Perhaps you’ve wondered what the difference between atheism and secular humanism might be. That renowned expert on ethical secularism, Rafael Cruz, father of Ted, explains it all in one simple slide.
|
Without hope |
Communism |
Although, to be honest, I think he really just pulled a bunch of crap that he didn’t like out of his ass and slapped random items onto his two lists. I don’t think there is much that is useful here.
I am amused, though, that once again a conservative declares that he hates social justice.
If I continue to assert that gods don’t exist, do I disappear in a puff of logic?
Only if you provide proof that you actually exist.
LOL @ “social justice”
Ugh! What a bother!
Damn, caught out. I’m actually a sockpuppet for some bloke named Daz.
I’m amazed he put sexual abuse as something bad given religions ongoing scramble to win at molestation and rape – maybe he was grudgingly trying to offer faint praise to the atheist abusers? Or was it just a run on sentence of Without hope of sexual abuse?
I like that he included “liberation theology” and “social gospel” under secular humanism. Methinks Mr. Cruz doesn’t know what the words he’s using mean.
Yup. Pretty much like every other animal.
Communism AND Socialism?! It’s almost as if they were completely unrelated!
@auraboy #5
I think what he means by sexual abuse is not what you and I would mean. He means things that God has condemned: masturbation, pornography, adultery, homosexuality, sodomy, bestiality. For them rape is a subset of adultery (i.e. sex with a female who doesn’t belong to you, but to another man; or if you’re a woman, sex with a man who isn’t your rightful master).
Artor @ 6
One can be secular and religious at the same time.
This picture’s a bit fuzzy, so I can’t tell if there’s fine print. Did he cite his rectum as the primary source for these facts?
Why to RWNJs think Marx invented secular humanism?
@Akira #8 – “We have both kinds of music: country and western!”
@Seven of Mine #10 – Humanism, without modifiers, embraces a very diverse group of religious and non-religious worldviews. Secular humanism refers specifically to the worldviews where humanist values are derived from non-religious sources: as such, it is incorrect to group religious views such as the social gospel and liberation theology with secular humanism.
Trav Mamone @ 12
I seem to recall some fundy claiming that atheism was invented in the 19th century, as if no one didn’t believe in a deity before Marx or Darwin came on the scene.
Looking at the arrows at the bottom of the list it doesn’t seem to me that Cruz is contrasting ‘atheism’ with ‘secular humanism:’ he’s showing how the foundations (atheism) lead to the outcomes (secular humanism) — and vice versa. If I had to make a guess I’d say that this is the part of the talk where he’s going after liberal theology, showing that it’s based on atheism and/or leads to atheism. It’s only against atheism indirectly.
That would explain the last 3 entries on his ‘secular humanism’ list, which look to me like they’re references to modern theologies and new age.
But who knows?
Akira MacKenzie @ 14
Everyone knows Epicurus was a 19th century evolutionist.
Religion doesn’t have moral absolutes either, just ask him if it was moral for God to murder the first born male child in every household or send wild animals to maul three dozen children to death. The idea that “it’s OK if God does it” is a violation of that absolutism.
If I were the praying kind, I would be petitioning the Bearded White Man in the Sky for Ted Cruz to be the Republican nominee for prez in 2016.
What fun we would have with ol’ Dad! It would be better than the Sarah Palin Follies.
“Without hope”
Define “hope.” Hope for what, and why should we hope for it?
“Sexual abuse”
Define “abuse.” Although, knowing right-wing Christianity, I suspect that Mr. Cruz and his followers consider ANY sex outside of Christian-approved, lifelong, heterosexual, withing-wedlock unions as “abuse.”
“Immorality”
Define “Immorality.” I can’t make argument when all you do is throw out buzzwords.
“Devalues life”
Define “life.” (Although I suspect he’s yammering about abortion, birth control, and/or euthanasia).
“Situational ethics”
Because one set of standards and sanctions works in every conceivable ethical situation, right?
“No moral absolutes”
See above. I wonder where Mr. Cruz stands on this nation’s torture of terror suspects? It’s a safe bet that he thinks those dirty Moose-lims deserve to have horrible things done to them that he would not want to have done to himself and has a long list of pretzel logic to morally justify it.
“Governed by instincts”
Yes, because human’s aren’t really just another species of mammal with biological drives that help determine their behavior. Oh no, we’re special creations by Cruz’s deity with magical “free will” (assuming that Cruz isn’t a Calvinist) and everything we do is our choice; therefore, everything that happens to us is also our fault.
That doesn’t seem right. I’m sure he attacks both quite directly. Pick a video of him talking, and that much is clear. It looks like the double arrows at the bottom are trying to show they’re related to one another, not that one causes another. (Indeed, the arrow would only go one way, if that were the idea.) Looking at the lists, the left side is a more a personal level and the right is larger social or political stuff. It’s micro-ethics and macro-ethics. That’s the distinction. If he’s thinking of it causally at all, I would bet it’s mostly up and down, not so much side to side. But as far as he’s concerned, I think it’s all supposed to come as a package deal, despite being deeply inconsistent with one another and uncharacteristic of real atheists and secular humanists. It’s saying “You’re of this sort, you evil commie atheist secular humanist; here’s how I describe you … as incoherently as I possibly can.”
Things on this list I could be said to more or less agree with (with caveats):
Immoralit[y] (by religious standards)
Situational ethics (I think. I mean, everything’s situational on some level, but maybe I’m not philosopher enough to know what this is really about)
No moral absolutes (Well, broadly speaking, no, but we’ve got some pretty good guidelines that are so readily agreed upon that they’re close enough)
Socialism (Meaning basic welfare, labor rights, 35 hour work weeks, 4 weeks paid vacation, paid maternity leave, single payer health care? Sure)
Social justice (Duh)
You are your own god (Well, not really, but sort of? I find the notion amusing, if not strictly accurate).
So he’s not exactly batting a thousand… more like .428 if we’re generous. Pretty good for baseball, pretty bad for everything else. And where do they get that notion that sexual abuse is associated with atheism? I mean, there are atheist sexual abusers, like anything else, but it’s not like we have a system of moving around and hiding sexual abuse against children by large numbers of people for decades. The way sexual crimes in some atheist circles has been ignored or coddled has been shameful, but on sheer scale and depravity it can’t begin to match the Catholic Church.
“Communism”
Because all-American, cut-throat, laissez faire capitalism is sooo in line with non- Christian*. What’s the stock market like in Heaven?
“Socialism”
Wow, redundant much? While you can be a socialist and not be a communist, you can’t be a communist and not be a socialist.
A life of dependency
Let ’em starve! As long as they die in indignity and poverty groveling before Jesus, they’ll go to heaven, right?
“Social justice”
I suppose making sure that no one is abused and short-changed by the system is somehow related to your general hissy-fit over “communism/socialism.”
“Liberation theology”
Oh, I hear you. Left-wing religionists are just as annoying and intellectually bankrupt as you and your fellow right-wing theists. We don’t need divine command to feed the poor and the needy, we can figure out that on our own.
“Social Gospel”
Ummmm… what’s the difference between this and “liberation theology?”
“You are your own god”
Really? Can I create my own universe? Can I rain wrath and destruction upon those who sin against me? Why doesn’t someone tell me these things?!?!
*I’m not going to argue that Christianity is anti-poverty, because it isn’t. It’s an apocalyptic cult that preached austerity and self-deprivation as a means to humiliate yourself before their angry god who was coming to meet out judgement aaaaany second now. While their alleged belief in charity may have evolved from that dogma, I’m pretty sure that’s not what Christianity’s founding followers really meant with their crazy parables about rich men, camels, and sewing implements.
Let’s do a checklist of Mr Cruz’s faith as a comparisson
Without Hope – Hell is eternal pain Heaven is eternal boredom without free will
Sexual Abuse – Funny, I thought it was ministers, priests, imams and rabbis indulging in such vices
Immorality – Divorce rates are, I believe, higher for the Bible Christians whilst there are more Christians in jail in the US
Devalues Life – Justifies genocide and human sacrifice
Situational ethics – If God commands it it is right, if humans do the same without permission it is wrong
No moral absolutes – See above
Governed by instincts -Those of faith have only an instinctual belief in a deity and believe in magic
Theocracy – Only those saying they were appointed by God can lead
Totalitarianism – We must obey those who say they have been set over us by God
Social injustice – Seems to be an ideal of Mr Cruz
Enslavement Theology – Abandon free will and do only what god or your leaders tell you
Antisocial Gospel – Man is evil so we do nothing to help others
You invent your own God – And this is a case in point
gussnarp @ 21
1) Because we don’t have the restrictive list of ‘thou shalt nots” about sex that they do. In the tiny minds of Cruz and his followers, if we feel justified to fornicate or have homosexual relationships, we can supposedly justify rape and pedophilia.
2) Every hear masturbation referred to as “self-abuse?” To religious weirdies any sort of sex outside of the deity-approved norm, no matter how consensual, is considered physically, emotionally, and “spiritually” detrimental.
In his world, ‘social justice’ means ivory tower elites will take away our freedom to associate and disassociate as we see fit, and rig things so the lazy 47% get to mooch off the rest of us real Merkins.
No wonder he’s aginit.
The bible doesn’t mention democracy although the concept was known. It says in Romans to obey the rulers who are appointed by god. At that time, they were all kings and emperors.
It does mention communism. With approval.
Rafael Cruz, fundie xian minister, has no idea what is in his magic book and cares less. His religion is his sockpuppet and his gods are his sockpuppets.
It’s Made Up Stuff about a religion that is Made Up Stuff. It’s Made Up Stuff all the way down.
In fundy-speak, this means, “Violating an established moral rule, in a specific situation, in order to achieve the greater good.” Here’s how it works.
Preacher: “Lying is always wrong.”
Listener: “Well, yes. That’s just common sense!”
P: “So if it’s World War II, and the Nazis ask you if you’re sheltering any Jews, then it’s wrong to lie to them. After all, if God’s Plan is for those particular Jews to survive, He can do it in a way that won’t require you to sin.”
L: “Um. I guess that makes sense. I’ll just agree with you without thinking too deeply about it. It’s not like I’ll ever be in that situation, anyway.”
P: “Good. If you lied to the Nazis, that would be ‘situational ethics’.”
[The next day]
L: “I’ve got a relative who wants to get gay-married to his partner. They’re both nice people, not at all like the degenerates in those anti-gay-marriage tracts you’ve been showing me, and I was wondering if I could…”
P: “Wait a minute! Yesterday you were willing to sacrifice a whole family of Jews in order to avoid sinning, and now you want to embrace sin just so you won’t have to miss out on a ‘wedding’ ‘invitation’? What kind of monster are you?”
L: “…”
I think Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal has the best response to the whole “believe you are your own god” line.
akira @14:
Don’t they realize that atheism was invented the exact same moment that gods were invented? The very second gods came into this world, anyone believing in another god or no god at all was a de facto atheist. So, religion invented atheists. Before that, we were all just people.
And here I’ve been wracking my brain, trying to figure out why Ted Cruz is such a jerk. Apple does not fall far from tree, it appears. Can’t we send both of these idiots back to Canada?? Teh stupid, it burns…
@19
Hope is the urge to continue betting your fortune on a long shot, long after doubt should have convinced you to cut your losses and get on with your life. And the house is a church.
damn! Sounds good to me.
@epicurus
Why we kicked them out in the first place. Send them to Cuba, or would that be considered to be an act of war?
true.
Not as of yesterday.
Not the best way to start I proving relations though.
The problem with that scenario is that it brings forth the possibility that he might win.
Um…
Um…
The evidence is abundantly in that conservatives favor antisocial justice.
Epicurus wasn’t an atheist in theory; he was a polydeist, believing the gods live somewhere far away in eternal bliss and don’t notice or care about the world. Of course that’s atheism for practical purposes.
But it does seem that there were atheists in Classical Greece. The best candidate may be Diagoras of Melos who apparently published, and thus desecrated, the Eleusinian Mysteries, and also burned a wooden statue of Hercules to boil his turnips, calling that the Thirteenth Labor.
Even earlier, there was Ajita, “the unconquered”, who stated explicitly that there was no soul and no life after death; his teachings may have been the origin of this school of philosophy.
Uh… about the OP… I think Cruz is playing a game of No True Christian here, trying to lump Liberation Theology etc. in with everything that is godless.
So, those who believe in a finite life value life less than those who believe in an infinite life? This must be the only thing where religious people value an infinite supply item over a similar item with finite supply.
Rey Fox wrote:
Or at least merely injustice, social or otherwise.