Collegiate Times

By all means, what are your personal beliefs so they may be mocked? Or do you lack them? Sure, you maintain the right to freedom of expression but it is more than cowardly to claim the right to mock beliefs while doing nothing to articulate your own. If you truly feel confident enough to suggest full mockery of all beliefs please post all of yours so they may be mocked by all who set their eyes upon them.

In reply to John's comment,...Gabriel McVey clearly believes passionately in freedom of expression and freedom of belief and freedom not to believe...I think he has articulated that clearly enough for anyone to see except your own good self.

Concur. Gabe has expressed his beliefs though his columns quite clearly over time. I realize it's inconvenient for you that he doesn't paste a label on himself, but he hardly hides his values. One of the reasons I enjoy his writing so much is that it's refreshing to read someone who doesn't follow in lock step to any dogma just because someone says so. I would never presume to label him, but it seems to me "free thinker" would be appropriate. If you must.

I believe there is no God. My belief is not a belief; my principles are not a faith. I do not rely solely on science and reason; these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, though I distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. What I respect is free inquiry, open-mindedness and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake. I do not hold my convictions dogmatically; disputes should be resolved by debate and reason rather than mutual excommunication. I'm not immune to the lure of wonder, mystery and awe; there is music, art and literature. I find Shakespeare better handles the serious ethical dilemmas than the mythical morality tales of holy texts. Literature – not scripture – sustains the mind. That has to be enough, but it is enough because it's everything in the world, and that's plenty for me. I don't believe in Heaven or Hell, but despite this…no statistic will ever find that my co-thinkers or I commit more crimes of greed or violence than the faithful. I believe I cannot be forgiven, except by kindness or a faulty memory. I am reconciled to living only once, except perhaps through my children, for whom I understand the necessity of making way and room. I speculate that once people understand and accept their short and struggling lives they will behave BETTER toward one another, and not worse...continued in the next comment.

Believing there's no God saves me from solipsism. I believe with certainty that an ethical life can be lived without religion. I believe the corollary is true – that is, that religion has caused people to behave not simply no better than their godless counterparts, but to grant themselves permission to behave in a way that might make a brothel-keeper or an ethnic-cleanser raise an eyebrow. I believe that all obscenity is less insulting than "How I was brought up and my imaginary friend are more important to me than anything you could say or do." Most importantly of all, we infidels require no machinery of reinforcement. I feel no need to gather every day, or ever week, or on any high and auspicious day to proclaim my rectitude or to wallow in my unworthiness. I need no priest or rabbi, pastor or imam to police my doctrine. Sacrifices and ceremonies, traditions and institutions are abhorrent to me, as are relics and the worship of images or icons. No spot on Earth could be holy, from the ostentatious display of the pilgrimage to the horror of killing civilians in the name of some sacred wall or cave or shrine or rock. The devotions of today are but the echoing repetitions of yesterday…sometimes ratcheted up to screaming level so as to ward off the terrible emptiness. – Thanks for this argument must go to Christopher Hitchens.

That's an argument? It sounds like a creed to deny all creeds. What you believe is up to you, but to belittle and mock the beliefs of others is at the very least childish. Why you feel the need to be offensive to get your point across is beyond me. I am not an easily offended person; it takes quite a lot to get me mad. When I read letters and comments like this I walk away thinking the author is scared, inept, and generally unable to carry on a rational argument without resorting to childish name calling and raspberry blowing. Grow up, Gabe.

Being as I know Mr. McVey, i'll offer up a paraphrased quote of his that i often draw upon: "With all the wonders of Humans and the universe we live in, (i.e. music, literature, Black holes, and supernovas) there is more to wonder about and admire then any Holy text could offer" paraphrased, but i think the point gets across....Beethoven, Shakespear, Newton, Einstien and Hawking have done more for us then any charicter in any story (no matter how well intentioned) could ever do. If there is to be salvation for Humanity, it will come from within not the Heavens. "Strangers passing in the street, by chance two seperate glances meet, and i am you and what i see is me." "Echoes" Pink Floyd

"It sounds like a creed to deny all creeds." you were almost there...but you fell short. it's a creed to deny all creeds based in faith alone. Faith shuts down critical thinking, which is the "creed" Mr.McVey subscribes to, that is if you must slap a lable to something to grok it.

Brian, I think the point to take away from this is that absolute, blind faith is probably a dangerous thing - but faith supplemented by knowledge and a passion for understanding can be an equally powerful tool. I mean, there are religions which say "God did all this stuff, believe it or suffer the consequences." There are also religions which say "God did these things, and He wants us to understand how they work - some things are beyond the scope of human understanding, but most things are not and it is our responsibility to discover them and understand them in order to more fully appreciate the beauty of the world we have been given." It's important to distinguish between the two viewpoints

I do agree that faith is powerful, and when coupled with knowledge and the understanding that no knowledge is absolute, it's adds gravity. To often however, faith is paramount. I do not mean to speak only of religion here either. I am speaking to faith for faiths sake. Like when our president says "We'll pull out of this Economic downturn, we just have to throw some money at it and let it unfold." (paraphrase) That is just as dangerous as any other faith-only based assertion.

Interesting point. That's actually one (among many) reasons why I so vehemently oppose Obama as President; his campaign is based entirely on rhetoric and ambiguous desires for 'hope' and 'overcoming adversity.' Unfortunately, most people would rather hear a President talk about how great things will be in just a few years, than hear about how they need to make sacrifices in the present in order to effect change.

I have to disagree on Obama. Yes, Hope is a large part of his message, but it's hope AND work/sacrifice. As opposed to McCain where we have to hope he gets someone who understands the economy, and Clinton where we have to hope she won't let Bill do too much (among many other things). Hope, working together, and mutual sacrifice is how America has shone bright in it's darkest hours (i.e. WW2), except for one. Imagine where we might be if instead of the devisiveness that came all too quickly after 9/11, we worked, hoped, and sacrificed together? it happened in the first couple weeks, then it went away, and we went back to being D's and R's, as opposed to Americans. In order to achieve great future years, we need to work together on our common goals now and to me that's what Obama represents. Sorry for jumping slightly off topic....but you asked for it. lol Also on a side note....i think that Hope and Faith are surely not synonyms.

Haha political opinions are what they are. . . my main problem with Obama isn't his reliance on abstract principles like hope, but the fact that he is about as close to being an electable socialist as we are going to see in American politics. Obviously, political philosophies aren't really what this discussion is about - but if he is going to charge that I need to 'hope' for the future, then my distinct hope is that the money that I earn will stay in my pocket and will not be squandered by a Congress eager to spend it on programs which tend to fail more often than they succeed. As per the discussion, however - I don't assert that faith and hope are synonyms - my issue is more with 'ambiguity' in general. Obama's 'hope' for the future is analogous to Bush's 'hope' for a better economic situation. The economic situation, though, really ins't all that bad - it's truly a shame that many Americans are so short-sighted that they don't see that things like recessions are natural corrections to our economy.

Opinions are like anal orafices......anyway i would like to make a slight distinction between Obama hope and Bush hope....and i think this is where i felt that hope/faith were asserted as synonyms: Bush "hope" consists of "you aren't going to understand the specifics of the economy, so just relax, we worked all weekend don't cha know?" Obama levels with us. Trusts that enough of us are smart enough to get it. Then that gives us hope to move forward. I think i understand what you mean about recessions, but only because some one trusted that, given the data, i could understand. (and i'm not refering to Obama here, more the author of the column we currently comment on) That's something the Bush WH has never done, but looks like an Obama "moral" (sorry couldn't help myself lol)

"When I read letters and comments like this I walk away thinking the author is scared, inept, and generally unable to carry on a rational argument without resorting to childish name calling and raspberry blowing. Grow up, Gabe." - You've refuted yourself so well, I feel like I'm pushing at an open door. The real question here is, why should anyone respect irrational wish-thinking? My objections to religion aside, why should I have to explain why it's okay to mock silly behavior and bizarre beliefs in the sphere of, say cooking. Yet, someone's childish convictions that an invisible man, living in the sky, is watching everything we do is beyond reproof? You've got the equation exactly backwards, Mr. Daugherty - I am simply being consistent when I say it's all up for grabs...it's up to you to explain to me why that's not okay.

Interesting points, Gabe. I don't think Mr. Daughtery really got the point of your article - correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be more of the opinion that ALL opinions and beliefs are capable subjects of mockery. There oughtn't be protections for one set of values over another - and while the most obvious case of this is the religious becoming restless when their faith is questioned, it holds true in most every sphere where differing opinions exist.

I'll give you that one, Brian - the one (and from my economically conservative political perspective, pretty much the only) redeeming factor of the Obama campaign is its refreshing honesty to admit that the man simply doesn't know everything about everything. Where as Bush takes a paternalistic approach ("you guys don't understand it, but I promise we've got it under control") and Hillary takes a divine-right-of-kings approach ("I'm supposed to be President, your opinions be damned"), Obama recognizes his shortcomings. My chief concern about that, though, is that I'm of the opinion that there is a pretty steep learning curve when it comes to the Presidency, and Obama simply hasn't been around the 'insider politics' system long enough to really get a feel for whom to trust and whom to fear. Like I said, I'd still never vote for him because I don't agree with the economic principle of socialism and I think that there's very little the government can do with my money that I can't do myself more efficiently and effectively.

You're exactly right, Kyle. I think that it's self-evident that religion is the one area left in public discourse which is granted (at least by some) a degree of immunity from criticism. I fully acknowledge that I could be terribly wrong, and that I - and by extension those whom I've misled into disbelief - have an excruciating eternity in everlasting Hell-fire to suffer for my beliefs. My only comfort will be that I will be a prisoner of conscience. Unlike some agnostics and atheists (I believe Brian to be what I'd call a "hard" agnostic) I don't not simply disbelieve, I also think it would be a terrible shame if the Bible were true or that there was a God, a wicked, unjust, psychopathic-murderous God.

Kyle, to the your money is your buisiness aspect, i mostly agree. I was an early Ron Paul supporter for those reasons. however, there is something to be said for helping you fellow man. Now i'm not saying our social programs are perfect, in fact the truth is they are rife with corruption and people looking for hand outs. Does that mean though that the concept of social programs is wrong? I tend to think the problems lie in the execution.

Brian, I thoroughly agree with you there - the execution is the problem, and any time you employ 500+ people who don't really care about whethere or not they are acting efficiently with your money, you're gonna have problems. I agree wholeheartedly that helping one's fellow man is of paramount importance - but I think that more people would be helped if the disbursement of support was handled on an individual level. I'm all about charity - I'm just not all about compelled charity.

In theory that's probably true. Person to Person help is not only the most efficient, but also the most effective. The problem is that we seem to feel uncomfortable with each other. If you saw a Homeless person, who was bloodied up, and smelled of his own filth, would you think twice about picking him up, bringing him home and giving him shower, shelter, and sustainance? I'm not expecting an answer, just putting it out there....

The point I was trying to make (and, in hindsight, didn't do so effectively at all) is that I tend to trust privatization more than collectivization. The government is a large and inefficient body which is inherently disconnected from the people it is supposed to serve (ah, the 'benefits' of the republican system). Now, privatizing welfare and aid won't solve ALL of the problems, but I'd tend to believe that the church operating the soup kitchen down the street probably does a better job of directly improving conditions for the helpless man on the street than Sen. Jones and his pet projects.

My big deal as far as privatizing goes is transparency. As long as the company overseeing welfare would agree to a certain amount of transparancy (within reason of course) i think it may be worth a shot. Wait a minute....is that what could be classified as "reaching across the aisle"?

Agreed, Brian. Although even were a Democrat to advance such a position, I would be quite unlikely to vote for him so long as he maintained the necessity for a social 'safety net.' The nature of Social Security boggles my mind - I have no problem with the government operating a retirement system, so long as it is voluntary. As it stands, I'm not particularly worried about the risks I might take with the stock market or other investments, and I'd much rather have the ability to give my money the chance to prosper than function with a perpetual fear of market collapse. There are a number of other new deal programs I'd like to see abolished, as they are drains on our economic stability and insulting to the average American who, contrary to the beliefs of most politicians, actually have a pretty good grasp of on what their money ought to be spent.

"If you want to say that the cartoons aren't funny, fine. If you find them offensive, that's fine, too. But to claim that it's unacceptable to mock beliefs is a bridge too far" It's not the mocking beliefs that's the problem. I've heard jokes in which my beliefs were mocked and appreciated the joke. The joke you mentioned in your article is hardly a joke, just a deliberate attempt to be vulgar and offensive, and not an unsuccessful one, and stuff like that shouldn't be free, any more than you should be free to go up to someone in the street and start shouting abuse at them. If someone has a joke to make, they are free to make it. If someone has a criticism to make, they are welcome to make it, if they are willing to listen to a counter-argument. But if someone just wants to be offensive, I see no reason why it shouldn't be oppressed.

If you see no reason that a thing - any thing - should NOT be oppressed, then the nest thing I can say is that you're simply an authoritarian follower, and you've missed the whole point of our society and the very foundation of our republic. I AM free to shout abuse at you, I AM free to hold my beliefs, as are you, as is the Jew-baiting mullah, the Catholic-bashing preacher and even the religion-hating columnist. We're all free to hold our beliefs - but my beliefs are not above even the most pointless and base mockery simply by virtue of being MINE. Religious opinion is not different than any other area of belief, and is subject to the same protections, to insist otherwise is to demand that your unjustified, irrational beliefs about man and the cosmos trump my freedom of conscience, and that's not freedom at all.