The fundamentalists only "get it" when its another religion that gets representation

[Az]

Most atheists and Secular Humanists see the issue of the Senate having an official tax paid Chaplain on site and his official daily invocations as a low order issue. Sure we think its wrong but its not worth the fight.

The fundamentalists and many Christians don't mind it in large part because its their beliefs being represented (somewhat). A lot of Christians do get that its a bit odd having an official Chaplain in a government that is set in place with one of the founding principles being that no religious belief shall be shown any favor. But for the most part it goes unchallenged.

That is until another religion gets a chance at the pulpit. And then all hades breaks out. Its the same story every time. No matter the issue.

The fundamentalist right will play any card they can to leverage their beliefs into the public arena. Christmas decorations are a favorite target. They press and push for their Nativity scene to be displayed in front of Government buildings. They acqueisce to the presence of other similar religions presenting their displays as well (discretely hidden around the back more often than not). But as soon as one of the other players enters the forum they start to howl that it is destroying the fabric of society. Imagine if a Muslim display of faith were placed in the position of favor that the nativity scene reserves for itself. It would be torn down in a night.

It doesn't stop there though. It is pervasive. They want all the advantages of the system with none of the repsonsibilities. Sort of like Cheney claiming both executive and legislative rights. There was a case here in Michigan not too long ago where a school had a thriving after class program. It included a bible study group. Because it wasn't sponsored by the school itself it was perfectly legal. But then a group of atheist kids decided they wanted a bible study group of their own. The principal initially rejected the idea but eventually agreed if the students could find a chaperon. They eventually found a science teacher that agreed to monitor the session via intercom (he wouldn't be caught dead in the room for fear of his career) and thus they were able to go ahead with their bible study group. The principal had to allow it. But thats when the parents got involved. They hit the roof. How dare the principal allow atheists to dissect the bible with their critical thought. They insisted that the group be canceled. But the principal had no grounds to do so. In the end he was forced to cancel all after class activities because the Fundamentalists could not allow another way of thinking to see the light of day.

So this issue of the Hindu priest addressing the senate and being met with outrage from the fundamentalists is nothing new to us skeptics and atheists. We are quite used to their hypocrisy. We can't help chuckle to ourselves that it would all go away if the government recognized the law of the land and did not try to mix religion with their politics in the senate. But because so many believe their way is the true way they will continue to try to force their view into the government because after all everything they believe is the truth. Why can't others see that?

[mikelgb]

1. cogent

and a great anecdote

thanks for your thoughts

[prodigal_green]

2. I somehow got an email from AFA regarding the Hindu priest

I couldn't stop laughing at the cognitive dissonance they must experience every day.

[Mythsaje]

3. TRUE "special rights."

They coined the phrase for gays, but it's far more appropriate to use it for THEIR wants and prejudices.

[Hand]

4. Back in 1979, the Dalai Lama was blocked from offering the opening prayer.

This was well before he received the Nobel Peace Prize. He was visiting DC and was being hosted in part by a representative (D) from South Carolina who arranged for him to give the opening prayer in one of the houses of Congress. Some fundy rep heard about it and somehow raised enough objections that it was cancelled. Godless Buddhists, ya know. :grr:

[Alexander]

38. I'd rather have the Dalai Lama than Pat Robertson offering an opening prayer.

I think most people would too.

[Madspirit]

5. k&r...n/t

[eppur_se_muova]

6. I just wish they understood that a doorway opens both ways.

The original motivation to separate religion from government was that it was the only way to free religion from government. They should know enough about history -- even the "comic book" version of the Pilgrims as founders -- to know that the intrusion of politics into church was a major reason so many chose to flee England for the Colonies. And this was even when the colonists and the King belonged to different denominations of the same faith!

[tblue37]

9. But of course the Pilgrims fled to America specifically to

establish a theocracy. They were persecuted for their beliefs, but they were all too willing to persecute others for having different beliefs.

[BlooInBloo]

7. I.e., they don't get it.

[ChickMagic]

8. Great post, Az

K&R

The people that originally came here thought that medieval European Christianity wasn't strict enough. I don't remember where I heard that.

[hfojvt]

10. seems to me it was the atheist kids (or parents)

who could not stand the idea of a Bible study in school. So the intolerance went both ways.

[dmallind]

12. Where do you get that idea?

I'm an atheist, and a member of organized atheist groups and quite a lot of us enjoy doing Bible study. In fact I'd put my biblical knowledge up aginst 99% of believers. Why is it so unnatural that atheists would want to study something that is being used so consistently as a reason to exclude and demonize them? Something that is so often incorrectly cited and inconsistently analyzed as a reason to establish dogma as the law of the land? Something that, despite the almost total ignorance of the Bible amongst believers, skews the social and political environment of the entire country? It's a very importnat thing for atheists to understand, and I don;t see any reason to assume their interest was tactical. Of course even if it were what would be the problem since tactical considerations are so often at the root of Christian involvement in youth settings. I'm sure it's just natural and completely altruistic concern that drives them to plug moments of silence or "competing" theories of natural selection too. Nothing at all to dow ith wanting to advance their indoctrination of kids surely?

[Az]

13. I am curious as to why you see it that way

They weren't protesting the other bible study class. They simply wanted to look over the bible with a critical eye. This is actually a fairly regular practice in some atheist groups. It has nothing to do with the other kids. It was just the pursuit of knowledge.

[hfojvt]

18. Sure it was

and I just fell off the turnip truck yesterday.

I am totally unaware that there are people who think it is unconstitutional for Gideons to hand out Bibles in front of school or for there to be an after-school Bible study group.

I was never part of an atheist group, or I might still be an atheist, but generally when I see Colonel Mustard in the study with a bloody lead pipe, I figure that he did not cut himself shaving.

[Az]

31. There was no interaction between the groups

It was just a group of kids interested in looking into the bible for critical purposes. To find errors and flaws. That is the sort of thing some atheists do.

[hfojvt]

35. If this is the founder

he says himself 'in response' 'to the already established student bible club'

http://ffrf.org/fttoday/2000/jan_feb2000/white.html

[Az]

41. Is it not their right?

And where does it say that he intended to shut the other group down. Sorry but you are seriously reaching here. Atheists have a hard enough time fighting for their right to even express themselves let alone trying to shut someone else down. We like free speech. We just wish it applied to everyone.

[hfojvt]

50. in response says to me

that he intended to oppose them. He wasn't just doing his own thing, he was offended by them doing their own thing. So he reacted to it, responded to it. See, I remember being a young atheist. I did not just want to have my own beliefs, I wanted to convert the world. I thought the world would be better off if we all accepted the reality of God's non-existence. What a fool I was.


And isn't it amazing how little things change?

[Az]

53. And I had a different experience as a young atheist

I did not seek to destroy the Christians. I was just looking for someone else I could talk to. I would have loved such a group as this one. I guess experiences really do vary.

[spooky3]

104. I did not see a single word in that student's essay that says he tried

to shut down the believer group or that he did this out of "offense". There were a lot of words discussing how his attempt to start a group of non-believers AFTER there was already a believer group, was thwarted and discouraged. The reason why the existence of the other group is relevant is that if there were NO such groups, the school had a legitimate basis for telling this student he could not have his group, on the grounds that no such groups were permitted and all were treated in a non-discriminatory way.

Please quote his words if I missed something. Otherwise, please do not put words in his mouth or make unfair attributions about him.

[hfojvt]

106. in response

why respond to something that does not offend you?

That's why I write LTTEs - in response to some BS that is in the paper or in the news.

He was not talking about a positive response. He was against their group for some reason. I think 'offense' is a very plausible motive.


edit: Heck, I just repeated myself for the most part. As for shutting them down, I admitted in reply to Solon, that I seem to have been partly wrong about that, but I have seen something like that mentioned as a strategy. As in 'Try distributing the Koran and see how fast they shut it down.'

[dmallind]

114. You could be right, or not - doesn't matter IMO

In response to that group may have just meant he thought it would be a good idea to have a group study the bible from a different perspective, or that he hadn't thought of a bible study group until the first one formed and it gave him the idea.

It's certainly possible your first impression was absolutely correct and that this was a macchiavellian ploy to end the theistic group. If so I fail to see the problem - because in doing so it demonstrated the false facade of separation practiced by many schools and government entities, where Christianity is given all manner of preferences but letter of the law establishment is minutely avoided. Isn't the important thing that the school was obviously operating a double standard and that it did not want to allow any dissent from Christianity? If the group was founded with the intent of revealing that bias why is it a bad thing?

[SidDithers]

17. I agree completely...

'cause it was the atheists that tried to shut down the good and pure christians.

Oh, wait...

Sid

[hfojvt]

19. because you know that never happens in the real world, right?

Check this out:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=856475

[SidDithers]

21. What does that have to do with the bible study groups...

at the school in Michigan?

Try to stay on topic please.

Sid

[hfojvt]

30. it has to do with atheists trying to shut down Christians

that was the sub-topic

[Az]

32. That was not the goal

And how were they trying to shut down the Christians anyway? It was the Christians that wound up shutting everything down. They just wanted to critique the bible in the privacy of their own group.

[hfojvt]

46. I was just pointing out an example

something that leads me to believe that might have been what happened in this case.

It may have been wrong in this case, but it is not unwarranted, if you read the link I posted.

Plus, the founder said 'in response' so he was, by his own admission, opposing the other group, not just doing his own thing.

[Az]

49. Atheists are isolated in this society

Look, we atheists don't have any major organizations. Nothing approaching the level of Christianity. In our society we tend to be isolated. We don't have the extended families that churches provide. So we have a thin social net to catch our fall when bad things happen. So some try to form groups of like minded individuals to partake in activities to provide in addition a source of contact for one another. People like knowing they are not alone. And that was one of the express reasons for his creating the club.

We don't want the Christians to be disrupted. We just want our rights to be respected. We want the right to assemble. We want to right of free thought and speech. Its not too hard to figure out.

[hfojvt]

54. That's true for some

but did you read the link? Did you? Did anybody in that link express the wish that the Gideons would be stopped?

Did anybody suggest that they would be stopped, if the Koran was being handed out? Or the book of Mormon? Or Darryl's book?

[Az]

57. A world of difference between desire and action

I wish everyone knew the truth. I wish everyone agreed with me (actually I do like to debate so ... maybe not so much). But recognition of another's right to believe whatever they will stops them from acting on their desires.

We disagree. I can tell you to your face I think you are wrong. I can argue down every single point you ever raise. I can think you are ignorant. I can think all manner of nasty things about you. But I cannot make you believe a thing and I cannot force you to say a thing. Not if I have any respect for the ideas of freedom of thought and speech. As much freedom as I want for myself I must grant to you. Thats how it works. I could wish every bible in the world destroyed. But acting on that would be a violation of my morals as it would be a violation of your rights. There is a world of difference between desire and action.

[Fuzz]

56. Hell, I don't need an extra organization for a non-belief

Sounds kinda silly to me. But I'm just a grumpy agnostic/atheist or whatever the hell. I don't really care.

In the spirit of Bill Hicks let's start the People Who Hate People Group. No one will show up, and there you have it! ;)

[Az]

58. The procrastinators club has already booked the room

I doubt there will be any scheduling conflict.

[Warren DeMontague]

63. If atheists were really trying to shut down Christians, wouldn't the place to do that be in Church?

Did I miss something? Is there a massive Church shortage I didn't hear about, where the only available place for organized Religion to be practiced is public schools?

[SidDithers]

74. Umm...there was no sub-topic when I responded in #17...

It was you that brought up the Gideons in post #18. (and I'm still not sure why)

Sid

Edit: and again in the link in #19

[hfojvt]

85. the sub-topic began when I took issue with the OP

when you challenged my argument, I backed that up with a link. Is that wrong?

The Gideon's link illustrated my arguments

a) some people are adamantly opposed to religious activities anywhere near a school

b) often they think they can end them with alternative strategies - hand out the Koran, or hand out the Book of Mormon, for examples

[blondeatlast]

22. If your faith can't stand up to that kind of scrutiny, then it ain't faith.

I'm a secular Christian who doesn't feel the least bit threatened by atheists/agnostics. In fact, I applaud their fight to keep religion out of government--which succeeds in keeping government out of religion.

Ideally--I'd love to see BOTH groups come together. It would beat most of the traditional Bible study classes in which I've participated!

[OnionPatch]

68. Hear Hear!

Same here. I don't feel threatened by atheists, either. In fact, I usually take their side in arguments because I feel they are treated unjustly. I understand all the reasons why they don't believe and totally respect them. But I don't need their approval, a law or even public support to uphold my own beliefs. If the atheists had a class down the hall, I would think it would be fine. Maybe we could all meet after class and have a rompin' good conversation together. :D My guess is that the atheist class would fizzle out eventually and be canceled due to lack of interest. But until then, I can't see why they shouldn't have the right to their class. I also don't see why the intent of the creation of their group is relative. They either have the right to their class or not.

[blondeatlast]

95. Amen! (oops...)

:rofl:

[Beelzebud]

23. LOL... Why should bible study be in a public school?

Don't they have Sunday School any more in churches?

[hfojvt]

29. I'm not saying that it should be or shouldn't be

only that it can be

From "The Oxford Companion to the SCOTUS"

"By contrast, when religious activity in public schools results from choices by students, parents, or other private individuals, the Court has repeatedly held that the activity can or even must be permitted....Thus, in cases about access to facilities, the Court treats religious and secular viewpoints as alternatives, and equal access for religion as the neutral course - not merely permitted, but required."

[Az]

45. I agree

Bible study is perfectly acceptable in school as long as it is not sponsored or encouraged by the state or its representitives. The absolute same is true of bible critiquing. Fair is fair. What one group can do another can do as well.

[Solon]

48. Uhm, you are incorrect, it wasn't JUST Atheists, but Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses...

Jewish folks, etc. that all have, at one time or another, filed lawsuits about religious instruction or prayer in school.

[hfojvt]

55. I was only talking about the one case

although I was a little bit wrong about that too.

[Solon]

62. First, I don't know what case you are talking about, second it was an inaccurate stereotype you...

are propagating, so I should say you owe an apology to the Atheists you offended.

[hfojvt]

67. the case in the OP, the Michigan school

Since I was talking about a specific case, I don't see how that is propagating a stereotype.

[Warren DeMontague]

60. Yeah. It "seems to you". But you also disagree with the SCOTUS decision taking mandatory prayer out

of public schools.

So maybe a little disclosure is in order.

You're someone- you've proven this time and time again- who doesn't understand "what the problem is" with FORCING religion on kids in Public Schools. An "atheist kid (or parent)" who objects to being FORCED to pray in public school, is, to your argument, being "intolerant".

In short, I'd say your judgment on what constitutes "intolerance" on this subject is more than a little whacked, Jack.

[hfojvt]

71. I don't disagree with that decision

I just think that in a Democracy, it should have been made by a majority of the voters, rather than by a majority of nine old men. When the decision was made, 150 years (or 300 years, if you count pre-revolutionary time), said it WAS Constitutional. Unless the Constitution has been amended, SCOTUS is supposed to decide things based on precedent. They didn't and I call bullsh*t on that, even if it is a decision I agree with.

And there's alot of statements being put in my mouth there. Can you quote me on that, or is that just your impression? I would say that the atheist kid or parent who cannot tolerate the rest of the class praying is intolerant. Peer pressure enforcing conformity is something I have fought against almost all my life (mostly by marching to the beat of my own drummer (I generally prefer Rick Allen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Allen_%28drummer%29))

[Warren DeMontague]

103. I'm happy to search the archives and confront you with your own statements, but I don't think I even

need to.

"I don't disagree with that decision
I just think that in a Democracy, it should have been made by a majority of the voters, rather than by a majority of nine old men."

So, you DO disagree with the SCOTUS decision. Because the CORE of that decision was that the majority could NOT force their religious views on the minority. That the right to have your kids not forced to pray to someone else's God in public schools is not "up to the majority" any more than any other basic civil constitutional rights are "up to the majority". Saying, "Oh, the majority should have made that call" is the exact same thing as saying "The Majority should have the right to impose their religion on everyone else".

The. exact. same. thing.

See, you don't get it.

"I would say that the athiest kid or parent who cannot tolerate the rest of the class praying is intolerant. Peer pressure enforcing conformity is something I have fought against almost all my life"

Wait a minute. You think that the one atheist kid stopping the entire rest of the class from led, organized prayer in public schools is the one "enforcing conformity" through "peer pressure"?

:crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy:

Good FUUUUCKING grief. Uh, It's the other way around. Try being the one kid who doesn't believe in Jesus in the bible-thumping town. I'm sure you'd learn something about peer pressure and enforced conformity.

Yes, those mean old bully, intolerant atheists, picking on the 99% of every one else who only want the freedom to enforce Religious Uniformity.. again, in public school.

And, speaking of which, you still haven't answered my other question- is there a Church Shortage I haven't heard about, where these millions of poor, put upon, oppressed Christian Kids have no where else to engage in organized, led prayer, besides in public schools during school hours?

[hfojvt]

108. That may be my fault

Maybe I should have started a new paragraph. One sentence is not necessarily tied to the next in my mind.

Thus, on the one hand, I was saying that 'an atheist kid who cannot tolerate the rest of the class praying is intolerant.'

Then, in the next sentence, I was responding to your statement that I want to force religion on people.

As I said, maybe I should have started a new paragraph, or quoted the statement of yours that I was arguing against. I think, however, you might have understood that, if you were not so determined to think ill of those who argue against you on some issues. The underlying premise of many of the people I argue with on DU seems to be that, not only am I wrong but I am also some sort of liar/lunatic/a$$hole/hypocrite/moron. I am sorry that you feel that way. http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/37


On the SCOTUS case, I don't get that those are the exact same thing. The majority is not imposing religion on the minority if they teach it in schools. Kids are taught alot of math in school. History too. Years later, many have forgotten it all, or the vast majority of it, and it has no impact on their lives.

You don't seem to get it. The Declaration of Independence. Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. That means majority rule, that means a long, slow process to change things that we, as a society, are currently mostly satisfied with.

The Constitution is amendable by the majority, even the Bill of Rights.
We amended the Constitution to give women the right to vote.
We amended the Constitution to free the slaves
We amended the Constitution to give 18 year olds the right to vote.
We amended the Constitution to create a Federal Income Tax.

Just as I would argue for all those changes, I would argue that they should be made by the public, not by a King, or a constitution, or a SCOTUS. I think it is far better for a majority to impose their views on a minority than it is for a minority of 9 to impose their views on a majority.

[Warren DeMontague]

109. "That means majority rule" ...No, it doesn't.

The Supreme Court ended Segregation in schools. The Supreme Court ended bans against interracial marriage. The Supreme Court said that if married people choose to use birth control, they shouldn't have to worry about arrest and imprisonment. The Supreme Court stated that what a woman does with her body in the first trimester of pregnancy is her business. The Supreme Court said that consenting adult gays and lesbians have the right to have sex with each other in the privacy of their homes, without worrying about the Texas Sodomy Patrol kicking down their door.

These were ALL decisions which, had they been "left to the majority to decide", would have resulted in continued discrimination and oppression. The Founding Fathers did NOT leave ALL the power in the hands of the "majority". We do not have mob rule on all matters. Significant power is deliberately delegated TO the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution and protect the rights of citizens; particularly the minority. And the SCOTUS is one of the three branches of government, and the Constitution- NOT the People, is the law of the land, like it or not.

Your logic seems to be that, if a majority of people want something; no matter what; they should be able to do it. If a majority wants to ban interracial marriage, or to keep black people enslaved, or for gays to be put to death, no "rights" imposed by "unelected judges" ought to interfere. That is NOT how it works.

I don't ascribe nefarious motives to you, but on this particular matter, you. just. don't. get. it.

[arewenotdemo]

94. ......ERROR!...........

[hfojvt]

107. "I shot an error into the air

it's still going - everywhere!" Robert Heinlein

Kirk: You made a mistake! Carry out the prime directive! Carry out the prime directive!
Nomad: Error. Error. Error.

[Trillo]

11. I'm not an atheist,

but I always look forward to your posts, they always seem lucid to me.

"They want all the advantages of the system with none of the repsonsibilities."

The flip side: if they take the advantages without the responsibilities, then someone else, somewhere, is assuming the responsibilities without receiving any advantage from having done so.

This seems one of the core issues surrounding so much (beyond your specific topic) that is wrong in our culture. A few benefit at the expense of the many.

[Zucca]

14. Most groups are guilty of that type of thing.

They want the advantages without the responsibility...

Some groups want to end descrimination against themselves but practice it towards other
Some groups want to push laws through because they think it is right, but also want to deny others opinions from being heard by saying...They are trying to push their belief system on us,,,,Atheism is a belief system, you choose to believe there is no higher power...Why then is it fine for you to say your ideas would be suitable for the law of the land?

Pro Abortion folks, homosexuals and other minorities all are as guilty of wanting to have their cake and eat it too.
They want to legalize abortion and have anti-abortion folks tax dollars pay for things...Thats not right. They want to bash religious folks for their beliefs but call other bigots for remarks about themselves. Every group has its weakness and has its own flaws. Both sides of an issue try to run with some high moral ground that truthfully does not exist. The HIGH MORAL GROUND IS IN THE CENTER...Compromise, Democracy....I wish the far left and far right wing nuts would just figure that out and get back to the business of improving our country instead of spouting hateful speech and trying to get every last thing run their way. I believe it could happen...I think the middle should revolt, boot out the extremists, render them irrelevant and run the country from a level and fair playing feild. Im sick of the intolerence on both sides and am completely disgusted about being flamed by both sides just because I do not fully agree with either one of them. I lean a bit heavier left then I do to the right, but am disgusted by the hard lefts refusal to learn the lessons of the last two Presidential elections....We need to learn to work with everyone and represent as closely everyones needs desires and beliefs, This IS NOT A WAR AGAINST REPUBS,,,It is a system built to represent everybody! To bad the outer fringe on both sides are completely intolerant disgusting hypocrites. This is not an attack on Democrats or Republicans, It is my opinion about the mess the extremes from both sides have created. They revel in the hatred they spew. Its quite pathetic.

FLAME AWAY! EDITED I AM ALSO DISGUSTED BY THE HARD RIGHT, ITS CORRUPTION AND FALSE MORAL STANCES...Just so Im not accused of favoring the ignorant Bush wackers!

:>) GO CLINTON!

[Az]

15. Its interesting

You go from deploring the intolerance of the extremes and praising the middle and then shift to intolerance to the extremes.

Some corrections though. Atheism is not a belief system. Its a recognition that an individual does not happen to believe in gods. Just like theism is not a belief system. Its just recognition that they do believe in a god or gods.

Atheists do not call for their views to be placed in the seat of government. They only call for what the law states. That there should be no preference given to any belief system. That the government should be neutral to religion. Trust me, if atheists were trying to place their beliefs as the law of the land there were be more than howls of outrage. There is a difference between the Government saying it has no position on religion and the Government stating that God is not real.

[dmallind]

16. Not quite right

If atheism is a belief system then bald is a hair color.

Atheism simply means the absence of belief, not a belief in absence. This is not just semantic hair splitting, but an important distinction. While classical "strong atheists" exist (defined as someone who takes up the position that there is definitely no god of any kind) they are both rare and irrational. Arguing for metaphysical universal negatives is a nonstarter, since we do not have universal knowledge. Somewhere, somehow, an invisible pink unicorn could indeed exist. The vast majority are "weak atheists" who simply don't believe because there is insufficient evidence or convincing inductive argument.

Atheism absolutely should not be the law of the land. I know of no atheist - not even Harris or Dawkins or Hitchens - who says it should be illegal to believe. Irrational, pointless, damaging to self and societym sure they may make those claims, but not illegal. You'll find that essentially all atheist political and lobbying activity is not to establish atheism, but to prevent the establishment of religion (well, Christianity 99.999999% of the time since that's invariably the religion an attempt is being made to establish). Again this is a very important distinction.

[Zucca]

25. One misleading word is all you can argue with...My post and its main points is true.

Atheiests, abortion rights people, race leaders and homosexuals all preach intolerence at some points. The homosexuals attacking christians, African American leaders using slurs, Abortion proponents wanting public funding, If you want an abortion,,,fine, you pay for it! Thats fair,,,why should tax dollars taken from everyone fund something around 1/2 of America thinks is bad? Im not talking rights, Im talking responsibility!....All of them are horse crap. If you want rights and respect, then let others have some too. I am in a forum that is full of left leaning folks here...I speak to you...from the middle...But do not make the stupid mistake of saying wheres your opinion of the far right...and act as if I support them...just because I am speaking to the far left people, or to people who are possibly here...I totally dislike the religious right...There stance on say Birth Control is retarded...No Abortion at all,,, yet no Birth Control help or education? They want you to have a baby,,,but then do not want to support it or educate it? No Chi8ld left behind is BS...If abortion were banned MILLIONS would get left behind...They are as hypocritical as the hard left...I just wish the center would take over completely...Im sick of whiny activists crying over their wants only to walk all over others needs. When they decide to respect others rights and compromise...I will listen then!

Atheism is a belief...You are correct its not a system...Big deal I guess you can go on and on about a one word mistake...On this post insult my grammah and speeelin why dontcha!

:>)

[Az]

27. Awefully broad strokes there

You seem to be prepared to sweep everyone into categories by labels alone. I wonder how homosexual Christians fit in that pile? Where do you stack prochoice Catholics?

Re the abortion issue. The fight has been to retain choice. Funding has been a dead issue for years. The antichoice crowd is trying to eradicate it utterly. Not just de-fund it.

As to the homosexuals versus Christians people have been killed on that one by self righteous people. Calls go out on a daily basis from true believers demanding that homosexuals all but be rounded up and exterminated. I think they may have cause to be concerned.

And yes there are lots of Christian homosexuals. Its not about homosexuality verse Christianity. Its about respect, tolerance, and living in a society predicated on the idea that everyone is entitled to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. And it is worth noting that the founding fathers did not provide a prescribed list of approved forms of happiness. It is for each to decide themselves. But there are those (Christian and otherwise) that would seek to define how a person can be happy and with who.

A chief difference between the right and the left on these issues has to do with who decides what we do and with who we can do it. The left pushes towards freedom. The right towards restriction. The left believes that the individual has control of their morals, their body, and their choice. The right would have all these things bolted down and made safe according to their sense of things.

The left decries the actions of others when they violate the rights of others. The right cries out when their "right" to oppress someone is limited.

And again regarding atheism. Some individuals can raise it to a belief. But on its own atheism is not a belief. A person that does not give a wet slap about gods is an atheist. Even though she does not spend time worrying about it. Atheism at its most basic is the absence of a specific belief. Thats what the word means. From theism, meaning a belief in god or gods, combined with the prefix 'a' meaning "not" or "without", and atheist is simply not a theist, or someone without theistic beliefs. Anyone that is not a theist is simply put an atheist.

[Zucca]

33. Use examples of a few to paint all Christians?

As to the homosexuals versus Christians people have been killed on that one by self righteous people. Calls go out on a daily basis from true believers demanding that homosexuals all but be rounded up and exterminated. I think they may have cause to be concerned.

AFTER you write this gem?

You seem to be prepared to sweep everyone into categories by labels alone. I wonder how homosexual Christians fit in that pile? Where do you stack prochoice Catholics?

Ah yeah we Christians want to roundem up...your on to me! Pathetic!

It is the rights activists that attaqck Christians and the folks who tolerate religious bigotry in here that I am using to support my words...Who in here advocates rounding up homosexuals

Heck want to hear my thoughts?

I say the US Government should not be performing ceremonies at all...CIVIL UNIONS ONLY AND FOR ALL!

Individual churches have the RIGHT to decide whom they want to marry!

Everyones rights are protected...I mean churches have rights too,,,don't they?

If rights activists would completely protect others right and respect others beliefs as much as they do their own...Id take them seriously...If the wack job religious right would GIVE up on trying to legislate bedroom morality all the while being SUPER FREAKISH and running to brothels...I would take them seriously!

Now think about it, marriage isd a religious ceremony in its roots...What the hell was our government ever doing in that business...CIVIL UNIONS ONLY BY GOVERNMENT> Marriage is churches domain. Everyone gets rights protected and everyone gets the legal benifits of marriage/civil rights...It is a winning idea...

Yet for some reason, neither side wants it..because deep down,,,they want to FORCE OTHERS TO RECOGNIZE THEIR OWN BELIEFS AND VALUES AS THE LAW OF THE LAND! Thats both sides!

Im sick of all of them!

Just being honest! Hope you are able to understand my sense of fair play and equality...It goes both ways..not just one!

[Az]

36. Dude ... like chill man

First of all I am going to lengths to make sure I do not attribute the intolerance of a group of Christians to all Christians. I know far to many Christians that are open minded tolerant and compassionate to do something of that nature.

As to your notion of what to do about gay marriage I agree. I don't think the government should be involved in marriage, hetero, homo, or otherwise. Acknowledging civil unions is the limit of Government involvement as I see it. Let the individual determine what the social/religious name of their commitment is.

The entire point of the atheist position is that it cuts both ways. We don't want an atheist government because if the logic works for us to foist our beliefs on others then it works for other beleifs as well. And there are a lot more of them than us. We get it. Fighting for everyone's rights is the most effective means we have to fight for our rights.

[Zucca]

39. Cool

Sorry I just am defensive because I often get blasted on democratic forums for not being hard left and barking out some party line. I do not believe all repubs are intolerant, and I do not believe all dems are extreme liberal (Im proof of that) I like a few ideas from both sides...I just have a problem with the intolerance I get if I do not completely trash the other side.

That being said, these days I would have to say 85% of repubs are FOS.

Bizzare that they supporet this criminal.

[SidDithers]

101. Atheism is not a belief...you're just wrong...nt

Sid

[dmallind]

112. not at all

It is a patently false idea and your main point does NOT stand. It's not a one word quibble at all. Atheism, despite being so widely misrepresented that dictionaries list that usage, speaks only to the ABSENCE of belief. There is not a single unifying belief amongst atheists. Not one. We only agree that there is no proof for any god. Christians always seem to think that atheism is only about THEIR god, whereas really we have exactly the same position about every one of them. Whatever you think about Vishnu is most probably what I do. Whatever you think about Zeus is probably what I do. I just think exactly the same way about Yahweh too.

And despite your rather unnecessarily angry response to an important and polit disagreement I think you'll find I am one of the more centrist members here and I rarely if ever quibble about grammar and spelling - my own tendency to commit hundreds of typos would make that rather hypocritical.

[arewenotdemo]

100. I would take issue with your definition

Even Dawkins will always point out that anything is possible. What exactly are you saying? That there can be no belief in the absence of absolute certainty?

a·the·ism

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.



On second read, I see your point, but cringe at the use of "weak" in describing atheists.

Most freethinkers I know would not appreciate nor deserve that description.

Myths, including pink unicorns, should be exposed for what they are.

[dmallind]

111. not my term

it's a recognized term in philosophy and implies absolutely nothing about the person or their convictions. I am a weak atheist myself.

And a reminder that dictionaries list usages.

[kestrel91316]

24. "......Pro Abortion folks...." Interesting choice of words there.

Especially in a newbie......

[Zucca]

26. So you think a democrat cannot be morally opposed to abortion?

It is a bad thing. I am pretty sure most who have had them would have preffered not to have had to. If the pro life hypocrites and the pro abortion people would have just tried to work together a bit more,,,say like Clintons safe, legal and rare ideas...It would be a bit more tolerable.

The religious right jag offs that want to ban it, then let poor kids go hungry and uneducated are sick little bastits too!

If you read my posts, you can clearly see Im not from the right. Your pathetic little attempt to implicate me as such leads me to believe you have no real content to argue with. It is just you, trying to dismiss my points because you do not like the ring of truth in them.

[Az]

28. I think its the chip

you seem to have on your shoulder. You are striking a very strong emotional stance and seem to be yelling at any that disagree with your position. This is pretty much guaranteed to draw a reaction. Typically most people allow as much leeway in a conversation as they are given.

[Zucca]

37. OK Ill try to soften my words.

Homosexuals have rights
Churches have rights
Neither side wants to recognize the others rights

Churches can have marriages for whomever they want
State should not be performing ceremonies,,,civil unions only and for all!
It ensures everyones rights. It is a perfect compromise and who really cares what the radicals on either side who respect no ones beliefs but their own...think!
Thats my stance in a quick summary, I do apologize for being a bit gruff,,,I am a hard headed thick mic (I know thats racist) construction worker,,,But I break some stereo types, I dont drink or whistle at girls going by!

:>)

[bunkerbuster1]

40. self delete

[Zucca]

43. GOOOOO METS!

Mets will be much better this half. I am rather dissapointed that Duaner Sanchez will probably not returtn, He was way better then Mota could ever be and In my opinion better the Aaron Heilman. I was looking forward to Duaner eventually eclipsing Wagner for the closers role...It appears that Burgos,,,If he ever gets control, will get that shot now. Unless Omar ships him off. Anyhow...GO METS!

Nice to be way better then Yankees!

[bunkerbuster1]

90. The Yankees don't play real baseball

not in that gurly-mon American League.

[Zucca]

96. GIRLY AL LOL

Did you ever compare league ERA's,,,It seems that even with a pitcher hitting...NL stays close or tops AL batting averages...Last year at a late point in season NL was ahead! DH? Fuggetaboudit!

[Lars39]

47. I am opposed to these so-called Democrats that oppose abortion

and are electing other anti-choice "Democrats" to help enact anti-choice legislation.
I do not welcome anyone into the Democratic party that wishes to restrict women's right to choose.

Abortion is a medical procedure. Period.

[Zucca]

51. When you get designated chairman...

Then you can decide who to welcome.

Perhaps you should know something first though...I live in Boston area and know people who worked on Kennedy campaigns...seriously...Guess who they voted for last two big elections?

Yep, BUSH...wanna know why? Because radical left hi jacked the party which lost all common sense and is now trying run it into the ground. The only reason Democrats have a chance in 08 is because the right has its own radical buffoons! MY WAY OR NOT AT ALL,,,is not the principles on which this country was founded. You do not welcome anyone, but you are not in charge...PFFFT!

LOL

[Lars39]

59. If anything the Democratic party has gone rightward.

You're spouting RW rhetoric on a progressive site. Good luck with that. :eyes:

[Zucca]

61. Nothing I sad is right wing.

I spoke from the middle. Some of your freinds here agree with parts of my ideas. Guess they are right wing too? Label anyone who does not fully commit to your agenda RW if you want ...It just shows you lack anything material to say.

[AllieB]

116. I'm from MA too. How do you feel about gay marriage?

My sisters and I all worked on Kennedy campaigns, congressional campaigns (Markey, Frank, Meehan, Capuano), and Deval Patrick's campaign. None of these politicians is 'radical left', unless you're a right-wing Republican. They are pro-business, and interested in bringing jobs to our state. If you disagree with the many shades of Democratic thought that exist in MA, from the conservative Stephen Lynch to the liberals like Kennedy and Frank, maybe you should look inward and figure out why. Mass. is turning bluer, in case you haven't noticed, and the color has seeped into NH also.

[kestrel91316]

80. If you call us PRO-CHOICE in the future I will accept your apology.

"Pro-abortion" is a RW slur. NO ONE is "pro-abortion".

[scorpiogirl]

72. Pro-abortion? Interesting terminology.

I don't know anyone who's pro abortion. The term is pro-choice. As in not telling women what to do with their bodies. That actually has nothing to do with wanting abortion.

[Zucca]

73. I meant pro-choice, to me theres no distinction.

If you are for abortion rights, then you are pro abortion...Its pretty simple, I do not like our politically correct culture that hides behind catchy phrases ...I mean look at my take on the pro lifers They are pro birth.


They are not pro life IN MY EYES ...They are PRO-BIRTH...most of them could care less what happens to the kid after it is born,,,especially if it raises their taxes,,,cannnot do that now can they?

Pro Life is someone who would support education, health care reform and social programs to help end poverty , hunger and other things for these unborn children!

Pro choice is an innaccurate term coined to cover the real meaning of ones stance, Pro Life is just as innacurate.

I will try to remember to call the people by their phony politically correct names.....forgive my slip up.

I often call pro lifers pro birth too...Its just the way I see it! I am sorry if my non use of politically correct terminology offends you. I guess I am stuck in my own little world, where what you do is who you are! What you support is what you believe in....The lack of fancy labels was by no means intended to hurt anyones feelings or make them feel bad for what they support!

Anyhow, I once got booted from a web site for absolutely thrashing the pro-birth supporters...Just so ya know...Im not on their side either. Id prefer Clintons ways...safe and rare...Plus education and health care...Think health care for all would reduce abortions? I do!

GO CLINTON!

[yardwork]

20. Pagans chuckle at this hypocrisy, too.

I'd like to see the Wiccan Rede get the same kind of respect that the Ten Commandments gets in fundy circles. Their heads would explode and they'd find the separation of church and state in the Constitution in a hurry then.

[Marrah_G]

52. Bingo

[yardwork]

64. High-five!

:toast:

[Az]

66. Hey you pagans

You just take your wicked ways out of here. This here discussion is for atheists and Christians alone. Good and decent folk. :sarcasm: :hide: :rofl:

[yardwork]

69. Look out. We'll put a hex on you.

LOL! Actually, we don't really do that.

[Az]

70. Well you could

but then it would come back three fold. :D

Lots of pagan/wiccan friends. So I know your wiley ways.

[Marrah_G]

76. Hi Az !

I'm gonna hug you :hug: for being such a good doobie. My first High Priest was named Az so you are A OK in my book :)

[Az]

79. I am going to have to return this

:hug: I always return hugs. :D

[Marrah_G]

83. Okay

Completely off-topic:
I snuck a peek at your profile and I have to ask what RPGs? Like paper and dice or computer or mmorpgs?

[Az]

87. Well

RPGs are the pen and paper games. CRPGs are the solo or limited number of players computer games. And of course MMORPGS are gigantic time sucks.

I used to play RPGs, but time tends to limit them. I prefer CRPGs but good ones are few and far between. And MMORPGS can be fun at times but ADhD means I lose interest periodically and its a bear trying to get back into them after being a way for awhile.

[Marrah_G]

88. omg

Were we separated at birth?

:yoiks:

[Az]

91. Do you do

anime? If so then some of my genetic material may have been used for illicit experiments.

[Marrah_G]

92. Only occasionally

I'm more of a LOTR, anything with a sword and shield, scifi type old gamer-chick.

[Az]

93. LOTR Geek here too

Pretty much all rounder geek actually.

[Marrah_G]

97. Haha

It's good to be a geek!

:toast:

[MedleyMisty]

105. Sorry to intrude, but do either of you LOTR geeks play LOTRO?

[Az]

110. Not yet

Been giving it some consideration. My WoW account is languishing so I may just cancel it and switch. Any experience with it yourself?

[NMMNG]

99. Those control freaks?

Perish the thought. :rofl:

[Cleita]

34. I don't think there should be any clergy leading prayers in

any public or government venue. It violates the separation of church and state IMHO. Also, this is the point I try to give to people who want a theocracy is that the religion that becomes the state religion may not be the one they want to follow. I usually bring up the fact that I was raised Catholic. And, do they want the Pope and the Vatican in charge of their government?

[Zucca]

44. You are right

Government should not be performing ceremonies such as marriage either, Civil unions for all!

[Nunyabiz]

42. Funny thing is that none of these nuts

have a clue that what they are praying to is the SUN.
No Christian has a clue about the true origins of their cult, if they did they would be Atheist.

[yardwork]

65. Ahem. Some of us found the pagan path.

[Marrah_G]

77. We still pray to the Sun God and the Moon Goddess

At least some of us do.

[Nunyabiz]

102. Which is all fine and dandy

at least as a pagan, Wiccan or whatever you KNOW what the hell you are praying to & believing in, Christians however have no idea.
They will condemn you to their mythical hell then proceed to do exactly what they condemn you for, DOH!

[Name removed]

113. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Marrah_G]

75. What people do not understand about religion in school is this:

It isn't that religion is bad.

It is because that in many places in the country, especially small towns you have a vast majority of one religion. The 4 or 5 kids that are not of that faith feel excluded.

A couple examples:

You have a bible study group. Out of 100 kids, 95 go to the class. The class does neat things and maybe even takes some trips. Those 5 excluded kids have to choose between being with everyone else for fun things or being excluded, which is harmful to a childs emotional well being. Also when you have things like this in school in becomes blaringly obvious who is the "non-believer" and those children will be teased about it.

You have a football team and they always pray before a game. The one Muslim on the team, after already feeling different because of his faith can either kneel with the team and violate his own faith or he can stand off to the side, isolating him further. When coaches are involved there is an added pressure of wanting to what the coach says.

In both cases the child is made to choose and if they stay strong in their beliefs they are isolated from the rest of the kids. We do not have "Majority rule" in this country for just this reason. When the rights of the many harm the minority is cannot be tolerated.

How would you feel working in a place where the boss called a prayer meeting everyday. You are the only one who doesn't attend. How far do you think you could get in that company? The difference is you can choose where to work, kids, for the most part cannot choose their school.

Religion is not bad, prayer is not bad, but it has it's place outside of school hours. School is for academics, church is for religious teaching.

[Az]

78. Caveates

How a person decides to behave is beyond any reasonable control. That is we cannot legislate when and where people pray, meditate, dance, or whatever. It is unfortunate when groups of such people do not take other individuals feelings into consideration. But that is not the law.

What cannot be allowed by the government is any school official instigating such an action. If people want to pray at a football game that is fine. But the coach, a representative of the state, cannot instigate the prayer. The principal cannot hand the PA system over to people for the purpose of broadcasting a prayer.

This is where the conflict typically comes from. The football prayer war that happened in Texas was the result of the Principal giving them access to the PA system. Once the courts told them they could not do this the Christians involved started bringing their own PA systems and used them to shout down everyone else. It is at this point that their free speech begins to intrude on other's rights.

Students can pray in school. Always have been able to and always will be able to. Any attempt to forbid this would be a violation of their First Amendment rights and I take those pretty seriously. It is when the school as proxy for the state gets involved that the establishment clause is pulled into play.

I agree though that trying to overwhelm other people with a show of prayer is distasteful. I don't mind honest examples of faith based expressions. But I have sat there and been shouted down during recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance where the "Under God" people shout their phrase with anger. Definitely rude. Their right certainly. But it seems ugly to me.

[Marrah_G]

82. You get it !

[Nikki Stone1]

81. Thanks. We are a secular government. No prayer should be offered or chaplain paid.

Have them read the preamble to the Constitution before each session. That's where their loyalty should lie.

[Az]

84. The movie The Contender

Has a great moment in it when Sharon Stone's character, who has been nominated as the replacement Vice President, is forced to answer to where her loyalties lie since she is an atheist. She gives a marvelous speech about how her church is the government. Her charge is to serve We The People. Its an excellent reminder that the purpose of the government is to serve We The People. All the People.

[Nikki Stone1]

86. Too bad it was only a movie.

I hate this whole religious thing.

[KT2000]

89. Prayer in schools

Whenever a Christian bemoans the lack of prayer in schools, I remind them that of course they are talking about the need for Islamic prayers in our schools. Discussion over.

[DeSwiss]

98. Very insightful Az....

:thumbsup: :)

on edit:

In reflecting upon this more, it occurred to me that maybe what the atheist group might have agreed to as a compromise, was a "merger" of the two groups. That way they could offer their comments and perspectives within the bible group. And if the bible group objected then, it would have raised the question as to why they're not prepared to defend their beliefs when that is the way they interpret their Christian duty.

Just a thought....



K&R