to write atheists off as petty, whining, shallow and angry. I see way too much of it on this site.

Janus, Mr. Khiyal expressly rejected the metaphysical claims of religion as "bullshit," so he's not talking about devotion to a non-existent god. I would suggest that he's talking about psychological characteristics here - and the ones he mentions are all very important and deep concepts.

I personally believe that the notion of sin is corrosive and destructive - nevertheless, it is important and may not be possible to eradicate.

Just because you don't understand the notion of the sacred, doesn't mean it isn't important. Mr. Khiyal is not your enemy - he just doesn't want to throw out the baby (arguably a good metaphor for, or example of, the sacred) with the bathwater.

What would you offer as oppositions to shallowness and pointlessness? (and, of course, "depth" and "meaning" are only simplistic answers - what qualities of life provide depth and meaning?).

Disclaimer: Let me make this explicit, since it is easy to misunderstand - I am NOT pushing any sort of metaphysical or religious agenda here. I DO think that concepts such as Devotion and the Sacred play an important role in a well-lived life (less sure about sin and redemption).

8. The Dawkins Confusion: Naturalism ad absurdum

Comment #23546 by Thelonious on March 1, 2007 at 2:03 pm

This quote reveals quite a bit: "the theist neither wants nor needs an ultimate explanation of personhood, or thinking, or mind"

Stupefying! Stultifying!

In his favor (nit-picky pet-peeve territory) he actually uses 'question-begging' correctly which almost no one seems to any more.