1. There were other god-like messiahs that was crucified, walked on water, healed sick, had Lazarus, etc? Plus they were Egyptian and seeing how the Jews were not on the best terms with them while they were obviously influenced by them during their imprisonment , I can see them adopting some of the mythos. When we talk about what is real (historically cross documented from unrelated sources and paradigms) and what is candy coating to sweeten the story or hard truth, my thoughts nor discovery have ever been that the crucifixion is adopted. Dec 25th? Yeah ok that is made up, the story of Jonah, sure. Adam and Eve, completely adopted (even before there was cuneiform) absolutely. But the crucifixion and Lazarus? I dont care so much about walking on water because rumor rumblings gain speed and size through ear canals, but hold the flipping phone for a second! Without the crucifixion having the meaning and truth of my sins being weighed and measured+without the resurrection, then this is a complete farce and Deepak Chopra in his book, The Third Jesus was right. That this is just an existential higher truth leading to a God principle that can be found through one path yet under many names. In addition, Lazarus’ story is in-depth. The running down the hill, “where were you!” the “Jesus wept”

But getting back to the topic – I kind of think that same idea is in part what is being expressed here: a cursory look at Faith may leave you unmoved and shaking your head at people’s gullibility. The behavior of some people who call themselves faithful may turn you off (as a modern man would be suspicious that a slave-holding Jefferson could know anything about freedom).

A deeper dive (as in, reading the other writings of the framers)brings faith into a new light. Oddly, prayer itself can often do that – going through the motions. It may still not be for you, but it might give you a better understanding.

It is most certainly a debatable topic, but in the end is probably tangential to this particular thread. But please don’t misunderstand me – I do not espouse freedom from religion, as you put it. I’m just wary of injustices upon minorities.

It also brings another factor to mind for me, an aspect of human nature I’ve observed. I’ll illustrate using myself as an example. Since I am basically humanist in philosophy, the prospect of humanist proselytization does not bother me very much, emotionally. However I realize this in spite of the knowledge that this imbalance is unjust. In a manner, it fits the precise criteria that I’d otherwise be concerned with if the philosophy in question were Muslim, Jewish, Christian, etc. This is obviously hypocritical.

And in the same vein, I have a hard time imagining that a Christian majority would do much to address this imbalance if the dominant philosophy taught were Christian.

As for the Constitution, my (perhaps shoddy) memory tells me that it’s wide open to interpretation one way or the other. Obviously I should go and re-read it after this post. But don’t pin us with deliberately mis-interpreting. It is possible that we’re being honest, not insidious. ;)

@Andreas, I’m not sure what you’re talking about. My original point was that some things will not make sense without thorough knowledge, both faith related and otherwise. We who aren’t of faith should bare that in mind.

The point is, deal with the truth of what was intended, understand what is being given up, and then let people decide for themselves what social contract they wish to ratify.

And I think there is a legitimate case to be made that children ARE being proselytized for humanism in schools. There should be no proselytizing of any kind, excepting in private, religion and/or philosophy based schools.

I continue to be amazed at the number of people who still think that there is some mention of “a Christian Nation” in the Constitution. It’s frightening.

What if I don’t want my children exposed to Christianity in public?

Or to quote Richard Lederer: “There once was a time when all people believed in God and the church ruled. This time was called the Dark Ages.”

And when I look at the religious pushback against science and social liberties at the moment, I think he is right.

And I just would like to mention that such trifles “separation of powers”, “interstate commerce” and “right to privacy” do not appear in the Constitution either. So… away with them?

@Miles: my point about reading up on stuff is this: have you really really studied the Qu’ran? How can you be sure that *that* isn’t the right belief? Or what about the Torah? How can you disregard these holy works (accepted by millions and millions of fervent believers). How do you come to the conclusion that they are wrong? By studying them all as much as the bible? Or by saying “I have the true faith, so they *must* be wrong?”

This freedom has been turned on its head, and as many before me have said – the article never gave freedom from religion, but of it.

I continue to be amazed at the number of people who still think that there is some mention of “separation of church and state” in the Constitution. It’s frightening.

Regarding the everyday consequences you list as example – Boy do I agree that they’re points that should be made. But look at how he presents them. He’s not going to change anyone’s mind, not even the silent moderates. Why? Because he leaves them with no middle-ground. His stances, agenda, and presentation leave things in a black-and-white dichotomy. People don’t just take off their faith like a coat. He’s cheer leading for those who agree completely, and bullying everyone else.
That’s BS, and it undermines any meaningful discussion on these important topics. I think I’m unhappy with Maher for a pretty good reason.
But at least he’s sorta funny.

Perhaps if he instead made a movie about the separation of church and state we’d see more effect. At least then it doesn’t actively alienate so many people.

If I would tell you that I believe in invisible elves living in my basement, and you would tell me that you don’t believe that… how would you like my advice to first read a lot of books on the invisible elf philosophy, before you dare to point out that this might, in fact, made up.

Plus, when it comes to the “anthropic argument”, “cosmological argument” or the “ontological argument”, you will find a lot of material written by atheist on the subject pointing to flaws in the philosophical argument and the special pleading involved (e.g. the first cause argument: EVERYTHING needs a cause, except of course god himself, because that would defeat our argument. But everything else does, no exceptions…)

I think generally Maher talks more about the everyday consequences of people believing in their variety of deity – war, oppression of women, the pope speaking against contraception in AIDS-riddled Africa and so forth.

And I think these are valid points, and he is right to make them, because moderate religious people are suspiciously silent about these things.

Here on the other hand the discussion is about philosophical ramifications, and that’s a little bit like discussing the exact color of the Emperor’s New Clothes.

I am happy for all intellectual discourse – but don’t be mad at Maher for the wrong reasons.

By the way: I thought some of the interviewees were jerks too and deserved it!