A Request Directed to Sciforums' "Atheists"

[Kittamaru]

When my 7th grade home room teecher esplained the order in which we woud read a bible verse to the class each mornin... it was jus assumed that everone woud partisipate an we did... but i felt as silly as if i was readin a list to the class what Santa had promised to brang me for Chrismas.!!!



I didnt get the memo on what the points of atheism are... lol... but personaly... im not supportive of superstition.!!!

And that's all fine and good - just permit those that do practice a religion the respect to let them do so in peace.

Conversely, a religious person should respect a non-religious person enough to allow them to not practice a religion on peace.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

just permit those that do practice a religion the respect to let them do so in peace.

But we can't find a way to regard it as anything but a delusion, and it's difficult to respect deluded people. It is exactly the same experience as encountering a grownup who still believes in Santa Claus.

 

[Kittamaru]

But we can't find a way to regard it as anything but a delusion, and it's difficult to respect deluded people. It is exactly the same experience as encountering a grownup who still believes in Santa Claus.

So what... your beliefs are somehow more important than theirs? This is the kind of mindset that causes this sort of problem... theists and non-theists at each others throats, simply because they, in their egotistic, self-centered way, believe that THEIR belief is the ONLY correct belief, and anyone who doesn't believe it is not only wrong, but immoral/delusions/crazy/evil/insert adjective here.

If their beliefs aren't causing you any harm, why try to change them?

This is the same exact argument being used against homosexuality... it's the same argument that was used to discriminate against races and hold back gender equality... there's no reason for it, period full stop end of story.

A little creed I know:

Bide the Wiccan Law ye must,
in perfect love, in perfect trust.
Eight words the Wiccan Rede pulpill;
An ye harm none, do as ye will.
And ever mind the Rule of Three;
What ye send out, comes back to thee.
Follow this with mind and open heart,
and merry ye meet, and merry ye part.

 

[Balerion]

Indeed, though I do rather feel her post was justified given the circumstances... a desire not to read long posts really doesn't constitute much of an argument.

Justified in accusing someone of only being able to read short sentences? She's calling Sorcerer an idiot because he doesn't like reading long posts.

This is the standard you want set in our forum? Shame on you, man. I thought you were better than that.

Balerion, I know you are smarter than that.

I most certainly am not!

The football program put together something so the players could have prayer and worship if they so chose... nobody is forcing them to do anything.

It has nothing to do with being forced into anything. It has to do with the athletic department establishing a prayer group and bible study class.

Conversely, this FFRF is attempting to dismantle that and force ALL the players to renounce any sort of religion whilst on the field, on the grounds that it is "separation of church and state".

That is completely inaccurate. The FFRF is not saying students can't have prayer groups or huddle in prayer on the field. They're saying that the school should not be involved in the establishment of such groups.

The school is not promoting a religion. It has simply allowed it to occur. This does not go against separation of church and state; if anything, attempting to force everyone into compliance with one (non)religious viewpoint (atheism) would be trampling that separation, as it would violate a students right to worship as they deign appropriate.

It seems odd that you haven't even read the link you provided. There's no other explanation for this gross misrepresentation of both the FFRF's complaint and of the situation at the school. You've got both wrong, somehow, which is really strange since you're the one who brought it up. I mean, what's my recourse here? Do I quote from the link you provided? Sheesh. You're putting me in a tough spot here, man.

To the point about "allowing it to occur," you're wrong. The school admits that they run a bible study program and prayer group for the players. To the point about forcing everyone into compliance with a non-religious viewpoint, you're wrong. The FFRF does not demand that student refrain from bible study or prayer groups. It couldn't ask such a thing, so why would it? It's simply demanding that these be student-organized groups, rather than school-organized groups. Do you understand the difference?

 

[Kittamaru]

To take some excerpts from the article that led me to my conclusion:

The FFRF claims that Swinney's program is "entangled" and "entrenched" in religion. Prayers and Bible studies instituted by the team from at least 2011 through April of 2013 serve as the basis for the complaint.

So, their claim here is that the athletic program is too "deep" into religion... that is a load of bollocks.Their real issue comes up though:

Nonetheless, the FFRF claims that religion has become "interwoven" into the program, and that this entanglement was initiated by state-funded employees on the coaching staff and not by the athletes.

The co-president of the FFRF, Annie Laurie Gaylor, told the News and Observer that "there are churches on every other corner, tax-free, where you can go and pray and you can go to Bible study, but it shouldn't be through the athletic department. You can have Bible study groups on campus, but they're supposed to be run by students."

So... what is this costing the school, exactly? Their grievance is that it is a misuse of state funds? Nope, that apparently isn't it either.

If players had complained, it is reasonable to assume that their complaints would certainly have been part of the FFRF's official complaint. So with no plaintiffs and no specifics, why Clemson and why now? After all, Swinney hardly serves as the only overtly Christian football coach in the country, and almost every major college game now ends with many players from both teams huddling in prayer on the field. The problem seems to focus on Swinney personally, and also team Chaplain James Trapp, a former player Swinney chose for that role.

The school released a statement saying, "We believe the practices of the football staff regarding religion are compliant with the Constitution and appropriately accommodate differing religious views. Participation in religious activities is purely voluntary, and there are no repercussions for students who decline to do so."
Perhaps anticipating the argument that there must have been playing time repercussions for non-Christians from such an overtly Christian coach and staff, the statement made it clear that they are "not aware of any complaints from current or former student-athletes about feeling pressured or forced to participate in religious activities."

And from another article here

Coach Swinney echoed similar sentiments in the Chronicle of Higher Education article. "I've had Muslims, Catholics—I've got two Mormons on this team right now," Swinney told Wolverton. "When we get out on the football field, it's not about if you're a Christian, it's about who's the best player."

So, we see that there is no punishment for NOT participating...

FFRF is not convinced, however, and urged the university to ensure that Swinney and Trapp discontinue any practices that may be deemed as proselytizing in any way.

"Coaches should be aware of the tremendous influence they have on their athletes," FFRF said in its letter. "These young men spend a great deal of time in their coach's charge, and the coaches through their own example must be sure that athletes are not only treated fairly but also imbued with a sense of community and camaraderie."

Ah, here we go... here we are, at the apparent crux of the issue... they are pissed that this could potentially be a chance for Coach Swinney and Chaplen Trapp to "proselytize" and use their influence to sway a young mans mind...

God FORBID young men be exposed to something new and be able to form their own opinions on it! The ironic thing is, that is EXACTLY what the FFRF is doing... using their influence and power as an organization to PREVENT them from being able to do this...

I contend, point out how or why this program is a bad idea. If the kids wish to worship, they get to. If they don't, they don't have to. They still play together, play as a team, and there have been no reports of any kind of wrongdoing or misconduct... what's the problem!?

EDIT - More being typed up now

So, here we have the FFRF complaint itself

Now, I understand that the supreme court likes to strike down any kind of public prayer... somehow, apparently, a school allowing a teacher to lead students in voluntary prayer is showing "preference". That is a load of woo-woo, plain and simple. Now, if the school ONLY allowed ONE religion to do so, then there's preference. However, again, freedom of religion... if they want to be able to have a student organization, let them.

As to what the FFRF wants? WHy, that's simple:

The FFRF also says that Swinney confirmed that the entire team would attend an FCA breakfast in December where three players would “testify,” and the team and coaches attended a church together in August 2011 and that Swinney regularly holds team devotionals that are organized by the chaplain and led by coaches. The FFRF wants Clemson to require Swinney and Trapp to stop team prayers, sermons, Bible studies and group church attendance by the team.

So, yes, the FFRF is trying to remove from these students their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to freedom of religion...

 

[Balerion]

To take some excerpts from the article that led me to my conclusion:



So, their claim here is that the athletic program is too "deep" into religion... that is a load of bollocks.Their real issue comes up though:

Again, no. "Entangled" means that religiosity is part and parcel with the athletic program, which is a problem.

So... what is this costing the school, exactly? Their grievance is that it is a misuse of state funds? Nope, that apparently isn't it either.

Never said it was. What gave you such an idea?

So, we see that there is no punishment for NOT participating...

So says the coach. But as we've seen in other areas, when the authority endorses religious participation, the atheists tend to get the short end of the stick.

Ah, here we go... here we are, at the apparent crux of the issue... they are pissed that this could potentially be a chance for Coach Swinney and Chaplen Trapp to "proselytize" and use their influence to sway a young mans mind...

As an official of the state-funded school, yes, that's precisely the issue.

God FORBID young men be exposed to something new and be able to form their own opinions on it! The ironic thing is, that is EXACTLY what the FFRF is doing... using their influence and power as an organization to PREVENT them from being able to do this...

They are free to worship as they see fit, as you would well know if you'd calm down and actually read any of the materials you keep linking to. The problem is a state-funded school establishing these bodies.

I contend, point out how or why this program is a bad idea. If the kids wish to worship, they get to. If they don't, they don't have to. They still play together, play as a team, and there have been no reports of any kind of wrongdoing or misconduct... what's the problem!?

The problem is that it's unconstitutional. The problem is that there may very well have been misconduct but players are afraid to come forward out of fear of repercussion. The problem is that this influential man is hand-picking a chaplain to preach to a captive audience as an officer of this state-funded school.

EDIT - More being typed up now

Less typing, more reading.

So, here we have the FFRF complaint itself

Now, I understand that the supreme court likes to strike down any kind of public prayer... somehow, apparently, a school allowing a teacher to lead students in voluntary prayer is showing "preference". That is a load of woo-woo, plain and simple

The Constitution is woo-woo? LOL! Okay, man.

Now, if the school ONLY allowed ONE religion to do so, then there's preference.

The Constitution says nothing of preference. That's something you've invented because your argument makes no sense without it.

[quoet] However, again, freedom of religion... if they want to be able to have a student organization, let them.[/quote]

No one is putting a stop to student organizations.

As to what the FFRF wants? WHy, that's simple:

So, yes, the FFRF is trying to remove from these students their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to freedom of religion...

LOL @ you claiming the Constitution as authority when you agree with it, and woo-woo when you don't.

Try reading it again, chief. The FFRF is not trying to tell students they can't have team prayers or bible studies, or church attendance. The FFRF is (rightly) saying that the coach and the chaplain have no business orchestrating these events.

 

[Kittamaru]

Why should the coach and chaplain not be involved? I mean, it's the football team, so obviously the coach would be involved, and it's a religious gathering, so having a chaplain there makes sense to me.

No, I'm not saying the constitution is woo-woo - I'm saying the way it is being interpreted is.

If we're so worried about some sort of negative consequence of the non-theists deciding not to participate in this, then we should probably also worry about the consequences of a gay football player coming out... does this mean we shouldn't let a gay man play football if he so chooses, to protect them from possible negative consequences?

This is, once more, diving into an ego trip - the students have no complaints here... the coach is not forcing anything on anyone... nobodys rights are being trampled. Thus, again, what is the issue here?

I'll reply to more of your post asap - time for me to head home though

 

[billvon]

But we can't find a way to regard it as anything but a delusion, and it's difficult to respect deluded people. It is exactly the same experience as encountering a grownup who still believes in Santa Claus.

Or who believes in karma, or who believes in the Gaia theory of the environment, or who believes in happy endings. All fine with me. I don't have difficulty respecting them, but to each their own.

Now, someone who believes in FOX News . . .

 

[Kittamaru]

Alright, so, let me back up a little and pose a question regarding my example (not to mention calm down a bit, as I'm getting frustrated that my overall point seems to be being missed):

The school football team has some religious people on it.
The coach, also being religious, brings in someone to lead religious meetings for those religious people.
The rest of the team is free to do as they will, with no repercussion.

What, exactly, is the "big deal" here?

Much the same... what does it matter if someone is religious or not? If they aren't hurting you... why do you care?

 

[sculptor]

Now that you mention it billvon:

I am a gaian. Not a current "mainstream gaian" rather, more hearkening to the beginnings of the concept of a self regulating biom.
I know that the biom is a lot older than we are, as individuals, as a species, as a family, etc... .
I think that the biom is a lot wiser and smarter and powerful than we are now. I think that everything within this biom has a symbiotic relationship with almost everything within the biom.
--- and so on in that vein---
I think it likely to be impossible to prove me right or wrong within our lifetimes, and maybe the lifetime of the species...etc
And, that's where faith comes in.

Alternately:
Maybe I'm just a hedonist, and (for me) thinking that the biom is more powerful than "us" helps me feel comfortable.

 

[Balerion]

Why should the coach and chaplain not be involved? I mean, it's the football team, so obviously the coach would be involved, and it's a religious gathering, so having a chaplain there makes sense to me.

It's not their involvement that's at issue, it's their orchestrating of these events as officers of the school. If they want to run prayer grouls and bible studies, go coach at a private school. Or do it independently in their community. Doing it through the school is a violation of the constitution.

No, I'm not saying the constitution is woo-woo - I'm saying the way it is being interpreted is.

You don't even understand what the rulings have done. You should educate yourself before making such a judgment.

If we're so worried about some sort of negative consequence of the non-theists deciding not to participate in this, then we should probably also worry about the consequences of a gay football player coming out... does this mean we shouldn't let a gay man play football if he so chooses, to protect them from possible negative consequences?

Your anology is broken, because asking coaches to refrain from running prayer groups for players at publicly-funded schools is not the same as asking homosexuals to refrain from playing team sports. They simply are not analogous.

This is, once more, diving into an ego trip - the students have no complaints here... the coach is not forcing anything on anyone... nobodys rights are being trampled. Thus, again, what is the issue here?

As I told you already, just because no one is complaining doesn't mean no one is being pressured into prayer, or being punished for not praying. It just means no one has come forward.

 

[gmilam]

Alright, so, let me back up a little and pose a question regarding my example (not to mention calm down a bit, as I'm getting frustrated that my overall point seems to be being missed):

The school football team has some religious people on it.
The coach, also being religious, brings in someone to lead religious meetings for those religious people.
The rest of the team is free to do as they will, with no repercussion.

What, exactly, is the "big deal" here?

Much the same... what does it matter if someone is religious or not? If they aren't hurting you... why do you care?

Is this being led by an employee of the public school system? On property owned by the public school system? During school hours?

 

[Balerion]

Alright, so, let me back up a little and pose a question regarding my example (not to mention calm down a bit, as I'm getting frustrated that my overall point seems to be being missed):

It's okay, man. We all get emotional sometimes. You're not gonna change my mind about you being a good guy with a great mind.

The school football team has some religious people on it.
The coach, also being religious, brings in someone to lead religious meetings for those religious people.

Which is a problem, because these are all official school functions. If this were a private school, no problem (at least legally), but it's a publicly-funded school.

The rest of the team is free to do as they will, with no repercussion.

Dangerous assumption. You couldn't possibly know that. And we've seen many examples of the opposite being true.

What, exactly, is the "big deal" here?

The big deal is that a school which lives in tax dollars is running a bible study and prayer group. Aside from the human element--the possibility of students being pressured into praying against their will, or having to lie about themselves to fit in, or being punished for their beliefs
--it's in violation of the constitution.

Much the same... what does it matter if someone is religious or not? If they aren't hurting you... why do you care?

Straw man. Nobody cares what anyone believes.

 

[Trooper]

Tiassa, is this your blog that you linked? If so, what is a nondescript theist?

 

[Balerion]

Tiassa, is this your blog that you linked? If so, what is a nondescript theist?

LOL!! Explains a lot.

 

[Kittamaru]

It's okay, man. We all get emotional sometimes. You're not gonna change my mind about you being a good guy with a great mind.

Which is a problem, because these are all official school functions. If this were a private school, no problem (at least legally), but it's a publicly-funded school.

My school had a Christians in Action group - it was student founded, but like any other group in the school, it required to have an instructor head it up (granted, this was high school).

Dangerous assumption. You couldn't possibly know that. And we've seen many examples of the opposite being true.

This is true... but at the same time, we can never know what REALLY happens during catholic confessionals. Or if a teacher is really not discriminating against children based on race. Or if employers are really not discriminating against the physically handicapped. The truth is, we can't possibly know a lot of things for certain... we just have to take it in good faith.

The big deal is that a school which lives in tax dollars is running a bible study and prayer group. Aside from the human element--the possibility of students being pressured into praying against their will, or having to lie about themselves to fit in, or being punished for their beliefs
--it's in violation of the constitution.

How so? The constitution states that the government/establishment cannot show preference to any religion. Per the first amendment Free Exercise and Establishment clauses:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

In Reynolds v. United States, for example, the Supreme Court decided that

"it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere [religious] opinion, but was left free to reach [only those religious] actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.”

Assuming the coach is acting in good faith and not discriminating against those who decide not to partake in the religious activities (and the fact that he has several non-christians as active members of the team, with no complaints filed, that would seem to be the case), then I don't see how his actions are in violation of social duties nor a subversion of good order.

To take it further: According to the cases of Tinker v. Des Moines, Bethel School District v. Fraser, and Morse v. Frederick, religious activites/messages may only be censored if they are classified as a substantial disruption, vulgar, or advocates illegal action (such as drugs).

Straw man. Nobody cares what anyone believes.

Then why is there such an uproar over these things? By its very concept, your argument "nobody cares what anyone believes" is flawed, because there have been wars over just that... terrorism over just that... beliefs. I mean, the holocaust was premised on the idea of a "master race"...

 

[Bells]

You're just trolling me, as you did in the first two posts. Just what is your agenda, and why are you hiding behind your mod status? You're on ignore now, as far as a mod can ever be.

** Start Mod Note **

I could very well question your agenda, Sorcerer.

You have posted some things on this forum and called for certain things and suggested that perhaps we should do certain things that by any definition, would constitute as hate crimes in your home country and in most other countries as well. There is one thing I will not allow on this site and that is anyone endangering this site by posting illegal content or content that could endanger this site. I don't care who you are. Let me be clear to you, sorcerer, do not post comments that constitute an incitement to harm people or damage property based on the other person's religious affiliations. That is not acceptable under any circumstance. Suggestions that maybe we should perhaps start bombing their church's and murdering their preachers, you are inciting hatred and violence. Not acceptable. Nor is it acceptable to suggest that we should burn down their places of worship so that they start to pay attention and listen. This is dangerous and idiotic to even propose. AI's comment was to define this is what militant atheism would encompass. You went further and quoted his words and suggested that this is what "we" should be doing. Not only is it not acceptable, it is downright illegal. My advice to you is to delete those comments and if you do it again, I will recommend your permanent removal from this site. Because you went beyond ridicule or insults or even abuse. You are suggesting damage and harm to people and property alike. I do hope I have made myself clear on this matter. Ignore it at your peril.

** End Mod Note **

---

I don't hide behind my mod status. My mod status is plain to see for anyone who looks at the colour of my name on this site.


If you are incapable of addressing the very points you have raised, then to me, it simply means they are empty comments, mere headlines with no substance. The reason being, you are incapable of not blaming theists for things that occur in all societies and communities, theist or atheist. The demonisation of women is institutional, ingrained within cultures around the world and within families, regardless of their religious affiliations or atheistic tendencies. Domestic violence is the bare bones of this demonisation. So to me, when you say demonisation of women, I ask you what about a woman who is abused in an atheistic household? Or do atheists not count when it comes to the demonisation of women? I could cite your continued assertion that I am somehow too emotional, which as a woman, I could take as you being condescending and stereotyping me in a particular way, which quinnsong also picked up on. Under any definition, such behaviour is also demonisating women. Or are you exempt because you are an atheist? What about abuse against minorities? That occurs in all communities and societies, regardless of whether it is religious or not. One only has to look at how ethnic minorities are treated to see that. Or did you just mean gays? Civil rights encompasses more than just gays Sorcerer. So when you say minorities, I ask you for examples and you are incapable of providing them. When I point out that theists and atheists are capable and do discriminate and demonise minorities, you react angrily and tell me I am being emotional and complain that the posts are too long.

 

[spidergoat]

One litmus test of how irrational atheism can be is the idea of the separation of church and state.

If you compare the church and state, only the state has the right to raise an army, to raise taxes, to create laws and enforce law via police, justice and prison systems. It has the power of life and death. The church has no such power, beyond any other political group, like the democrats or republicans. If this was a gladiator match, picture the state as the 380 pound 6'8" warrior with body armor, sword, battle ax and shied, versus religion which is a 150 pound farmer with a stick and garbage can lid.

The founding fathers saw the same equation had formed in England, with the king of England (state) having commandeered the church. He could use the law, an army and police to enforce religious persecution. Groups like the Pilgrims had to leave, since you can't fight the state when it uses the law to stack the deck to prevent opposition. The founding father attempted to give the farmer analogy, a fighting chance against the state, but putting a handicap on the 380 pound 6'8" warrior, saying it had to be play fair; no cheating on top of all the power advantages it had.

This irrational position, by atheism of state allowed to cheat, does not reflect that atheism is being lead by the reason of science. It is being led by certain political groups that use science like a prop to promote irrationality, via waving the science prop around.

Let me ask the rational and scientific based atheists, whom I respect, detail their own power equation for church and state? Maybe I am missing something. My equation is why I believe that atheism is irrational at the top due to alliances.

The Pilgrims established a theocracy, and they killed anyone who wasn't a member of their sect of Christianity. We rebelled against that, and forever more enshrined the principle that the church and state should be separate, for the preservation of both. Modern Christians think theocracy was just fine, and seek to reestablish it. That's why American atheists tend to fight so hard against religious encroachment in secular affairs. For someone who understands so little, you talk so much.

 

[Bells]

The Pilgrims established a theocracy, and they killed anyone who wasn't a member of their sect of Christianity. We rebelled against that, and forever more enshrined the principle that the church and state should be separate, for the preservation of both. Modern Christians think theocracy was just fine, and seek to reestablish it. That's why American atheists tend to fight so hard against religious encroachment in secular affairs. For someone who understands so little, you talk so much.

Modern ultra right Christians believe that theocratic rule is beneficial to society, but I don't think they understand or realise the dangers of this type of governance.

Medical research would be one of the first to suffer, especially in fields where embryonic stem cell research has made inroads in what they take for granted, for example. And not all Christians are pro-life and many Christians have accessed things like IVF or abortions for reasons such as to save the life of the mother or in instances of rape. Contraception? Safe sex practices and access to things like condoms? This is taken for granted. Theocracy could see all of this removed entirely.. Which is inherently dangerous for a variety of reasons and devastating for others.

And it's not just atheists who fight against religious encroachment into governments. I know many theists of a variety of religious persuasions who are just as against it as atheists often are.

 

[spidergoat]

And they find out quickly enough when they allow for things like public finance of private religious schools. Who would have guessed, Muslims qualify too! Be careful what you wish for.