 |
|
|
|
|
April 14th, 2014
06:06 PM ET
The accused Kansas killer's neo-pagan religionBy Daniel Burke, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor [twitter-follow screen_name='BurkeCNN'] (CNN) - Frazier Glenn Cross is a white supremacist, an avowed anti-Semite and an accused killer. But he is not, as many think, a Christian. Cross, who also goes by the name Glenn Miller, is accused of killing three people - all Christians - on Sunday at Jewish institutions in Overland Park, Kansas. Authorities are weighing whether to file hate-crime charges against Cross, who is suspected of targeting Jews. The 73-year-old has espoused anti-Semitism for decades. He also founded racist groups like a branch of the Ku Klux Klan and the White Patriot Party, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. Both groups have deep ties to Christian white supremacists. But according to Cross' 1999 biography, he is an adherent of Odinism, a neo-pagan religion that experts say has emerged as one the most vicious strains in the white supremacist movement. "The faith’s obsession with genetic purity, racial supremacy and conquering supposedly lesser peoples is a recipe for violence," said Josh Glasstetter, campaign director for the Southern Poverty Law Center. Cross writes in his autobiography, "A White Man Speaks Out":
Odin, often depicted with a white beard and long robe, is chief among the Norse gods, whose pantheon includes Thor, the god of thunder, and Loki, the mischief-maker In 2010, a white nationalist group, the Council of Conservative Citizens, boycotted the movie "Thor" because it cast a black actor, Idris Elba, as a Norse god. Cross writes in his autobiography, which remains posted on his website, that he has prayed for Odin to spark a race war in the United States. On Sunday, Cross "appears to have been acting out a violent fantasy, with himself cast as the brave Odinist warrior of his imagination," Glasstetter said. What the killings at Kansas Jewish sites say about U.S. hate groups Though Odinism has been appropriated by white racists, most adherents are peaceful, earth-loving pagans (some followers prefer the name "heathen"), said Jonathan White, an expert on religious extremists and a professor at Grand Valley State University in Grand Rapids, Michigan. An ancient Viking religion, Odinism resurfaced in northern Germany in the 19th century, where Nazis later appropriated its themes and gods. Odinist mythology "was a bedrock belief for key Third Reich leaders, and it was an integral part of the initiation rites and cosmology of the elite Schutzstaffel (SS), which supervised Adolf Hitler's network of death camps," according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. Odinism also influenced the creation of the American Nazi Party, which was founded in 1959. Odinism has lately gained in popularity among white supremacists who believe that Jesus is too peaceful and too Jewish to worship, White said. "It's hard to get a violent god out of Jesus." The Southern Poverty Law Center warns of a Odinist network run out of a California prison, where Asatru, another neopagan religion with roots in Iceland, has also taken root. "Racist versions of Odinism and its Icelandic version, Asatru, have become increasingly popular theologies among imprisoned racists and others on the radical right in recent years," said the Southern Poverty Law Center in a 2009 report. Peaceful neo-pagans, meanwhile, have strongly condemned white supremacists who appropriate their religion. "I want to say that Frazier Glenn Cross is a monster, and it cannot be denied that he's not alone," said Josh Rood, an expert on Asatru at the University of Iceland. "The prison systems, and the white separatist movements have been bastardizing Asatru beliefs, symbols, and myths for a long time." However, Rood said, white supremacists form a minority - albeit a loud and violent one - of a peaceful and proudly multicultural religion. Several mainstream neo-pagan and self-described heathen groups have strongly denounced Sunday's killings and are raising money for the victims. Cross' own public proclamations of faith seem to have taken several twists. David Embree, a religious studies professor at Missouri State University, said Cross presented himself as a traditional monotheist when he ran for Congress in 2008. But when he spoke at Embree's classroom in 2012, his views had apparently changed, the professor said. "He essentially self-identified as an atheist," Embree said. "The more overtly Christian groups in Southern Missouri have pretty much shunned him." Cross's second in command at the White Patriot Party, Stephen Miller, is a member of the Christian Identity movement, which claims that whites are the "true people of God." "Though I shared that particular belief, I did not agree with others," Cross writes in his autobiography. "Christianity is the second biggest trick the Jews ever played on us," he later writes. "The biggest was legalized abortion!" White said he sometimes refers to the violent strain of Odinism as "Nordic Christianity" because many American adherents borrow from both in creating their racist ideology. In his autobiography, Cross blends Christianity and Odinism in describing his ideal funeral. He writes that he would like to be buried in his White Patriot Party uniform. The music would include "The Old Rugged Cross," the venerable Christian hymn, and "Ride of the Valkyries," an opera piece appropriated for Nazi propaganda. This is how Cross closes the book: "Praise Odin, pass the ammunition, Sieg Heil, and Heil Hitler!"
Next entry »Heathenism's battle with white supremacists
« Previous entryDoes the Bible predict the 'blood moon'?
|
  About this blog
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.  |
|
|
|
If you believe in white supremacy and violence, you may claim to be a Christian, but you are not.
True. Just because you call yourself one doesn't mean you are. Technically, you're only a Christian if you are saved.
What about those who are saved but still have these views? I've met a couple.
How do you know they are saved?
There you go again Akira. You must be near Panic to ask such question? Those who really, really for Real Trust in God and in Jesus Christ God's Only Son, not the fakers are the ones that are saved. Faking it is not going to save anyone and those who fake it eventually will fall into anxiety which can lead them to Panic. And Panic can as it has, lead them into anarchy, brawls, stampedes and riots.
Topher
Because they said they are saved just as you do, how do you know they are not saved, because you say so? Now you will proceed to tell everyone it is the bible, god's word, that determines who is saved? Of course that will be your fringe groups interpretation of the myth, please tell everyone what that is yet again.
Topher,
Because they have said they were saved. And the attend the large Baptist Church near us.
So I ask you again, what about thise who are saved but still have these views?
Panic: there you go again with the puns.
ausphor
"Because they said they are saved just as you do, how do you know they are not saved, because you say so?"
Nope. I don't know if they are saved or not. It has nothing to do with what I say. But I can make a pretty good guess based on the Bible, which says you shall know them by their fruit. If murder and hatred are their way of life, you can bet they aren't following Christ's teachings.
"Now you will proceed to tell everyone it is the bible, god's word, that determines who is saved?"
Well, the Bible can tell you HOW to be saved. But reading the Bible doesn't save you.
"Of course that will be your fringe groups interpretation of the myth, please tell everyone what that is yet again."
There's nothing fringe about it.
Akira
"Because they have said they were saved. And the attend the large Baptist Church near us."
Attending church doesn't mean you are saved.
"So I ask you again, what about thise who are saved but still have these views?"
As I stated in another response ... the Bible says you will know them by their fruit. If hatred and murder are part of their lifestyle, then they aren't following Christ's teachings.
Topher
I have better things to do today, so I will bid you adieu for now. Sincerely hope you and the wife and baby are doing well.
I was hoping for more than the True SCotsman stuff.
I would mention teh good christians who partisipated in the inquisitions and crusades, but there is no point.
Well, I suppose there is no way to tell who has been saved, then. Apparently taking them at their word is insufficient...including many of the ministers and preachers out there. And it's just another opportunity for yet some other person to say, "well, they were No True Christian, then."
Not that I ever thought this guy was anything but a seething ball of hate in the first place. The only thing that has ever entered my mind with him is that he's had a psychotic break.
There are people that say they are following Christ, that pretty much do the opposite of what he asks.
Like loving our enemies and praying for those who do you harm. It is a difficult thing to do.
Just like there are people who say they embrace logic and reason, that pretty much do the opposite of that. They are illogical and unreasonable in what they do. They just say they are logical and reasonable. It is difficult to actually carry it out.
None of what I said has anything to do with No True Scotsman.
" I was hoping for more than the True SCotsman stuff. "
They will never give it up. It is their universal get out of jail free card, that absolves them of any wrong doing anywhere, anytime.
Akira
"Well, I suppose there is no way to tell who has been saved, then."
Not for sure, no. That's between that person and God.
"Apparently taking them at their word is insufficient...including many of the ministers and preachers out there."
Taking someone at their word is a good policy. Though you can always check what a preacher says against what the Bible says. ALWAYS go with the Bible.
So we are full circle again, Topher. These people say they're saved, and they hold these views. They even have Scripture to back them up; so again, are they right or wrong?
I have my own personal ideas, but that's just me.
Akira
Scripture to back them up on what?
Topher,
"... and they hold these views. They even have Scripture to back them up..."
They use Scripture to back up their views. I thought that was abundantly clear when I wrote it. Sorry you were confused.
They use Scripture to back up their hatred and murder? I don't think so.
toph...you're not that naive...I hope?
Topher,
I will state this once again. I know people who claim they were saved. These same people have similar awful views as this Cross guy. These samr people use Scripture to back up and justify said views. Similar to the idiots of the Westboro Baptist and their nasty bigoted views on gays.
What on earth is making you so incredulous about this?
It has been done before, and it will happen again.
How do we STOP it? Obviously, being saved hasn't done the trick.
So according to this author it's only a hate crime if he's Christian?
"Puny god."
I couldn't resist. And I mean whatever he thinks Odin is, not what peace-loving individuals know Odin is.
"Aryan Christians" LOL. What a joker!! These skinheads are so dumb they don't understand a meaning of word "Arya" or "Aryan", at least wish they had brain to look up on internet. THERE ARE NO SUCH THING ARYAN CHRISTIANS. By definition, 1 billions people in India are aryans.
Arius was a Christian – he was just a non-triniatrian Christian who got out-voted back in 325CE.
Constantine wouldn't have invited him to the Nicene Council were he not a prominent Christian leader in his day.
Aryan does not equal "Arian" – The Arius you mention has nothing to do with the so-called Aryan race.
I stand corrected.
If that was the case, then India would have one billion Christians, not hindus.
Perhaps you should read deeper into the meaning of that word and why it was used in that context.
No, I don't need to, but people who shave their heads, walk around with Swastika tattoo and kill people need to read. There are one billion Aryans living in India. India was called Aryan nation, Indian kings were called Aryan kings, people were called Aryans, and studied Sanskrit; Swastika was the sacred symbol to Aryans, and in today's date, it is still a sacred symbols in Indian; native Indians were called Dravidians or people who live in Southern India today.
I even I could be, may be his Panic
People who do not Trust in God and in Jesus Christ God's Only Son do get involve in anarchy, brawls, stampedes, riots and all kinds of other nasty things. Anxiety, Mass hysteria, hate etc. all can lead to Panic. And Panic can certainly lead as it has, to all of the aforementioned.
Trust in God and in Jesus Christ God's Only Son and you WILL NOT Panic. Because even I could be, may be his Panic.
"I even I could be, may be his Panic"
Is English your second language?
Is gibberish your First?
Wow. I meant no disrespect; merely asking because it's an odd turn of phrase.
No, gibberish isn't my first. My post makes perfect sense. Yours doesn't.
Simmer down. And answer the question.
Such people often shop at WalMart on Black Friday, too.
Do you go there to shop or to bereave?
I go there to fondle the D cup braziers.
You little pervert; does your mom knows you are doing that?
"Authorities are weighing whether to file hate-crime charges against Cross, who is suspected of targeting Jews."
So it's a "hate crime" to target Jews but not Christians? How odd...
The question is did he kill Christians because they were Christians? Probably not. If not, then it's not a hate crime. But what happens if he hates Jews and he killed them thinking they were Jewish? Is that a hate crime? That's the issue.
this crazy guy killed a young boy and his grandpa, there should be no hair splitting on what is applicable; his aśś should be deep fried.
Well actually murder isn't always just murder. There's manslaughter, 2nd degree, 1st degree, insanity, and as a hate crime. They all have different penalties.
Murder is murder regardless of who is the victim.
Hate is a "product" of not Trusting in God and in Jesus Christ God's Only Son. The Bible calls it a fruit of the Flesh. Anxiety, Mass hysteria can lead as it has to Panic even this type of hate. Those who do not Trust in God and in Jesus Christ God's Only Son will hate and Panic. Once they hate, they Panic for whatever the reason, then get themselves involved in anarchy, brawls, stampedes and riots.
Like those atheists in Northern Ireland hurling stones at children from different atheist sects.
Catholics and Protestants are atheists, right?
There you again, always the same song and dance. Have you not yet been able to read and comprehend beyond 4th grade level?
That explains why Ghandi and Confucius are so full of hate. No JC to calm them down.
Federal authorities are the ones who decide if it's a hate crime or not. From what I understand, the federal jury haven't convened yet. Suffice to say that the state charges ensure he won't be going anywhere while the Feds decide.
I wonder how many Jews Frazier Glenn Cross has met. That is, people he knew were Jews. 3? 4? And I wonder Jews he ever met that he didn't know were Jews. I knew a woman who hated Jews. She was clueless. When I pointed out people she knew or knew of who were Jewish, she was astounded. Ignorance –> hatred
The nutcase who went on the rampage might be a "neo-pagan" or whatever but that does not mean there was no Christian influence fueling his mania. In fact the Christian religion (Catholic/Protestant etc) has quite a bit of history of antisemitism in its entire duration of existence. Ever since it transformed from a minor cult in a far-off Roman province of Palestine to the official state religion of the Roman empire, a lot of blood was shed especially of the non-believer kind from the crusades all the way down to the holocaust. Jesus may have preached love but Christian states preferred the sword. Hitler and his henchmen may all have been down with the occult, appropriating religious symbols from other religions (Swastika from Hinduism) but their underlying antisemitism was all thanks to the Christian influence, some of them even thought that they were the reborn Knights Templar. I would be more scared of what goes on in the mind of the fanatic followers of the Abrahamic religions (Jewish fanatics included!) who are all waiting for their respective messiahs during the end of days (Rapture anybody!) rather than those few professing the neo-pagan !
Actually, it makes sense that he would reject Christianity. Reviving the old Norse myths is kind of interesting though.
"White said. "It's hard to get a violent god out of Jesus.""
+++ no it's not. just read the End Times. a sword comes out of jesus' mouth. he rules with an iron hand. stamps the winepress of god's wrath. opens the seven seals releasing war on the world.
True. God's wrath is being stored up for those who deserve it (anyone who breaks His laws.)
Thor promised to rid the world of all the giants, I don't see any giants around do you?
There are just so many sad, sad mentally ill people like him out there. You just never know when one is going to blow.
How brave and glorious to shoot unarmed people who were not prepared in any way for a fight. I'm sure he will be acclaimed in the halls of Valhalla for such a fearless act of valor
He didn't die in battle so no Valhalla for that guy.
So.. It's not going to be a "HATE" crime because he killed Christians????
Of course not. Everything is acceptable but Christianity.
Both of you are wrong, and your sarcasm reveals a "poor me" martyr complex where none is deserved.
Hate crimes are defined by categories, not groups. Yes, anti-Christian crimes qualify as hate crimes.
This also qualifies as a hate crime because the shooter THOUGHT his victims were Jewish.
But if he'd shot them because they were Christian, that would also be a hate crime.
Thank you for this.
America has always been prejudiced against heterose.xual, white, Christian males.
They weren't even allowed to vote until 1776, right?
Yeah, that whining gets tedious.
Wouldn't it be great if America could finally embrace an openly Christian president?
Or maybe 44 of them consecutively?
Gee...perish the thought. The US would positively explode.
Topher
If that was an attempt at humor it was way out of place. Your vindictive petty pr!ck of a god allowed two planes to fly into buildings killing 3000 people no matter of what religion or nationality but with your thinking because the majority were Christian it is not a hate crime? Shake your stupid head.
You know what? That comment was in the wrong spirit. I apologize.
Topher
An appropriate apology. In your world if the 3 victims were catholic they would not even be Christian, strange world you live in. You do have a good heart but live with such blinders on you can only see in one direction.
I believe the woman was Catholic and the two males Methodist. Not sure what that has to do with this, though.
Topher
I find it disingenuous that you would state that Catholics are not Christians in one breath, just your little Baptist group qualifies, and then have the gall to claim that when Catholics are persecuted in some areas they all of a sudden are back in the Christian fold, you can't have it both ways.
samsstones
"I find it disingenuous that you would state that Catholics are not Christians in one breath, ..."
They're not. They're Catholic.
" just your little Baptist group qualifies,"
I have NEVER said that. Being Baptist does not save you. Nor have I said only Baptists are correct.
"and then have the gall to claim that when Catholics are persecuted in some areas they all of a sudden are back in the Christian fold, you can't have it both ways."
Never said that, either.
Topher
Great deflection, you are a miserable liar, just one single focus. You seem to be an a very nice person on this blog, but I wonder what you are like in reality. For example do you ever revert to your old behaviour, none of my business but forgiveness is all about repenting for the sh!t you get up to.
No deflection. I directly responded to you.
And are you asking if I still sin? Of course. Christians are still sinners.
He's been charged by the State. They are putting it before a FEDERAL jury, who has to charge him with a hate crime.
That hasn't been decided yet, so save the whining and the absurd persecution complex, please.
To call this man a "neopagan" is a misnomer. He is a neo-nazi, plain and simple. Associating him with paganism is just wrong. He is anti-semitic and sick.
I used to know some neopagans and they occasionally mentioned groups like this as a warning. They might seem to overlap with neopagan beliefs but they're neo-Nazis and no pagan I knew would go anywhere near them. They are to paganism as Satanists are to Christianity.
"Thank God Frazier Glenn Cross wasn't around."
If you thank your god when something good happens, why don't you blame him when something bad happens? If you think that he does everything for a reason, then you should thank god for everything that happens, shouldn't you?
Meant to reply to Vic.
Nope. You blame the fall.
Ok, so there's no reason to ever thank a god then.
Funny thing. The fools who like to claim 'White Superiority" are almost with out fail, the prime examples of why, we are NOT the all superior race they wish to believe.
The fact is that every religious person here believes that if their God wanted those people dead then they deserved to die and would have done it themselves if their God had commanded it of them. To many of them their hero is a man who was about to murder his own son on his Gods command and they pray every day for faith like that, for more faith to do horrible things to innocents if God asks them to...
The only difference between Cross and the rest of the religious is that the rest don't believe their God has commanded them to kill...yet.
The fact is that every atheist here thinks that whether this event occurred or not has no real implications on the value of the universe. If the event occurred, it would have been just as random and irrelevant as if it had not occurred. All atheists believe that morality is created by the individual and transformed into ethics by the group. If the group decided that these three folks should have died, then the atheists would have condoned it and even carried it out.
Morality is subjective and the only reason that atheists aren't murdering people is because society has not let them do it... yet.
Right!
As an atheist, I'm striving to more like the christians in Rwanda.
I'm working hard at it too.
You could strive to be more like the atheists in North Korea too. Or the ones in Stalin's USSR. Or the ones in Pol Pot's Cambodia. Nothing bad ever happens/happened in those places.
So basically the defense after accusing the religious of being willing to kill for their imagined God has been "Well you atheists would kill to!"
My point is that I have ZERO motive to kill any other human that is not directly physically harming me or my family or other innocent members of society. Religious persons do have a motive to kill and it's an invisible voice in their heads that they proclaim on a daily basis to trust in, believe in and talk to. Which person would you rather live next to?
NBHA,
Yes, that is what I am saying, but no, it is not an excuse for being willing to kill. I am saying that, regardless of religion, there are reasons that drive people to kill. This shooter guy didn't get his beliefs from a religion. There are plenty of people who don't. Sometimes, you just get people who want to kill other people, and they can come from any background.
I can believe that you do not personally want to kill anyone who is not directly harming you, but you could have many motives for killing someone. You could want money through their death, you could be worried they will take your job in the future, you could think that they have some sort of gene that needs to be eliminated, etc..
None of these are GOOD motives, but they are motives and none of them come from religion.
It is foolish to blame religion for events like these. Especially because this guy seemed to have invented his own religion to suit his needs.
"If the group decided that these three folks should have died, then the atheists would have condoned it and even carried it out."
Based on a reasoned decision coming from the subjects of subjective morality who would not arbirarily decide who lives and who dies but base a system or laws and punishments designed by humans for humans. Will it be perfect? Of course not. Would it at least be more consistant instead of every different faction with their own ideology and laws based on their personally imagined deity making the decisions? Yes.
If a jury of my peers decide that my behavior is too dangerous for humanity then I would accept my fate to be weeded out based on my own actions. If a group of people who believe in an invisible fairy believe I don't respect their fairy enough so they want to kill me, well then they should be weeded out based on their own actions proving they are too dangerous for a law abiding society.
Here's the problem with saying that morality is subjective:
If it is subjective, then when that society of sky-fairy believers decides that something is immoral, it becomes immoral whether you like it or not.
You are arbitrarily saying that the morality of the sky-fairy believers is less good than the morality of the non-sky-fairy believers, when moral subjectivity dictates that neither is better or worse than the other.
How can you argue that Christian ethics are bad from the grounds of moral subjectivity?
Within the perspective of moral subjectivity, all moral systems, Christianity being one of them, are equal,
Here is the layout on subjective morality.
On a subjective view of morality, a man can choose to decide that murder is morally evil and can base that opinion on external references such as the golden rule or he can decide that murder is morally good and base this opinion on other external references, such as for personal power. As sick as this is, each choice is equal with regards to morality on atheism.
"then when that society of sky-fairy believers decides that something is immoral, it becomes immoral whether you like it or not."
You are correct, so when they choose to sacrafice their children then to those sky-fairy believers that is moral. However it is far more difficult to subjectively agree on something like that if there is no religious zealot claiimng that is what their deity wants and that if they don't do it they won't have a good crop next year. When a human makes a claim on behalf of their deity they are removing the responsibility from themselves for the claim that is counter to building a stronger society. They get to hide behind their Gods skirts when society raises up calling for justice. They say "It isn't me that hates gay people, it's my God!" like if it were up to them they would be embracing their fellow humans with open arms.
Society as a whole at some point decided that many of the things in the bible are immoral, that is why we don't force women to marry their rap.ists anymore. That is to say that people living 2000 years ago would have found it perfectly moral, and now we don't. So I would say that our morals as a whole have improved since the Bible was written. To try and argue that morals don't change from person to person and from culture to culture, as well as over time seems fairly insane to me. Can you come up with even a single example of something that everyone throughout all of human history has agreed to be either good or bad?
“If a jury of my peers decide that my behavior is too dangerous for humanity then I would accept my fate to be weeded out based on my own actions”
Bull
There is a morality that requires no God and is in effect the same as the hippocratic oath doctors would take. "I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone."
Admittedly the oath did originally invoke a God, or rather many of them "I swear by Apollo, the healer, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgment, the following Oath and agreement" but that was more in line with covering bases than any actual belief in those Gods. They had not heard of Pascals wager at that time.
Joey,
Just the fact that you are saying that "our morals as a whole have improved since the Bible was written" demonstrates that you do not believe in moral subjectivity. It is clear that you believe that the morals of the Bible are worse that morals we have today. In saying that, it is implied that there is some set of "good" morals and some set of morals that is not "good."
Moral subjectivity would say that the morals of the Bible are equally good/bad as those of today.
If you argue from the stance of moral subjectivity, then any discussion over the goodness or badness of morality is impossible.
Joey,
"So I would say that our morals as a whole have improved since the Bible was written."
On atheism, What standard are you using to determine that morals have "improved"?
"To try and argue that morals don’t change from person to person and from culture to culture, as well as over time seems fairly insane to me."
If Some people in the past sacrificed their children and thought it morally good, would you say they were right and for them it was morally good?
NBHA,
It sounds like you approve of moral subjectivity except when the group that is associated with that moral subjectivity all agrees that there is a god or gods.
From the tone of your posts, it sounds like you are saying that moral subjectivity would be better if the subjects did not believe in a higher power. That is placing a value judgement on their morals, which is not possible to do if you are claiming that morals are subjective.
You can say you don't think the morality of believers is good, but that is claiming that there is a "good" set of morals, which in turn would be saying that morality is objective, but Christians don't align with that objective truth.
I am using my subjective opinion. You of course can disagree and argue that biblical moral are better which would only help to prove that morality is indeed subjective.
"Bull"
Just because I have never done anything remotely deserving of death or even jail time other than to blaspheme all of the Gods, gods, goddesses and any deity ever imagined I think I can agree that if I did I would accept my punishment. As for the blasphemy charge I plan on doing that every day until there are no more Gods to blaspheme, they are all liars and worth less than a cart full of horse shlt.
Joey and NBHA,
I think you are confused on what moral subjectivity means. It sounds like you are saying that, because there have been, and still are, lots of different moralities, all moralities are subjective. That is not what moral subjectivity is.
Moral subjectivity claims that all moralities are equally valid. What you are saying is that there are a lot of different moralities out there, not that they are all equally good/bad.
It is very true that different people have different morals, but that does not mean that their morals are all good.
This shooter guy for instance, I am sure thought he was behaving morally in his actions. I think we can all agree that he was not.
To say that morality is subjective is like saying that the theory of heat-transfer is subjective. Back in the day, they thought that heat was transferred through caloric fluid. They have had a lot of different views on heat throughout human history. But just because people disagree on something, does not mean that that thing is subjective. Sometimes people are just wrong.
If they sacrificed their kids I can only a.ssume that they thought it was morally o.k., I of course would disagree with them. This goes back to the point that what is considered to be moral in a society isn't really up to any one individual but to society as a whole.
Morality is subjective.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is not the truth.
"Moral subjectivity claims that all moralities are equally valid. "
No. It claims that they are all conditional. Not the same thing...
"Morality is subjective and the only reason that atheists aren't murdering people is because society has not let them do it... yet."
Much like in court, the jury is interested in finding a motive for a crime. You have presented no motive for an atheist to kill anyone other than saying effectively that in a democracy the people get to vote on laws and some laws condemn some people to death for their actions.
As for the Christians and just about every other religion, they have a whole list of motives written in their book for why they might kill in the name of their deity. And they aren't even ashamed to proclaim it which is very scary. Thankfully our founders were intelligent enough to ban any blasphemy laws or Christians would have been hanging anyone they didn't like regardless of their color...
Within moral subjectivity, blasphemy laws are just as moral as murder laws.
If the society deems that blasphemy is a detriment to that society, then through the lens of moral subjectivity, they are moral in establishing blasphemy laws.
You cannot say morals are subjective and then immediately condemn certain morals as "bad" and praise others as "good."
“Morality is subjective and the only reason that atheists aren’t murdering people is because society has not let them do it… yet.”
This is a laughable statement, because as everyone knows, (or SHOULD know) the majority of murderers in prison are Christian.
So, throwing stones at the atheists seems really, really dumb.
"You cannot say morals are subjective and then immediately condemn certain morals as "bad" and praise others as "good."
Why not? Why can I not say that there are "bad" morals set up by decieved and duped societies where their laws are detrimental to society as a whole. Would you not agree that the approved "moral" decision by the Nazis to murder millions of innocents was "bad" even subjectively?
Humans will always debate their own morality which is fine and constructive. When a group within the society feels their version of morality is better and attempt to solidify their version by proclaiming that invisible fairys back them up and thus they are no longer accountable to humans, then they are no longer moral humans looking for a moral society, they are supporters of invaders from another dimension wanting their alien overlords will done instead of societies will.
BZ,
I was being facetious. The post I was responding to was just extremely hyperbolic, so I responded with a hyperbolic response in an attempt to shine a mirror to the hyperbole.
I really don't think that Atheists are any better or worse people than Christians, and I would definitely expect there to be more Christians in American prisons than any other group because there are more Christian Americans that any other group. Everyone is a sinner and everyone falls short of the glory of God. We all need Jesus.
Concepts such as ‘state’ and ‘society’ and ‘government’ have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals.
Morality is a covenant by and for people that enables us to live together.
Murdering each other isn't conducive to community building.
We are selfish creatures by nature, yet our survival depends on cooperation. In order to balance these two conflicting instincts, mankind has had to develop rules that allow room for both.
These rules are not the same for all communities – hence we've had so many different types of religion and government throughout history.
Religion binds communities by giving a common frame of reference.
Shared fears (like divine retribution), hopes (like going to heaven) and rituals allow the instinct for self preservation to extend beyond one's self and immediate family.
But belief in God and hope for posthumous reward/fear of posthumous punishment are hardly apex benchmarks for morality.
Countries with a high percentage of nonbelievers are among the freest, most stable, best-educated, and healthiest nations on earth. When nations are ranked according to a human-development index, which measures such factors as life expectancy, literacy rates, and educational attainment, the five highest-ranked countries - Norway, Sweden, Australia, Canada, and the Netherlands - all have high degrees of nonbelief. Of the fifty countires at the bottom of the index, all are intensly religious. The nations with the highest homicide rates tend to be more religious; those with the greatest levels of gender equality are the least religious. These associations say nothing about whether atheism leads to positive social indicators or the other way around. But the idea that atheists are somehow less moral, honest, or trustworthy have been disproven by study after study.
“Humans impart meaning and purpose to almost all aspects of life. This sense of meaning and purpose gives us a road map for how to live a good life. This guidance emerges spontaneously from the interactions of human beings living in societies and thinking together about how best to get along. It doesn't require a god or sacred text.”
― Greg Graffin
Could Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao etc. have taken their inhumane path towards their goal if they loved the Lord and their neighbors as themselves?
You have experienced a great deal of exposure to the way as Jesus put it. The way came in its various forms as modified by times and cultures as it came through time. Your way is the totality of that socio economic indoctrination plus a bit of genetics. To advocate another way as you do is in conflict with the only way you know and simply a product of deception.
Firstly, you presume a great deal about my life experiences – but that is neither here nor there.
Effective cooperation is a learned skill and the successful religions recognize this.
Christianity reveals this truth about ourselves most poignantly in the character of Jesus Christ. His message is one of peace, charity, modesty and forgiveness – the traits most important to develop when living in a society.
But moral relativism is still a truism. Ethical codices existed prior to the Abrahamic religions and have evolved independently since.
People are inherently selfish. We instinctively do that which is least painful. Children do that which is least painful to themselves. Maturity comes when we are able to put aside our own immediate comfort and do that which is least painful for the group. Were it not for our ability to reason this out and cooperate, our species would not survive. As individuals, we are prey animals – soft, squidgy, slow and bereft of in-built offensive capabilities. As a cooperative group, we have become the dominant species in nearly every eco-system on Earth.
But it takes a mighty big stick to beat the selfishness out of us! Historically, it has been a God sized stick capable to inflicting unimaginable devastation in this life and the hereafter.
A prime example of the reality of moral relativism is cannibalism.
Our culture has a very strong cannibalism taboo, but it cannot be "human nature" or something "written on our hearts by God" 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).
Indeed, Christians from the 1st Crusade consumed the fallen Arabs at Maarat.
Sociological evolution is leading us away from religion – not because Christianity, Islam, Hinduism etc are negative in and of themselves, but becuase they are necessarily sectarian and divisive.
Universally accepted ethics can never be based on the supernatural. Any proposition that relies on faith can and will be twisted by unscrupulous individuals for their own gain. Its just far too easy to manipulate those who are willing to suspend critical thinking and accept something without evidence.
Doc, you often write with impressive tone, clarity and precision, and with a disarming elegance and charm.
This is one such occasion.
@Colin
Thank you sir! I'm a big fan of your writing too.
Though I don't visit any other religiously themed websites, I get the feeling that our diatribes are disseminated elsewhere.
Just the other day some random poster tried to claim my old "god list" as his own creation.
Doc
I wish Colin had not said that because I just cannot agree with him...........It's my 2% Neanderthal heritage.
@Fred
Different strokes to move the world.
I think bagpipe music is beautiful but I don't expect anyone else to agree with me.
Aside from not liking the content of the posting, is there anything in the form or language that you find disagreeable?
I do try and communicate my ideas clearly. If I'm failing to do so, constructive criticism is welcome.
Doc
Ouch!. I was giving you a complement. I could not have said it better than Colin: " impressive tone, clarity and precision, and with a disarming elegance and charm".............It was an expressive Neanderthal gene that prevented me from agreeing with Colin....i.e. I would have said the same thing he did which gave me pause.
Doc Vestibule
"Firstly, you presume a great deal about my life experiences"
=>No one escapes the totality of life's experience which at its conclusion embodies the soul that has encountered the physical. This is eternal by its very nature and can be as limited as the modal of existence vs non existence expressed by Spinoza or unified with a personal God that Spinoza could not accept although most certainly competent to comprehend.
Up to this point I assumed your experiences have brought you to an understanding that God, gods and religion are the construct of evolving awareness inherent in man and nothing more as to substance.
=>when a Canadian uses the word "presume" I presume there is something hidden, perhaps shameful in the context of absolute morality which is why you went immediately to relativism. There was no need to jump for even Jesus said neither do I condemn you. Perhaps it is as simple as a nagging voice that fears exposure as an atheist when in fact such a position cannot be supported. Either way my "presumption" was not going in that direction.
=>So, why bring attention to your fear of exposure? Social evolution would dictate the appropriate response to be " blah blah blah .....insert your context ....then conclude ...........with "life experience notwithstanding"
Doc
"Ethical codices existed prior to the Abrahamic religions and have evolved independently since."
=>this is an assumption based on belief not fact as there is no known time period or source for the oral traditions that preceded "Noah" yet alone Abrams family.
"Historically, it has been a God sized stick"
=>Gods are always larger than self. How do we know that?
"reality of moral relativism is cannibalism."
=>absent an absolute how would one determine direction? Do you assume linear direction or are we dealing in tensors? Moral relativism actually argues for a source outside of conflicting morals as a basis for origin of morals.
"Sociological evolution is leading us away from religion – not because Christianity, Islam, Hinduism etc are negative in and of themselves, but becuase they are necessarily sectarian and divisive."
=>religion is divisive which is different than truth. Pilate asked Jesus what is truth. He saw the religious out to crucify and he saw Jesus. Then he washed his hands but, he knew the difference. This revealed his soul and the difference between religion and truth.
"Universally accepted ethics can never be based on the supernatural."
=>accepted ethics on an individual basis is always a function of what one believes to be right. Others my view the act differently and may cite an outside source. Collectively the group may appear to have consensus yet that is just a larger set. Christians may point to God but their actions follow the heard.
"=>this is an assumption based on belief not fact as there is no known time period or source for the oral traditions that preceded "Noah" yet alone Abrams family."
When exactly do you believe the story of Noah occured? Once I have that, I could look into what sources from what cultures are available.
interesting that you call your over the top conjecture about religious people "fact"
In the most recent episode of Vikings on the History Channel, those Odinists doled out a particularly gruesome punishment: the blood eagle. Let's give him his Odinism.
as a member of the Asatru religion myself I actually agree with this, it would seem fitting.
Vikings didn't call themselves "Odinists" that's a modern name ....but yeah that's not a bad idea for this nithing (from an old norse term for, well google it)
Obviously, this is an act of antisemitism. That was the reason Jews and Christians who aided Jews were killed in the Holocaust. Similar acts of violence happened to the Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas, mentioned in the previous entry, for Pastor John Hagee's prominent support for Israel.
I once attended a service in a Reformed Jewish Synagogue that featured a conversion ceremony. Thank God Frazier Glenn Cross wasn't around.
Hitler also rounded up and killed as many Gypsies, Soviets, disabled people and h0m0s3xuals as he could, which makes the Holocaust sadly just a part of his greater evil of extermination, yes?
He also had a plan to rid the world of Christianity – that is why he rounded up and killed so many Christians. He also didn't like atheists, and did the same.
Pretty much anyone under his power that didn't bow down to the SS was toast.
His efforts on both counts were futile. The only thing capable of ridding the World of Christians is education in science and natural history and the only thing capable of ridding the World of atheists is banning the foregoing.
There are Christians who hold a higher education in science and natural history than you.
If you wanted to receive a higher education in either area, there is a good chance that a Christian might be your teacher.
Most scientists are not atheists. And most atheists are certainly not scientists. A lot of atheists don't give a cr.ap about science or natural history.
And very, very, very few scientists are religion-hating anti-theists like you.
Science is embraced, practiced and supported by atheists, Christians, agnostics and people of other faiths.
"The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that's left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity."
That was Hitler. But it sounds a lot like what you and doG post.
"Most scientists are not atheists. And most atheists are certainly not scientists. A lot of atheists don't give a cr.ap about science or natural history"
I disagree. Wisdom and knowledge in the sciences is inimical to the religious mind. Many atheists reject the notion of divine/magical/religious powers and happenings precisely because they are inconsistent with the fundamental laws of nature.
PS: Pls don't bother posting a quote from Einstein, deGrasse Tyson or or some other scientist whose views you fundamentally misunderstand. 40 times is enough.
I won't accept your philosophy about science and the religious mind. And I've noticed most atheists don't even make such claims. And I don't know of any scientists that make such claims, except Dawkins. And when he makes such claims it is philosophy and personal belief, not science, that he is writing about.
Your non-religious mind is not logical nor has demonstrated an understanding of science.
What part of "Most religious people fully embrace science" do I fundamentally misunderstand?
Or that the bigotry of the fanatical atheist is similar to the bigotry of the religious fundamentalist?
Dala continues to post this, ignoring studies that show a direct correlation between atheism and scientific abilities / achievement.
Neither of you 2 demonstrate scientific abilities/achievment though.
You seem to want to just jump on the bandwagon of the work of other people.
There are also studies that show a direct correlation between atheism and neurodevelopmental disorders / anti-social behavior.
You will find that facts that support Dalahast, real or imagined – like people rising from the dead for example (I'm serious, he believes this) – are warmly embraced by him. Facts that undermine his childish superst.ition are rejected out of hand.
The religious mind 101.
"What part of "Most religious people fully embrace science" do I fundamentally misunderstand?"
You can not believe in the Christian story and embrace science. If you think you can, you have a fundamental mis-understanding. The things described in the bible are in direct conflict with what we know through science. Either you believe in the Christian god, or you accept science. You can't have both without being delusional.
Most religious people may embrace science. However, here in America almost 50% of Christians claim to be Young Earth Creationists, and not a single one of them is embracing science. In my opinion this is a major concern.
Yea. I know a bunch of atheists that don't know diddly-squat about science, too.
They concern me as much as the YECs. I put them in the same category.
SeaVik
+ You can not believe in the Christian story and embrace science.
A devout Catholic priest fathered the Big Bang theory.
People have demonstrated they can be a Christian and embrace and understand science.
Some demonstrate a better understanding than you have displayed.
"People have demonstrated they can be a Christian and embrace and understand science."
Absolutely, they can and do. But they ignore what science tells them when it comes to their religion. They suspend their scientific belief when they are in conflict with their religion (which is often). To believe what Christians believe, you must suspend or ignore scientific knowledge. Ie, you have to delude yourself. Some call these things "miracles" – blatant violations of science.
Some do.
Not all do.
A miracle is an event that couldn't occur without something like a God interceding.
God transcends science. I believe God authored it. And when we study science, we are studying God's work.
There is no conflict between science and my belief in God for me. The only conflict exists in the head of a few non-scientist, anti-theists on this blog and their philosophy.
"They concern me as much as the YECs."
That is pretty telling. You consider young earth creationists to be as concerning as atheists who aren't science experts? On one hand, you have a group of people who completely ignore science and believe fantasies as a result of brain-washing. On the other hand, you have a group of people who believe only what they have reason to believe, but perhaps aren't particularly interested in scientific subjects. One group is delusional, the other simply holds different interests. Pretty clearly illustrates how you can't view atheism in even a remotely objectively manner.
Most atheists are reasonable people.
It seems only the unreasonable ones claim that Christians have to reject science to be a Christian. Nope. Look at the evidence: actual Christians demonstrating a higher understanding of science than you.
Atheists are the victims of brainwashing, too. Some are brainwashed to believe that science is on their side and that rejecting religion makes one logical and intelligent (because they read a study that links such things to atheism).
fyi: only non-scientist, anti-religious, hostile atheists do I classify with YEC. They (some of you guys) do have a lot in common.
"There is no conflict between science and my belief in God for me. The only conflict exists in the head of a few non-scientist, anti-theists on this blog and their philosophy."
You can say it as many times as you like, but that won't make it true. Through science, we know that people can not return from the dead after days. Through science, we know that people can't walk on water or turn water into wine.
Christians believe those things happened, science shows us that those things could not have happened. You can pick one or the other, but you're lying to yourself if you think you can pick both.
This is not the view of "a few". This is the view of every atheist I've ever known and all of the young earth religious people who reject science. In America (since we have so many extreme Christians) it is the view of MOST that religious views and science don't mix. This is a fact. If you'd like to debate, start posting facts or logic, not your opinion based on personal experience.
Here is the thing:
I don't think people can naturally come back to life. Or walk on water. Or turn water into wine.
That is something only a God can do.
There are many phenomenons in life that science, logic and reason can not explain.
Why do you think Colin makes up stories and hypothetical situations to get his point across?
Why did Jesus do the exact kind of things?
Why do music, art, literature explain things that science, logic and reason can not?
Why do so many self-professed reasonable and logical atheists fail to demonstrate reason and logic in their own lives?
We are human (illogical) beings living in an imperfect world. Science is great for studying the natural world. Christians have proved they can master this skill.
But there is more to life than the material for some of us. I have a soul. There is a spiritual side to life.
There is so much more to life than what non-scientist, anti-theists philosophize about. I'm grateful for that fact!
"fyi: only non-scientist, anti-religious, hostile atheists do I classify with YEC. They (some of you guys) do have a lot in common."
You have much more in common with YECs than any atheist. You deny science and logic, just like YECs.
I don't deny science and logic, anymore than you do.
I'm paid for my computer science skills – I write code for graphic art programs and websites. That is using science and logic.
My belief in God is helpful, not a hindrance like you simply imagine when it comes to science and logic in my life.
There are many phenomenons in life that science, logic and reason can not explain.
Right. But science CAN explain why we can't walk on water and why people can't come back to life. You have to deny that science to believe those things happened.
No. I can acknowledge that there can be powers greater than science. Such powers are not human.
I can't walk on water. Nor make myself come back to life. People have testified they witnessed things like that in the past. They were amazed because it violated the natural laws we are all bound to follow.
I don't deny science in believing that whatever authored science isn't bound to the limitations caused by science that I'm bound to.
It is possible for a being to exist outside our realm and understanding of how the universe operates.
"No. I can acknowledge that there can be powers greater than science. Such powers are not human."
Right, exactly what I said before. When science doesn't agree with your magic, you believe magic over science. Precisely the point. Science and religious beliefs conflict. You choose religious beliefs over science. You're welcome to your ridiculous beliefs, but don't pretend it's science – it's quite the opposite.
I never said my beliefs were science. Just like your beliefs aren't science either. There are things that transcend science in this world. To some, your materialistic philosophy is ridiculous. It certainly is not science. It is your opinion.
And still, some believers in God demonstrate a better understanding of science than you do. They say things quite the opposite that you suggest.
Even some non-believer scientists say things quite the opposite than you suggest.
Chris Angel walks on water regularly. He must be a god.
"Just like your beliefs aren't science either. There are things that transcend science in this world. To some, your materialistic philosophy is ridiculous. It certainly is not science. It is your opinion."
Wrong. Everything I believe is based on science / evidence. Please let me know what you think I believe that is not based on science / evidence.
You only imagine your beliefs are bases on science/evidence. That statement you made is definitely not based on science/evidence. Sorry.
It is easy to say that type of statement. Difficult to actually do. Even the world's elite scientists beliefs are not based on science/evidence.
We are imperfect, flawed creatures. Unless you are perfect?
You fundamentally misunderstand that Einstein and de Grasse Tyson both reject the Judeo-Christian god. They also reject the divinity of Jesus Christ.
You citing them to support you is like the class clown citing the stoic valedictorian in support of his wayward behavior.
I understand they don't believe. I know a lot of atheists, deists and agnostics that don't believe like I do.
But I know very few that act and express views that you do. That is an extremist, anti-theist, non-scientist point of view.
Both men have made quotes that separate themselves from people like you.
Mon Dieu, Dalahast, we actually agree on something. They are (were) deeply respectful of belief and faith. I am deeply susp.icious of and hostile to it. I think it does more harm than good.
I'm skeptical and against the bigotry of the hostile non-believer. Especially ones that embrace stereotyping and broad, sweeping generalizations against groups of people they hate.
Yes. If you look at the quality of intellectual discourse produced by BelieverFered, Vic, you and NoahsdadTopher, you will no doubt appreciate what I am getting at. I don't know whether undeveloped minds lead to religious beliefs or whether religious belifs stymie intellectual development, but either way, they are not good. Prayers being heard, angels, saints, heaven, hell, people rising from the dead, post mortem continued life, all sorts of childish superst.itions. Like pretend friends for children.
Cute. But that really doesn't sound like childish superst.ition.
Your simplistic, self-centered viewpoints are very childish. So is your self describing yourself as superior to people who believe in God, despite your inability to demonstrate the same level of scientific expertise that some of these childish and superst.itious idiots fall prey to.
Look at the quality of intellectual discourse produced by you, dyslexic doG and SeaVik. You guys just point out all the flaws in religion and insist you are logical and reasonable.
One of you failed to even recognize this article, which sounds like something you would seriously pen, makes fun of irrational and hostile anti-theists like yourself.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/local-church-full-of-brainwashed-idiots-feeds-town,34860/
It's pretty disingenuous of you to continue to suggest that I deny that that article was making fun of atheists when I admitted I was probably wrong. But it's no different than most of your posts – even once a matter has been settled, you come back and start it all over again as if we didn't already show how wrong you are.
Since Dala likes to use The Onion to make his point, here's a good one:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/biologists-confirm-god-evolved-from-chimpanzee-dei,35755/
That was hilarious. My favorite quote from the article is "Though its smaller brain limited its cognitive abilities, the chimpanzee deity is believed to have possessed not only self-awareness, but also spatial intelligence, object permanence, and a rudimentary capacity for knowing all that is, all that has been, and all that ever will be."
As long as we are posting articles from The Onion, I have always been fond of this one:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/sumerians-look-on-in-confusion-as-god-creates-worl,2879/