When we talk about values, I think of rationality in solving problems. That’s something I value. Fairness, kindness, generosity, tolerance. When they talk about values, they’re talking about things like going to church, voting for Bush, being loyal to Jesus, praying. These are not values.
Bill Maher (via ieatcatlitter and mry) (via soupsoup) (via evangotlib)
So obnoxiously smug. Religious people — I am not now one of them, but even so I can say this — have real values. About treating people fairly. About being good to those around them. About the Golden Rule. Charity. We can continue.
Some religious people are bad people, and some atheists are good people. Religious people have values. Atheists have values. It’s funny — each side seems to miss these simple facts about the other.
(via mikehudack)
Completely agree with Mike’s statement.
Ironic how Maher talks about valuing fairness, kindness, generosity, and tolerance and then in the same breath bashes people for what they believe.
Religion is a very personal matter and has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not a person has values. And then, whose values?
(via zadi)
Okay, this has the potential to be an essay, but I will keep my comments to the following:
I agree with Zadi, Mike, and Bill - even though they seem to be disagreeing with each other. Mike is right: there are good folks on both sides of the isle. Zadi is also right in religion and values are separate. Bill, is however also right when pointing out that in many sections of religion, the adherence to that religion (in many cases this bleeds into meaning “adherence to a rigid set of rules set forth arbitrarily by a small group of that religions adherents”) is preached as being literally the most important thing on this planet.
Religion is indeed a personal matter, as Zadi said. The issue comes when a person or a larger entity feels that their personal matter is now appropriate for everyone - or even worse, when their personal matter is (or should be) required of everyone. I’ll admit I’ve seen it on both sides of the argument, but my personal opinion is that the “spread the word” requirements of the bible make it more prevalent amongst the religious.
I’ve said for many years that I strongly believe in someone’s ability to be religious, but that the influence of their religion ends at the tip of their nose. I believe that anyone should be able to believe anything they desire, however I get very prickly (and argumentative) when told that I should also adhere (either morally or legally) to someone else’s dogma. You’ll find this line of thinking in debates on abortion, foreign policy, gay marriage, etc. and it’s an attempt at grafting what should be a personal matter onto the populace as a whole.
I could go off on a very long rant about why I disagree with “Freedom of religion is not freedom from religion” but I’ll leave it at this: Freedom of religion means just that - but that freedom was designed as a personal freedom for a personal matter. Arguing about which “values” are more valid is a moot point because you’re never going to get someone to concede that their individual “values” are void of value.
