Activism by atheists

[Darkstorn]

To be an Atheist is either to despair - or to be too shallow or heartless to do so.

To be Roman Catholic is either to despair, or to be too shallow or heartless to do so. What of all the children?

"Death always has the last word" (Stalin). Not only people are mortal - societies, civilisations and universes are.

This applies to religions equally. They are an inseparable part of societies and civilizations.

As everything dies - ceases to be - Death is universal victor. All will be destroyed, therefore all is futile - and usually much sooner than people expect.

Sorry for you to feel that way. I like to think because everything is fleeting and ever-changing, it's best to look for the bright side of everything.

Can't stand pessimists like yourself.

BTW you are living in a world WITH a Supreme Being, however much you may dislike the fact !

Yes. That Supreme Being is me.

 

[Catholicus]

So which is it man? Get a grip on it now... are we atheists going to meet our end at the hands of a growing Muslim population (post #23)? Or are we going to destroy ourselves with economic/cultural/moral collapse (post #26)?

In the case of post #23 coming to fruition with the vehemence you seem to be expecting, then it's likely bye-bye Christianity too, I'm afraid. And in the case of post #26 being "the end" then let's please just remember that atheists make up less than 3% of the U.S. population. So... who is it again who is rushing us toward collapse? That 3%? Is that seriously your stance here?

Which is it ? - probably both, since they are inter-connected.

The Western world is de facto Atheist - despite a lot of Fake Christian hullabaloo in the USA, but openly so in almost all Europe.

Declared Atheism is lower - but it's behaviour that counts.

Will Muslim takeover in the West mean an end to Western Christianity ? Yes, possibly.

 

[Darkstorn]

Which is it ? - probably both, since they are inter-connected.

The Western world is de facto Atheist - despite a lot of Fake Christian hullabaloo in the USA, but openly so in almost all Europe.

Declared Atheism is lower - but it's behaviour that counts.

Will Muslim takeover in the West mean an end to Western Christianity ? Yes, possibly.

Conflating atheists with muslim takeover of the west?

You're an idiot.

 

[Catholicus]

To be Roman Catholic is either to despair, or to be too shallow or heartless to do so. What of all the children?



This applies to religions equally. They are an inseparable part of societies and civilizations.



Sorry for you to feel that way. I like to think because everything is fleeting and ever-changing, it's best to look for the bright side of everything.

Can't stand pessimists like yourself.



Yes. That Supreme Being is me.

There is a pandemic of paedophilia throughout the Western world - and even more so outside the Catholic Church than within it.

Belief that "everything is fleeting" is one of the foundation-stones of Pessimism.

Still, as long as you "always look on the Bright Side of Life" , as Eric Idle did in Monty Python's "Life of Brian"....

 

[Revoltingest]

To be an Atheist is either to despair - or to be too shallow or heartless to do so.

Goodness gracious....thou art so judgmental.
I don't despair, which is good for one's mental health.
And if this is because I'm shallow & heartless, it's worthwhile.

 

[Catholicus]

Conflating atheists with muslim takeover of the west?

You're an idiot.

On the contrary - it is Atheism that has brought down the West and has also made it possible for it for the West to be taken over by Islam.

Something that very few Atheists have the brain to understand.

Still, no doubt it all falls within Allah's Providence !

 

[Catholicus]

Goodness gracious....thou art so judgmental.
I don't despair, which is good for one's mental health.
And if this is because I'm shallow & heartless, it's worthwhile.

It isn't judgemental to state the obvious.

Worthwhile ? As long as you're happy to be stupid and short-sighted - yes, indeed it is.

 

[Darkstorn]

There is a pandemic of paedophilia throughout the Western world - and even more so outside the Catholic Church than within it.

Nah, i think you're just biased.

Belief that "everything is fleeting" is one of the foundation-stones of Pessimism.

I just told you i'm not a pessimist. You have a habit of assuming peoples' motivations and not believing them when someone tells you otherwise?

Still, as long as you "always look on the Bright Side of Life" , as Eric Idle did in Monty Python's "Life of Brian"....

At least you got the reference.

On the contrary - it is Atheism that has brought down the West and has also made it possible for it for the West to be taken over by Islam.

Ah, so you're a neo-nazi then. I know it's bad manners to make assumptions of peoples' motivations, but i figured i'd do it anyway.

Something that very few Atheists have the brain to understand.

Still, no doubt it all falls within Allah's Providence !

Yup, called it. Neo-nazi. Have fun while it lasts. Your type of scum will not inherit anything, first you'd have to reproduce. And that'll never happen.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I wasn't talking about a Nativity on the COURTHOUSE lawn. The lawsuits I was talking about were in regard to the nativity and/or cross being put on private propert

And I don't worry about what anyone wants to put on their private property of religious tilt, and I don't agree with anyone who thinks they have a "right" to try and control or thwart that.

I don't have a problem with a nativity scene on the courthouse lawn, either, as long as the 'atomic swirl," (for atheists) and/or symbols of ALL other religions that want to, are also allowed display space.

I do have a problem with this. I don't think anyone's personal symbols should be allowed to be displayed on government property. There should be absolutely ZERO position taken by "the government" (or, that is, the people at large) as regards religious matters. This is basically a must for freedom of religion to hold. Don't show favoritism, don't even show support. You're allowed your views, and it stops there.

I take it, then, that you have not had rocks thrown at you, dogs sicced on you or physical death threats made against you?

No, I haven't. But I know for a fact that other atheists have, and it wasn't even that long ago that such was plausible and being done even in the U.S., and I think you know this. Are you saying that you are receiving such threats and aggression in modernity? That this sort of thing is just "starting up" for you in today's society?

My friend, persecution isn't about what YOU think. It's about what THEY do.

Agreed. And I think the misunderstanding here is that the word "persecution" is thrown out by Christians of all stripes all the time, and they are, many times, talking about just words and arguments. You aren't, which I get. So I took a faulty step in assuming you were more of the typical type of Christian I am used to dealing with, and I apologize.

I take it, then, that you've never had rocks thrown at you, dogs sicced on you.

No, I haven't, nor am I the type of atheist who would put himself in situations where it was made known to the types of people who would throw rocks or sic dogs on me that I was of the atheist mindset. That's the thing about these "beliefs" or "non beliefs" - they are entirely invisible. There is no way to tell an atheist from a theist based on visual-aspect alone. You have to be actively putting your beliefs out there in some way (you HAVE to) in order for them to be known.

Arguments about beliefs are not persecution, even when such arguments include 'you're going to burn in hell!" After all, such claims are about what happens after one dies of other things, aren't they?

That last sentence is EXACTLY what I was getting at in my last post, and I will go into it in more depth, because you touch on it a few times. This type of statement is a believer attempting to make a threat without actually having to own up to any responsibility for it. It is a way to get across what they HOPE happens to the person, due to the fact that they are making the theist/believer angry/uncomfortable. And because I feel they know that reality of heaven/hell is a long-shot, it makes it all the more clear to me that they are really just describing their own opinion of the punishment the perpetrator should face - they instead put the onus on God so that they don't have to take any of the heat for making a threat in real/tangible life. They defer the punishment to a time when they can't even be sure punishment is applicable anymore, and take all responsibility off of themselves and put it on "God." It is actually quite cowardly when you think about it, and sort of a slimy, underhanded way to try and guilt someone out of a particular behavior.

your religious views color your perceptions on legislative matters, don't they? Or rather, your views on religion do? What's the difference?

No... no they don't. Not at all. I don't have "religious views." If you're talking about the fact that I think all believers are delusional, how is THAT going to color my perceptions on legislative matters? The only thing I see it doing is make me more wary and aware when believers are pushing for some legislation or another and scrutinize it to make sure there isn't solely religious bent to it. An idea or a proposed law should stand on its own two feet. Strip away all religious ideology and the real matter at hand that presents itself is all I care about.

you don't know enough about me or the history of my specific belief system to make such a statement...or such a judgement.

Though you caveat-ed your words with "I'm not necessarily talking about you here," we both know that you have pigeon-holed me more than a few times in this conversation, based on your ideas of the category "atheist." Like the above about me coloring my perceptions of legislation with "religious" views. But, honestly, it's fine that you do so, and I understand the mechanism entirely - because I, myself also employ it. It is a valid and useful social tool to categorize people and use that categorization to formulate opinions. It can be overused, and used for the wrong purposes, sure. But we do it so that we can avoid repeats of past bad experiences, among other things. Feel free to challenge any stereotypes I put forth that don't match you, fine. And I'll do the same.

For instance, were you aware that... the one I belong to has, in its 'articles of Faith,' the statement that while we claim the right to worship as we wish, that everybody else has the right to worship as they wish, no matter what, when or how?

Good for you and your faith. I'm not going to start handing out medals, but I'm glad to hear it.

I have very little patience here for people who think that mere opposition to one's beliefs, or argument, or shouting matches, or the expression of someone else's belief system, rise to the level of 'persecution.'

I don't have patience for those kinds of people either. Words cannot hurt you unless you make the choice to allow them to hurt. It's nowhere near the same as physical violence, because you don't get a choice as to whether or not that causes harm. But words, you absolutely do choose whether or not to be "harmed" by them.

I DO know that when one group attempts to enforce their values and practices on another group by force, legislation or lawsuit, THAT is persecution. And trust me, I know what that's like.

But were you being "persecuted" in this manner by atheists? If you were, I have to doubt it was an attempt to force "atheist values" or "practices" on your group by force. Because the group "atheist" does not have such values, nor practices. We're all individuals. Sure, some atheists make special groups that put out charters and statements of their values - but their being "atheist" has little to do with those values. All it takes for "membership" is not believing in god(s). That's it. A group of atheists that actively persecutes people for their private dealings or beliefs does so as part of that group. If they believe that "religion is evil" - then that is a view that is not "atheism." They are certainly capable of holding that view because they are atheist, but atheism does not automatically mean "belief that religion is evil." I honestly don't agree with anyone forming such groups because it is bound to cross political or ideological lines and then others will utilize the "stereotyping" social-tool to paint atheism with a broad brush.

Wait....you're saying that THEIR proselytization, lawsuits, mockery and argumentation is just fine...because they are volunteering? That makes no sense.

What I am saying is that individuals who make lawsuits, engage in mockery, proselytize, are individuals. They aren't being "sent out" to do those things. They are doing what they, personally, feel is the right course of action for them. I don't agree with many of them just as much as I don't agree with theists doing some of those things. I DO, however, support anything that attempts to make people aware of varying viewpoints, and doesn't let one particular ideology control the flow of conversation. The sum total of atheists is a hugely diverse group - we have NO OTHER ideological standpoints as defaults for any of us except that we don't believe in god(s). In the end, what I am saying is that I am not responsible for any atheist that goes out and proselytizes or pursues a lawsuit, or mocks anyone. Nor is any other atheist responsible for me doing any of those things. And that's what make it not the "fault" of atheism.

And alternatively, my point is that the same cannot be said of religions that push proselytization as a part of their doctrine and scripture. The same cannot be said of ideological concepts being pushed by The Bible (for example) and therefore being pressured on the entire group of biblical adherents by their peers.

That's not persecution. SUING people is. Attempting to pass laws that force people to abandon the practice of their own religion is.

The ultimate goal of someone who raises litigation may actually be to get people to consider abandoning their religion... I don't know. I'm not one of the people who would ever do that. But I am not responsible for an individual atheist, or even group of atheists who attempts litigation. Maybe they were not trying to persecute you, but instead were just trying to make sure that the public sphere is a place where no one has to feel that anyone else is being overly represented or catered to. Again - I've never been part of any of that world - so you probably know better than I do. But atheism doesn't have a doctrine. And someone trying to get you to stop putting your personal beliefs on display is not the same as someone telling you that they don't believe you are allowed to practice your religion.

Oh, they tell me that, too. I disagree with them. However, don't you see the difference between "If you don't agree with me, God'll get you eventually and you'll go to hell" and 'I'm going to throw you in jail or feed you to the alligators personally so that you will see hell a bit sooner?"

Yes, I do see the difference, and I told you exactly what I believe that difference to be. People understand that threats of hell are entirely empty threats. Affecting someone in the here and now actually has visible/understandable consequences. Threatening someone with affects in a fantasy realm that no one can know the true aspects or realities of is akin to threatening that the Cat In the Hat is going to be knocking on your door to give you a stern talking to. It's a way to relinquish responsibility for putting the desires one has for the punishment or ill-effects on another out there.

Because it's not 'see these handcuffs? If you don't agree with me, I'm going to get Bubba there to put them on you and throw you in jail." People generally know the difference there.

Again, because of the make-believe nature of the claims, it definitely seems more like the Christian is proclaiming what they would like to see happen. The Christian doesn't want to take responsibility for actually making any actual threat themselves, so they put the onus on God. As I said before - I see it as cowardly and underhanded.

 

[Revoltingest]

It isn't judgemental to state the obvious.

The property of obviousness is a very tricky thing.
1) What's obviously correct to one person is obviously wrong to another.
2) Some obvious things don't stem from actual observation, but rather
come from within...a personal value or belief.
3) Obviousness is very often the excuse to say something abusive,
ie, because it's "true", it's proper to state it.

What's obvious to me...Gods hand us no evidence of their existence.
Thus, it would be foolish for me to pick one or some to believe in .
To rage at me for this reasonable view would indeed be judgmental.

Worthwhile ? As long as you're happy to be stupid and short-sighted - yes, indeed it is.

I don't see insight or reason which would indicate
your being more intelligent or aware than I.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

To be an Atheist is either to despair - or to be too shallow or heartless to do so.

Incorrect. You do realize that I don't have to agree with you, right? I am an atheist, and I do not despair, nor do I feel I am shallow nor heartless. I don't think I would ever be described as any of those things by anyone I know, in all honesty. Try not being so hyperbolic.

"Death always has the last word" (Stalin). Not only people are mortal - societies, civilisations and universes are.

As everything dies - ceases to be - Death is universal victor. All will be destroyed, therefore all is futile - and usually much sooner than people expect.

And? Is this some tacit admittance of why you are theist? Or why you think I should be? Because we face "death" and without your "God" and his "afterlife" there may be nothing? Do you think I fear that possibility? If so, then you are again incorrect.

BTW you are living in a world WITH a Supreme Being, however much you may dislike the fact !

Well I've certainly never encountered one, and nothing anyone has pointed me to has been at all compelling to make me believe that such is true. There is literally no reason I have found to believe it throughout the entire course of my life and experiences. Not one. The only thing I have been witness to is a lot of people with wacky ideas telling me that they know what they cannot possibly know.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Which is it ? - probably both, since they are inter-connected.

This is you claiming that a society becoming Muslim is a society entering economic/social/moral collapse. Just an observation.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Do not tell me that atheists are targeted and persecuted, sir. Just don't. Not in the USA.

I recently reposted the argument and evidence that Christianity demeans atheists and atheism, and why atheists should consider that religion an enemy. You didn't attempt to rebut it - nobody did - so the argument stands unchanged. Christianity is a problem for atheists, and atheists should understand that and respond appropriately.

Until then, just....don't come to me about being persecuted, OK?

I didn't. I'm appealing to the other atheists. I don't expect any support from the Christians. They aren't all rabid atheophobes, but I don't expect any of them to apologize for Christianity's sins against atheists. You showed no interest.

And what a very wonderful USA you've now got in consequence [of removing prayer from public schools]

So you think that reintroducing prayer to schools will somehow lead to moral rectitude? It hasn't helped in the Roman Catholic church.

I say America went to hell in basket as soon as it violated church-state separation by turning the money into religious tracts and the Pledge into religious as well as nationalistic indoctrination. My claim is just as empty as yours.

By the way, what should I think about a religion that wants to indoctrinate children before they learn critical thinking skills? What should I think about a religion that recognizes that it need the schools to gain access to the children of parents raising their children outside of religion?

"When belief in God goes, belief in humanity follows soon after" (Benedict XVI).

It's the other way around. The secularization of the West was a crowning achievement of secular humanism by pushing back theocratic tendencies that enslave humanity. Humanists celebrate humanity and its achievements and potential. Christianity defines man as being defective, born spiritually sick, and needing some kind of cure to escape an otherwise well-deserved perdition. He is taught that he is powerless without God.

That demeans humanity, as does teaching that our meaning derives from the right to praise a deity forever. which is implied every time a theist makes a comment like your next one. I can't imagine a more meaningless existence, and would rather be somewhere else or unconscious.

Atheism tends relentlessly towards despair and nihilism

No. It's quite the opposite. I used to be a Christian. It was an empty, flavorless existence, so at about age 30, I returned to atheism and what I later learned to call secular humanism. I've never looked back. And I've enjoyed and am still enjoying a life of love and beauty, a life which I find quite fulfilling and meaningful.

But thanks for another deprecatory comment about atheists and atheism, and for revealing what they are teaching you about us in your churches..

When Islam takes over the West - as it is likely to do on reproductive grounds - you will learn what "war" on atheists actually means.

That's all you have to say in response to that argument? I'm not in the least bit surprised at your indifference to the damage your religion does to atheists. I suspect you approve.

And, of course, pointing this out explicitly is part of my argument. I used to call religious message board posting atheist school. The lecture part is the atheists (and undamaged Christians) teaching one another as the faithful sit by learning nothing. The lab section is the spectrum of Christians posting. Here is where we get to see what we don't see on the streets - the overt atheophobic bigotry.

To be an Atheist is either to despair - or to be too shallow or heartless to do so.

More of the lab section. Here is where we observe the spectrum of Christians to learn what they are teaching you about us.

Incidentally, you probably don't want to know how shallow I consider what Christians call spirituality, which has nothing to do with spirits, gods, ghost, angels, seances, Ouija boards or the like. You're on the wrong track. Spirituality is a psychological state combining a sense of awe, mystery, gratitude, and connectivity when experiencing some aspect of the cosmos. like a puppy or a distant star, and understanding your relationship to those things. Your faith rips the adherent out of his universe, describing matter as base, man as sick, recommending detaching oneself from the world and not trusting his own mind not to be a demon trying to steal his soul. He is told to deflect his attention and gratitude to a god and place that don't exist, and to live life as if he is waiting at some kind of cosmic bus stop waiting to be carried away to someplace better. Now that's shallow, as shallow as wanting to spend eternity praising a god..

Thanks for opening up the door for that answer. I don't normally attack your religion until one of you demeans atheists. I don't start threads like this one to disesteem Christians, but I seldom miss the chance to respond to them in their unflattering threads about atheists and atheism.

You're in a glass house waging war against atheists. We have a voice now, and many Christians are angry about that. But we'll treat you with more respect than you treated us. For example, unlike the Christian bigots who demean all atheists just for being atheists despite most being hard-working, law-abiding people trying to raise families and make their communities better places - pretty much the definition of bigotry - I won't trash you for being a Christian. I don't dislike all Christians just for being Christians. I dislike some Christians for being bigots and spreading hate speech.

 

[dianaiad]

Fixed.
My source...
ensure - Wiktionary

Insure: to make certain especially by taking necessary measures and precautions (Mirriam-Webster)
Ensure: to make sure, certain, or safe : GUARANTEE (Mirriam-Webster)

Works either way. Personally, I keep thinking 'Ensure' is what my nonagenarian parents drink to take their pills in the morning.

(shrug)

But thanks. It does work either way.

 

[Revoltingest]

But thanks. It does work either way.

Nah....
Definition of insure | Dictionary.com
verb (used with object), in·sured, in·sur·ing.
to guarantee against loss or harm.
to secure indemnity to or on, in case of loss, damage, or death.
to issue or procure an insurance policy on or for.
ensure(defs 1–3).
verb (used without object), in·sured, in·sur·ing.
to issue or procure an insurance policy.


Also, your own source, Merriam-Webster, shows "ensure" to be the correct word....
Definition of ENSURE
ensure
verb
en·sure | \ in-ˈshu̇r \
ensured; ensuring
Definition of ensure
transitive verb
: to make sure, certain, or safe : GUARANTEE


But "insure" would be wrong....unless one is actually buying an insurance policy.
Definition of INSURE
Definition of insure
transitive verb
1: to provide or obtain insurance on or for
2: to make certain especially by taking necessary measures and precautions
intransitive verb
: to contract to give or take insurance


I'm just here to help....in the most annoying way possible.

 

[dianaiad]

And I don't worry about what anyone wants to put on their private property of religious tilt, and I don't agree with anyone who thinks they have a "right" to try and control or thwart that.


I do have a problem with this. I don't think anyone's personal symbols should be allowed to be displayed on government property. There should be absolutely ZERO position taken by "the government" (or, that is, the people at large) as regards religious matters. This is basically a must for freedom of religion to hold. Don't show favoritism, don't even show support. You're allowed your views, and it stops there.


snip to here (about what your atheism does as regards your political views)

No... no they don't. Not at all. I don't have "religious views." If you're talking about the fact that I think all believers are delusional, how is THAT going to color my perceptions on legislative matters? The only thing I see it doing is make me more wary and aware when believers are pushing for some legislation or another and scrutinize it to make sure there isn't solely religious bent to it. An idea or a proposed law should stand on its own two feet. Strip away all religious ideology and the real matter at hand that presents itself is all I care about.

.

OK...

I included only two paragraphs of your post, because I want to make a specific point or two:

first; you seem to be under the impression that 'freedom of religion' is actually 'freedom FROM religion." It isn't. The First amendment rather clearly states that congress (and by extension, other legislative bodies) may not make laws ABRIDGING the freedom of someone to live and/or express his/her religion. There is no hint there that government must get rid of it; we can't have a 'state religion,' but there's nothing there that states that we can't honor all of them.

There are only two ways to insure against a state religion; forbidding any support of any religion, OR allowing all religions freedom of expression. Since the First Amendment is rather clear about how congress (or government in general) MUST NOT pass laws that restrict the freedom of believers to express their beliefs, that leaves only the second; including everybody and excluding none.

There is no such thing as 'freedom FROM religion,' unless one establishes anti-theism as the state religion...and that has never worked.

As well, your opinion of religion rather obviously does affect your politics, just as my views affect mine. You have just stated that you take religion into account whenever you view a proposed law...because you are afraid that religion might play a part in the motives of the legislator, and if it does....well, you will look at it differently, and far closer, than you would if the proposer were not religious and you did not suspect a religious motive.

hello.....that is your view of religion affecting your politics.

My views affect mine, a LOT. I don't pretend other wise. Not that I want laws to force my religious beliefs on others, but that I want to make very sure that nobody's view of religion can be forced upon anybody....including me.

So yeah. I have a problem when a non religious non-profit group can advertise a fund raiser for a homeless shelter for free at the post office, the library, city hall and on other public areas, but a RELIGIOUS non-profit group, wanting to promote the same fund raiser for the same cause, cannot.

I have a real problem when a school allows a LBGT (I keep thinking I'm forgetting a letter there...) student group can have a classroom to meet in after school hours, along with the stamp club, the math club, American Atheists, the cheerleaders and the archeology club...but the Boy Scouts, the Baptist bible study group or the Christmas parade planning group can't, because THEY are 'religious' and the first group isn't.

That is a direct violation of the First Amendment, IMO.

As it happens, the courts agreed with me about the classroom situation; it seems that if student led groups are allowed to use classrooms after school for non-profit purposes, then religious groups MUST be allowed the same access.

Why this reasoning didn't extend to, and include, the rights of religions to express themselves publicly the way other non profit groups are, I don't know.

BTW...what did the school in question do as a result of this ruling? Unfortunately, it then prohibited the use of classrooms after school to anybody at all, because the group that took them to court over it told them that if they continued to allow any religiously connected group to meet there, that they would continue to sue, harass and intimidate them until they stopped.

The group?

An atheist group.

Do NOT tell me that all atheists are only individuals. They can and do form activist groups, just like the rest of us.

One other thing: it is easy to tell an atheist; 'by their fruits' and all that.

Oh, not that atheists tend to be evil people or anything; they mostly aren't. They are just people who live their lives without theism influencing their actions. However, if you see someone who does not attend religious meetings, who doesn't think about, or converse about, God, or who, when they do, argue on the side of 'there ain't one," then they are atheists.

It's called 'walking like a duck,' I think.

 

[dianaiad]

Nah....
Definition of insure | Dictionary.com
verb (used with object), in·sured, in·sur·ing.
to guarantee against loss or harm.
to secure indemnity to or on, in case of loss, damage, or death.
to issue or procure an insurance policy on or for.
ensure(defs 1–3).
verb (used without object), in·sured, in·sur·ing.
to issue or procure an insurance policy.


Also, your own source, Merriam-Webster, shows "ensure" to be the correct word....
Definition of ENSURE
ensure
verb
en·sure | \ in-ˈshu̇r \
ensured; ensuring
Definition of ensure
transitive verb
: to make sure, certain, or safe : GUARANTEE


But "insure" would be wrong....unless one is actually buying an insurance policy.
Definition of INSURE
Definition of insure
transitive verb
1: to provide or obtain insurance on or for
2: to make certain especially by taking necessary measures and precautions
intransitive verb
: to contract to give or take insurance


I'm just here to help....in the most annoying way possible.

(sigh)

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

first; you seem to be under the impression that 'freedom of religion' is actually 'freedom FROM religion." It isn't. The First amendment rather clearly states that congress (and by extension, other legislative bodies) may not make laws ABRIDGING the freedom of someone to live and/or express his/her religion. There is no hint there that government must get rid of it; we can't have a 'state religion,' but there's nothing there that states that we can't honor all of them.

There are only two ways to insure against a state religion; forbidding any support of any religion, OR allowing all religions freedom of expression. Since the First Amendment is rather clear about how congress (or government in general) MUST NOT pass laws that restrict the freedom of believers to express their beliefs, that leaves only the second; including everybody and excluding none.

I am not thinking along the lines of "freedom FROM religion". There was a bit I was going to include about human nature, and the plausibility of "all religions represented" working over "no religions represented", and asking which you thought would actually be more conducive to peace and feelings of inclusion. But I ran out of characters and had to pick and shorten up some of my replies. So I very much understand that we could go the route of "represent all" - however, should it be upon the shoulders of those in government to make sure that everyone is represented in all attempts to display or foster religious iconography and intention? Is that a good use of our leaders' time? Not in the slightest.

And the laws passed are being passed with the intent (not that it is all done correctly, I admit) to make public arenas supportive and accessible to anyone regardless their religion. Allowing the display (and therefore at least tacit "support") of one religion necessarily means that you have to allow or support all to do the same things, and because no one knows "all religions" that necessarily means the "all inclusive" mindset will necessarily be leaving someone (probably several someones) out anyway! Not to mention the logistical issues of erecting 500 statues or iconographic representations on a single lawn or within a single building. There is a certain point reached where the very idea is just unwieldy.

And you know there is nothing to keep you from practicing your religion on your own, or in private spaces. No one is even talking about legislating such.

There is no such thing as 'freedom FROM religion,' unless one establishes anti-theism as the state religion...and that has never worked.

And I'm not looking for "freedom from religion," but I do not, for example, want believers to be allowed to influence my children with their ideas when I put them in the government's charge for 6+ hours a day during the school year, unless they, themselves are interested and take some sort of religiously-themed class(es). So there is a line to be toed, and there are some "freedoms" believers talk about that are not so much "freedoms" as they are impositions on others freedoms. And sometimes toes go over the line on both sides. I'm not claiming that doesn't happen. As they say, your freedom to swing your arm around ends at the start of another's face. You can't just claim "religious freedom" and then go doing whatever you damn well please, obviously. So we're living in a situation where we come to compromise - and in that situation sides are going to feel like they have "lost" from time to time. But regardless, we all have to live and work together, and if I don't want you knocking on my door, you'd damn well better stop knocking after I've asked politely the first few times or I am going to get an authority of some kind involved, and "but I have religious freedom!" isn't going to get you far. It simply can't work that way.

As well, your opinion of religion rather obviously does affect your politics, just as my views affect mine. You have just stated that you take religion into account whenever you view a proposed law...because you are afraid that religion might play a part in the motives of the legislator, and if it does....well, you will look at it differently, and far closer, than you would if the proposer were not religious and you did not suspect a religious motive.

hello.....that is your view of religion affecting your politics.

This is just a mischaracterization of the situation. Sure... "religion" is what causes some of those ideas to be put into legislation... but the same exact scrutiny from my point of view would be applied if the laws being proposed were from a flat-earther standpoint and were strictly come to because the people proposing them were flat-earthers. In other words... what I care about is that you have actual data, or rational thinking and conclusions operating behind your desires for laws to be implemented. And I am going to weed out anything that I see as coming through as part of some rationally baseless agenda. As an example - the whole gay marriage fiasco. Religion is all people could turn to as their justification for opposing it, and as soon as the rest of us told them "that's not good enough" they toddled off looking for more rationally based arguments. But what they came back with was not compelling, and it was obvious that they only went about the exercise of gathering those points and that data because they wanted to further their religious doctrine's stance. That's the kind of thing I am talking about, and it is NOT restricted to religion. The same thing happens when "money" is the sole driving factor of legislation - like "Ag-gag" laws. If anything affects my view of legislation, its rationality and solid grounds for believing that the legislation is going to help us all more than it hurts us.

My views affect mine, a LOT. I don't pretend other wise. Not that I want laws to force my religious beliefs on others, but that I want to make very sure that nobody's view of religion can be forced upon anybody....including me.

But don't you see the irony here? The part in bold above is what you say you espouse, and yet what happens when you are in the majority, and that majority is the one influencing and making laws? Do you know what happens? Your view of religion can very well end up being forced on people. Because, as you said, your religious views affect your outlook on secular society and legislation A LOT. You said that as if it were something to be proud of, and I am sure there are plenty of others like you out there. Once people like this are the majority and they all subscribe to the same religion, then that's it. You're going to let your religiously-motivated opinions drive what you institute for society at large.

So yeah. I have a problem when a non religious non-profit group can advertise a fund raiser for a homeless shelter for free at the post office, the library, city hall and on other public areas, but a RELIGIOUS non-profit group, wanting to promote the same fund raiser for the same cause, cannot.

But what is the real problem here? Just post your bill under a neutral label or something. What ends up being the real problem with taking the religion out of your activity when appealing to the masses in a public space? Aren't you still helping people? Is that not still just as important? Is it that your church isn't going to get the recognition? Is it that you want to make sure that people know it is a church-organized function, and know what religion is driving the event? Is that the most important thing? Or would the most important thing be that you still get to help the people you set out to help? Once they come to your private affair, you can hit them with your religious zeal all you want. But why not just play by the rules when advertising in public spaces if it still means you get to reach out?

And by the way, I wouldn't be opposed to anyone advertising a helpful event like a fund raiser no matter what ideology they subscribed to or held it under. I'm just trying to get you to look at the motivation for why you feel it entirely necessary that your religion be a part of whatever help it is you are trying to give to the community at large. Why is that so very important?

I have a real problem when a school allows a LBGT (I keep thinking I'm forgetting a letter there...) student group can have a classroom to meet in after school hours, along with the stamp club, the math club, American Atheists, the cheerleaders and the archeology club...but the Boy Scouts, the Baptist bible study group or the Christmas parade planning group can't, because THEY are 'religious' and the first group isn't.

BTW...what did the school in question do as a result of this ruling? Unfortunately, it then prohibited the use of classrooms after school to anybody at all, because the group that took them to court over it told them that if they continued to allow any religiously connected group to meet there, that they would continue to sue, harass and intimidate them until they stopped.

The group?

An atheist group.

And I don't agree with what those atheists in that situation did at all. It shows a complete lack of security in their own position. And this comes back to my whole point that atheists are not all the same. We're not all "out to get you." I, personally, am out to question enough people on their assumptions that at least a few of them have to scratch their heads for even a moment before turning back to their lives, cock-sure of everything once more.

Do NOT tell me that all atheists are only individuals. They can and do form activist groups, just like the rest of us.

I already admitted as much. But atheists ARE individuals, regardless. My point was that those groups are not "just atheist" as soon as they inject ANYTHING else into it. As soon as they have a charter... not "just atheist". As soon as they take even ONE political stance, they are not "just atheists." They are then a group of people with some agenda and intent. But that has very little to do with atheism.

To illustrate this in a way that cannot really be rationally denied, I'll give you two (make-believe) names of groups, and you tell me what they stand for:
1. Atheists of Earth
2. The Christian Society for a Better Tomorrow

Okay... #1 - what things do the vast majority of members of the "Atheists of Earth" believe? Besides that they don't believe in god(s), name me 3 ideas (related to their atheism) that you can be absolutely sure that the members subscribe to. Anything? Yes/no?

Now, let's turn to "The Christian Society for a Better Tomorrow" - besides belief in God, is there anything you feel that you can be sure this group subscribes to? That they're followers of Jesus? Love thy neighbor, love thy enemy? Ideas of "sin" maybe? A creation story? That humans have souls? That there exists a heaven or a return to God? Promise of an afterlife? Wow... there's suddenly a lot more you can be pretty sure about, isn't there?

 

[Catholicus]

Nah, i think you're just biased.



I just told you i'm not a pessimist. You have a habit of assuming peoples' motivations and not believing them when someone tells you otherwise?



At least you got the reference.



Ah, so you're a neo-nazi then. I know it's bad manners to make assumptions of peoples' motivations, but i figured i'd do it anyway.



Yup, called it. Neo-nazi. Have fun while it lasts. Your type of scum will not inherit anything, first you'd have to reproduce. And that'll never happen.

So anyone who points out the obvious - that as things stand the West will become Muslim fairly soon - is a "Neo-Nazi" ?

No, that's far likelier to be enthusiasts for Islam, such as yourself.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I will derail. With what header or what ever I don't care, but here is what, I Demand, is taught:

For all versions of the universe is natural or the universe is from God, the following Must be taught:

Both are equally stupid in the following sense:
Someone: The universe is natural:
Someone else: No!

Someone: The universe is from God.
Someone else: No!

Both are so over-reductive, that they both fail, because they both end up explaining away human diversity if defended as absolutely singularly true. That is it.
What they share is that in both cases I hold a wrong belief, because I defend both cases of "No!" and neither explain that as a part of the everyday world. They both explain it "away".

And for n'th round we will go around and around.
There are 3 positions:
The universe is X(single factor claim) and not Y.
The universe is Y and not X.
Both are to simple and this should be taught.

For some of you regardless of whether you claim of X and Y, you don't understand the everyday limit of logic.
Yeah, I am not nice. Now tell me something new.