(CNN) – With "Crossfire" returning to CNN this Monday, September 9, CNN is taking a closer look into the hosts' lives with a series of Web videos.
In this first video, S.E. Cupp, a columnist, commentator and author, delves into her experiences with understanding religion and what it’s like to be an atheist and a conservative.
"To me, it never seemed like a contradiction," Cupp explains. "We have the same values," Cupp says of herself and religious believers. "I just think I get them from somewhere else."
Cupp, who has a master’s degree in religious studies, says she was always curious about religion. "I was just fascinated by the pomp and ceremony and ritual nature of religion, and yet couldn't completely get there ever; couldn't completely wrap my mind around the idea of God."
Cupp says she has been working on finding greater understanding for the last 20 years, and isn't giving up. "I want to get to the bottom of this story. It's something that I'll always be challenging myself on."
No, she is definitely not a militant atheist. She is a militant Christian.
I get my morals at k-mart and Christians get their morals at Walmart. Oh and by the way, I think that murder thing is pretty bad.
The morality section at K-Mart has daily Blue Law Specials where they refuse to sell you alcohol.
Well, at least you get it with a happy smiley face at Walmart! LOL!
Seriously, see how you detect and perceive "murder" as "pretty bad?" That's "Basic Morality!"
Derived from social evolution.
Unless, of course, God commands you to raze a village or two.
If you're good, He might let you keep the women as slaves, but most of the time He just wants every living thing slaughtered.
Splatter, sorry. I was on my way to get some Walmart steaks and couldn't hold it. Is it moral to eat meat?
The Jews didn't so much wander their way through the desert but massacre their way through it.
Not at K-mart.
Is this a joke?
I appreciate the differences that S.E. Cupp initially draws in, http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/belief-nonbelief-equal-article-1.437162?pgno=1#ixzz2ePSSMjoR.
However, she extends that distinction too far when she says the following:
"At Notre Dame University's commencement, [Obama] did it again, saying of the Golden Rule, 'It is the law that binds people of all faiths and no faith together.'
The suggestion that atheists are bound to the faithful by any set of values is not only presumptuous, it's also inaccurate."
It is the law that binds all Americans to a common values, not any religious doctrine, that was the point of his statement. This land of laws, not doctrine, binds all, religious and non-religious alike, to a common set of rules.
The pharisees never say, "Beware of the pharisees!", although Lincoln was close in that regard.
Blessed are the Cheesemakers
Comparing a woman to a building...why am I not surprised?
September 9, 2013 at 10:31 am | Report abuse | Reply
lol?? Pithiest, YES!!
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
If yer educated you shouldn't be.
"1Cr 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?"
So are you saying that you're upset that instead of receiving a healthy brain, you were just downwind from the wrong side of God and that's why you are like this?
How could "conservative atheist" be a contradiction unless "religious liberal" is also a contradiction?
Think of it more in the sense of colors. If liberal is blue and conservative is red then we don't have a bunch of red and blue states, we have purple states. S.E. is about as purple as they come.
Better check with da Crips and Bloods first if ya want to stay civilized.
I think rather than purple states, we have all states with some red and some purple. I don't think the colors mix that much.
Oops, states with some red and some blue...
I disagree, I think liberals and conservatives can agree on a lot of things and hold the same things dear. The love their family's, they want security and safety in their towns, they want to have a hopeful future for their children. I think 90% of both republicans and democrats feel the same way. It's the last 10% they don't agree on which cause 99% of the problems.
Most atheists I know are logical, skeptical folks, and logical, skeptical folks wouldn't buy into the anti-gay, anti-abortion, social conservatism load.
Most atheists I know are as dumb as everybody else. Also, one can be conservative, even socially conservative, and support gay marriage.
And one can be liberal and not buy into gay marriage. In fact, one can be gay and not buy into gay marriage.
Although anybody opposed to gay marriage is a complete fvcknut, regardless of political affiliation.
I would have thought that 'social conservative' would by definition oppose gay marriage. Wouldn't a social conservative want to preserver the "traditional" values and the status quo?
So you are saying they are the gay, aborted faction of society.
I just wonder what her Duck Dynasty buddies are going to do to her now that they know she's an atheist...
lol?? Pithiest, YES!!
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
A child's womb is his castle, socies. Talk about "eating" the next generation, cannibals!!
Oh you clueless uneducated dolt.
I don't buy yer narrative, silly.
So why are you so fixated on children's wombs? That you write like a whacko is one thing, but this fixation is troubling. Hopefully, you're locked up somewhere and this is the only means by which you can "touch" people.
Nuthin' like socie mob peer reviewed pressure.
You present yourself this way. And you still don't know the meaning of socialism. Hint: it isn't anyone who disagrees with your myopic, misogynistic world view.
Please define socie again for us – Its Monday and I could use a good laugh.
Lol??: "A child’s womb is his castle"
Do please show me where HIS womb is located in HIS body.
I'm a conservative atheist, it's not a contradiction. However, Cupp is a Christian conservative 'atheist'. That does seem like a contradiction. Also, from the way she describes herself, she seems much more like an agnostic Christian.
Even the turn "conservatist" is a minsnomer – it implies that someone is conservative on all aspects of politics. Personally, I'm fiscally conservative but socially liberal(ish). If only the Republican party could go back to that dynamic, we would be in a much better place as a nation.
They are fully trained in the Frankfurt School of hot dogism, too. Nice little Frankfurter pooches. What's the b*itch??
How cute. Lol hates women. Ensuring a lifetime of inflate-a-dates and Jergen's lotion, along with his hairshirt and Bible. Weeeeeeee!
:-) Vaseline must make a fortune off of him.
Mobs are so emotional like women and not very deliberative. How can that possibly be liberatin'?? Girly men.
"lol?? Pithiest, YES!!
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Make the military the powiceman of da wurld and turn your powice into military. How pwogwessive!!
September 9, 2013 at 10:35 am | Report abuse | Reply
lol?? Pithiest, YES!!
All in the name of the majority rules, AKA Sododemobocracy!
How does this relate to the topic, are you ill?
Here comes da mob, err the Hells Angels enforcers.
lol?? Pithiest, YES!!
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Martial law, haw haw. Kill a man over 100, don't retreat and wait for a surrender. That would be humane toward a man in his castle. Gud ol' SWAT teams!!
".....................The Ogden incident was among a growing number of no-knock police raids last year, a tactic that has grown in use from 2,000 to 3,000 raids a year in the mid-1980s, to 70,000 to 80,000 annually, says Peter Kraska, a professor of criminal justice at Eastern Kentucky University who tracks the issue..................."
Better get your bunker ready in Montana. Ooga booga!
The Bible is a 2,000 year old treasure map for finding the treasure of God. Just like any map or GPS, it has to be constantly updated to reflect the changing dynamics and knowledge. The church hasn't done that. It continues to teach the Bible the same way it has been taught for centuries, watering down its relevance for each passing generation. Young people leave the church because of the antiquated and anachronistic way the Bible is taught. Its teachings are timeless; the methods for teaching it are not. Forcing students to choose between their science books and their Bibles is a bad sales strategy and not supported by the Bible when seen through the lens of common sense. As someone who has studied through the Bible hundreds of times and interviewed dozens of young people who have left the church, it doesn't take much insight to realize that the problem is the church itself, not the teachings it was intended to share.
The bible was written by men, and too much of it has been proven false to think that any god had anything to do with it.
U r a pathological liar. Bible is infallible.
Richard Cranium speaks the truth.
Give us one example of the Bibles falsehood.
=>"Just like any map or GPS, it has to be constantly updated to reflect the changing dynamics and knowledge. The church hasn't done that."
Neither has your god.
U know less than tom the moron, if that's possible
I doubt it is possible to know less than you.
Blessed speaks the truth.
And yet you offer nothing to counter my point except insults....doesn't say much about your intellect.
You seem to be arguing for the antiquity of the Bible's teaching, while complaining that liberal renderings are actually out of date. How's that possible?
Metaphors have a shelf life related to their intended audience making many of the metaphors used in the Bible, to form an emotional connection between the teachings and those being taught, now watered down. When Paul used the "Sword of the Spirit" as part of the military word picture for his Ephesian audience under Roman Empire control, it would have certainly illicited an emotional response. However, for any kid growing up in today's world playing video games or watching combat movies, the sword metaphor is incapable of making that same connection. Anyone who remembers the scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark where an assasin confronts Indiana Jones with a menacing sword but then Jones matter-of-factly pulls out a pistol and shoots him, is well aware of how obsolete swords and other first century word pictures can be in today's Bible classes.
There are "Five Fatal Flaws" in how the church teaches the Bible that are driving young people away. Fatal Flaw #3 is that the church teaches that the Bible was written to us. It was not written to us. The Bible was written by forty or so men biologically inspired by God (using the same biological inspiration that enables an athletic team to overcome a thirty point deficit) to write things to a given audience at a given time and place to educate and encourage them to persevere. They used word pictures (since they didn't have photos, videos, chalkboards, text books, or computers) to try to convey their intended points they were inspired to make. By definition, many of the word pictures they used then are now outdated after thousands of years of civilization replacing those word pictures with contemporary ones. Therefore, in order for us to glean anything from these teachings (or treasure map), we first have to put ourselves in their environment to make the same emotional connection. That puts the responsibility on Bible teachers to mine the intended emotional quotient the writers shared. After all, anyone who has never served under a king cannot draw the same relevance to a "kingdom" that someone in the first century under the Roman Empire could, yet we still teach it as if we can. This waters down the power of Scripture. The best way to see this is to bring the Bible writers to our time. Since Luke was a doctor, imagine how differently he would have written his prose for Theophilus if CT Scans, MRIs, antibiotics, neuroscientific discoveries, heart transplants (Love the Lord your God with all THEIR heart?), and medicine had been prevalent in the first century as they are now. How would he had described an epileptic seizure? Possessed by a demon? Probably not. The way to mine for spiritual gold today is hear the teachings of the Bible through the lives of their intended audience. Had we done that hundreds of years ago, there probably would not be thousands of church buildings built next to one another at a cost of perhaps hundreds of billions of dollars which could have created an annuity to feed millions of children now starving. The teachings of Jesus were never intended to create a religion; they were intended to facilitate an incredible way of life. Young people will continue to leave the church until that spiritual gold becomes more visible.
What makes you think that all treasure maps actually lead to a real treasure?
It's just like the treasure maps you can find at Disneyland after riding Pirates of the Caribbean, old copied fakes that rouse a child's adventurous spirit but are worth less than the paper they are printed on.
A Masters in Religious Studies... because a BA wasn't useless enough... what a waste of money and time.
I never regretted getting a BA in Religious Studies.
BS in Business Admin w/minor in Psych and an MS in Intelligence Studies...
Sacred Theology Doctorate from the University of Baptist Scripture.
I'm very proud of the STD I got at the U of BS.
That is still funny Doc...
Thank you, thank you.
I'm here all week.
No applause please – just throw money.
Why not pass a collection basket?
Good idea – but why not go one further?
I demand 10% of all Belief Bloggers' incomes.
And remember – "if a dest.itute family is faced with the decision of paying their ti.thing or eating, they should pay their t.ithing."
If its good enough for the Mormons, its good enough for me!
If you don't pay, you'll never learn the secret, magic dance moves you'll need to know to pass into Paradise when you die.
Mormons – I can't take seriously a group that found the bible not stupid enough for them, so they made one even more appallingly stupid.
They have a new thing now called reverse ti.thing. Now, if you can talk people into giving you 90% of all they're worth, then the old adage about a fool and his money seems to justify it, wouldn't you say?
Maybe I should keep you from talking to my wife? She would pay just about anything for me to learn any dance moves. :-)
I don't see why.
Ms Cupp seems to be spending a large part of her intellectual life trying to get to the bottom of religion and the legend of God. People have spent ages of effort buildiing a Gordian knot around the concept of God so that it attracts endless examination by some people – it is attractive to some people, but there never seems to be a solution. Best just to ignore it and move on.
Usually, US Congress Memebers with predominant voting record of "present" (as opposed to yah or nay) on the issues, let alone being absent, do not win Presidential Elections when they run!
Is Ms. Cupp running for President? No? Then your comment is nonsense.
It is a metaphor for ignoring the issues and just moving on!
And, apparently, S. E. Cupp is NOT ignoring the issues and just moving, instead, she is pursuing them! I really like her!
Sounds pretty stupid to get a degree in something you can't use. I don't believe in Creationism or fairy tails but then I wouldn't waste my time studying them either. The only thing a theology degree is good for is getting set up by a church to be a preacher, not that you have to believe to do that. Look at all the preachers that end up in politics and from what i have seen they sure aren't godly in the Republican Party, darn mean spirited, angry, vindictive and evil folks. Making life worse for the poor, the working poor, hungary children and fixed income old people. Not wanting people to have health care, defunding school teachers and wanting to cut social services, not something Jesus would do!
It says she has a religious studies degree, not a theology degree. There's a pretty big difference.
I got my BA in Rel. Studies because I wanted to someday teach it as a professor. Little did I know that it would lead me to atheism. Funny how a careful, unbiased examination of a thing you thought you knew changes you view of it, eh?
SE Cupp is NOT an atheist, she is a paid x-tian shill whose purpose is to consume the public space with fluff so no serious conversation takes place.
"a W-H-O-R-E in love with her own reflection."
[ Jim Carroll (The Basketball Diaries author) ]
Religion is class war on the working class. SE Cupp and her ilk are the thinly veiled expression of contempt of the 1% on the 99%.
This never ending tabloid T & A show (Kardashian, Hilton, Coulter, Cupp, etc) that consumes news space is just a big F-U to the world.
I am glad to see this come up as a 'matter of course'. The fact that she talks about it openly and without hesitation is a step forward in this religiously dominant country of ours.
Good job, S.E. Cupp!!
Conservative and Christian were not always so connected, maybe S.E. Cupp should know that and point it out. From what little I have seen, she does not impress.
"Mark my words if and when these preachers get control of the (republican) party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians Believe they are acting in the name of god, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
~Republican Barry Goldwater
The McCarthyist era's successful conflation of Christianity wiht patriotism paved the way for the "Moral Majority's" deadlock on conservative politics in the latter part of the 20th century.
I hope that the new millenium is seeing the demise of this false connection – but it'll take a few more election cycles at least.
That was at Doc
The "love of country" is a "basic moral" that Christianity affirmed in the strong institution of the United States of America. The "freedom" people enjoy and take for granted today is the fruit of a "Moral Basis" which the predominantly Christian Founders employed.
Really? It sounds like you're claiming that Christianity invented patriotism with the founding of the US. Is that what you think?
However, the freedom of a republican system is a response to the autocratic system of Christian Europe, where kings and queens saw their power as being God-given, and were in league with the Church to maintain their power. In more ways than support your position, the American experiment was in contradiction to Christianity of that day.
Freedom from your god that condones slavery....? I don't think so.
The preachers have already taken control in Texas and they are the meanest, ungodly people. Degrade the poor, cut women's health care, fight against healthcare for the poor and working class, cut meals on wheels, aide to dependent children, keep birth control out of schools but cut the aide to unwed mothers, and due to the abstinence only education, Texas has the highest rate of unwed birth in America and the worst prenatal care. Really caring Christian bunch of folks. Too worried about the HMOs not making money or their personal wealth going to pay taxes to help the common man. They are the Born Again, Saved, Chosen by God: Cruse, Perry and the Texas Republican Legislature. If these guys are Christian the religion is doomed.
Then let's hope they are christians!
"Morality" comes from where we humans and everything else come from! It is BUILT-IN in us.
We detect the "Rules of Nature and Morality" through "Natural Revelation" by our BUILT-IN Sentience, Basic Instincts, Intuition, and Common Sense. What we detect is the Sense of "Right/Good" or "Wrong/Bad."
I believe God created everything, of which is "Nature," and gave all creatures the "Basic Instincts, Intuition, and Common Sense, hence "Morality," that fit their own species.
We have the same instincts and " morality" that has been passed down from our animal ancestors. There is no indication that any gods had anything to do with it.
Something else passed down through the generations and nearly universal to all societies is the search for "where we came from" and a tendency of most to believe in some sort of supernatural being...
You are leaping to a conclusion. Just because many seek gods, would they seek gods if no one had ever heard of a god. Think about it.If no one ever told you about a god, would you ever contemplate one, possibly, since someone is the first to imagine a god, but that is part of the problem. If there is a god or gods, where does the imagination begin and end, and where does the god begin and end. As far as anyone can tell, god only exists in imagination.
There is no reason to think morality comes from a god, and certainly not your god.
Moral relativism is a truism.
Our culture has a very strong cannibalism taboo, but it cannot be "human nature" to feel repulsed by it as virtually every branch of the human species has praticed it at some point in their development.
The Aztecs believed in transubstantiation. They consumed their human sacrifices in the belief that the dead literally became a part of the God to whom they were given.
Binerwurs in India ate the sick amongst them to please Kali.
The Karankawa, an indigenous Texan tribe, ritualistically consumed their enemies to gain their strength.
The Wari, The Kuru, Fore, Caribs, Fijians, Popayans, Serengipeans, are all fairly modern examples (within the last 500 years).
All of these cultures' religions made Cannibalism a sacred rite – perfectly moral and ethical in their eyes.
Deviance in human behavior is common in all cultures but that does not mean it is a "built-in basic moral." The "basic morality" I am speaking of cuts through and escapes our imperfect perception and bias, which pretty much constitutes what's right or wrong.
The "morality" you are speaking of isn't morality at all, it is just obedience. Following dictates from some nafarious "god" has nothing to do with having a moral compass.
The cultures I listed didn't cannibalism as a "deviance".
For them it was a holy practice and an integral part of their spiritual lives.
Sorta like the Catholics eating the body of their god in communion?
Christians from the 1st Crusade consumed the fallen Arabs at Maarat.
Be thankful that the modern form is limited to wafers and wine magically transforming into human flesh and blood.
Certainly everyone is allowed their own opinion, Vic, and yours is utterly unsurprising. Your opinion also has no basis in reality, so you could with equal authority claim that big foot knitted the universe out of cheesecake and that we learned our morals from a time traveling Windex bottle.
That premise is simply "illogical," and has no basis in reality according to our sentience, basic instincts, intuition, and common sense!
It's no more illogical than saying humans were "created" out of mud and fairy spit.
Or created from the severed fingers of a sea witch, as the Inuit believe. There are hundreds of creation stories; why is yours any different?
What basis do you have to believe that?
Sentience, basic instincts, intuition, and common sense through "Natural Revelation."
And if all of those can be explained using basic evolutionary theory, why add a supernatural element?
How reliable are those things, Vic? And do be honest about it – particularly with yourself.
They are reliable to the extent that you function in this life, and without them it is total chaos!
Oh, I just missed a couple of points.
I don't believe in "Evolution of Species" nor do I believe in "Abiogenesis!"
Being honest about it with myself, I am to the extent I believe in God.
"I don't believe in 'Evolution of Species' nor do I believe in 'Abiogenesis'"
What is "Evolution of Species"? Is it different that the Theory of Evolution?
Me, that is a way for Christians to claim they don't believe in evolution while still believing in evolution. Like most of Christianity it is just one more contradiction.
"Sentience, basic instincts, intuition, and common sense " aka "feeling the truthiness of something" and the truthiness is reliant on how badly you want something to be true...Vic wants very badly to be a super special human who talks with the creator of the universe, so he feels for the truthiness of such a statement, and since he really really wants it to be true, the truthiness is off the charts!
First what is "natural revelation"?
Second, how are those things you mentioned evidence of it?
"Natural Revelation" is what God reveals in nature. That revelation is detected and perceived by built-in functions, i.e. Sentience, Basic Instincts, Intuition, and Common Sense.
"Natural revelation" is made up creationist jargon/crap, to argue against evolution... people who use terms like that are purposefully science ignorant... who would rather believe the Earth is flat than believe anything a scientist says that contradicts their silly book...
Natural revelation is an unfounded belief. Unfounded because no one has ever been able to show there are any gods.
To then a$$ume there is one and create something like natural revelation is what is illogical.
You sould not use the word logic nor illogic Vic since you have proven time and time again, you do not know what they mean.
So, there is no real difference between "natural revelation" and simply observing nature, i.e. science. Is that correct?
Science is totally part of the "Natural Revelation" by God. It is a matter of discovery!
(sigh) So what is the difference? What exactly differentiates "natural revelation" from science?
What separates Science from God's "Natural Revelation" is "human bias!"
Cute, but I didn't ask what separates the two, but what is the difference? How does one determine what is "natural revelation" and not science, or vice versa?
God created everything, gave it the "nature" it has, and set it in motion where all the "natural processes" are automatic thereafter. Science that is discovered by man (which is approximate and limited in scope) is knowledge of what some of what God created is made of and how it works. God revealed knowledge about Him through "Special Revelation" and knowledge about His creation through "Natural Revelation." Science falls into the "Natural Revelation."
So in theory there is nothing available to "natural revelation" that is not available to science. I submit that "natural revelation" is just a relabeling of that which can be found be natural means, without any appeal to the supernatural, and then ascribing it to your particular deity.
The problem is that anyone can make the same claim for any non-evidenced supernatural enti.ty and be equally justified in such a claim.
So, God is actually the one revealing that there is nothing magical, or supernatural in the universe, including himself?
Evolution explains things like "instinct" a whole lot better than what you're trying to imply about some god being responsible. If Common Sense were all that was needed to determine good from bad, right from wrong, then what need would people have of a god giving moral directives and commandments? Indeed, the Bible would seem to argue that people do not have any innate sense or morality, but need God to impose acceptable morality upon us.
It fails, however, in that people do need to have some internal sense of morality outside of God just to determine that God is the good guy and Satan is the bad guy, yes? It would be circular logic to use God's own defined standards to judge him, but if we don't need his standards, then why do we need any advice from the Bible about morality at all?
God "moral directives" through the "penal code" of the Law was necessary to show man what sin is, he needs Him, and maintain Faith in Him until the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. The "Law of Sin" was the "shadow" of Christ that was to keep people believing in God.
"Basic Morality," although built-in, does not mean man (human) won't ignore and bypass to commit immoral things. Usually, man sinned in disbelief in God, and that's why God affirmed and imposed the built-in "Basic Morality" and "Sin Law," that is to prevent man from disbelief. All believers sin but not in disbelief in God, and are forgiven through the Salvation of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Regarding morality not being innate, it is but not effective until the person is fully "conscious." Infants and babies are not full conscious. And, "consciousness" is another major UNKNOWN to science!
"moral directives" = following orders...... and does not = morality
Yes, moral directives are not a moral system. A moral system has a means of sorting out what is moral in any given situation, something that the Bible utterly fails at doing.
I read through the rest of your post a few times, and it still doesn't make any more sense to me than the explanation Trekkies give for how Klingons changed from the original series. Why is it that you think that disbelief in God is some kind of sin? Surely the people who have never heard of God cannot be blamed for this, and the same should go for the rest of us nonbelievers. Are we to blame for not hearing any convincing arguments from believers?
Politics and religion are hopelessly conflated in the US.
lol?? Pithiest, YES!!
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
The Big O should be transparent and give the Masters a looksie at his bwainscan. His hopey changey message makes him look like a psychopath.
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.