A Request Directed to Sciforums' "Atheists"

[Bells]

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.

Indeed. Louisiana's Rep. Valarie Hodges, realisation and indignation that providing public funding for religious schools did not just mean Christian schools was steeped in bigotry and hatred. Any religious school can apply for funding. And it leaves the door open to some dubious and unsavoury practices:

Rep. J. Rogers Pope, a former school superintendent in Livingston Parish who was critical of the bill from the start, points out that the law allows students to be educated off campus and establishes no standards for what qualifies as meaningful education.

“This is impractical on so many levels,” said Pope, a conservative Republican. “What will a high school diploma from Louisiana mean, if nobody can list our courses? How will we verify course content, attendance, teacher qualifications, and testing?”

Welcome to the brave new world of school privatization!

In other states where vouchers have been implemented, we’ve seen a plethora of fly-by-night schools, schools whose leaders are more interested in making a quick buck than educating children and schools where the primary focus is making sure kids are indoctrinated in a particular form of religion, not offering them a sound education.​

Hemant Mehta had a very good take on the whole situation in Louisiana:

Rep. Hodges made the mistake of saying out loud what most conservative Christians only say to themselves to private: When they say they want “religious freedom,” they’re only referring to their own faith. Everyone else can fend for themselves.

Message to Rep. Hodges: Your Christian privilege is showing.​

I find the funding of religious schools out of public funds to be a bad thing, especially when you consider that public schools are so often underfunded to begin with. However if they are going to do this, then all religious schools should qualify, not just certain Christian schools.

 

[Balerion]

** 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 **

Did you extend the same warning to Tiassa for his comments about slaughtering police officers? Or did you say "I see where he's coming from?"

You have absolutely zero credibility. Go away.

 

[Tiassa]

The Obvious Point

If so, what is a nondescript theist?

Well, just to reiterate:

"I don't pray. I don't go to church. I don't .... It's easier to say there's a definition of God that I can accept, so I can't call myself an atheist."

(Boldface accent added)​

To the one, is there something confusing, there?

To the other, one does need the faculty of understanding that particular context. See, it's something of a joke going on, there: I'm interviewing myself. (Hint: It's not supposed to make sense.)

 

[Bells]

Did you extend the same warning to Tiassa for his comments about slaughtering police officers? Or did you say "I see where he's coming from?"

You have absolutely zero credibility. Go away.

Did he actually advocate that people go out and burn and bomb police stations and murder police officers?

Had you actually taken time to read what Tiassa wrote, you'd see he was actually advocating against slaughtering police officers. Sorcerer has taken his militant atheism to openly advocating murdering people and committing acts of terrorism. If you can't tell the difference between the two, then I pity you and whatever little credibility you have just lost because it is clear that your role here is to simply burn some torches and pitchforks and simply to just fight and insult and abuse people for the sake of it.

And I will not go away. If he persists in posting such threats on this site, then he will be removed from this site permanently. Unless of course you wish to see this site as the playground for people who incite hatred and death and harm to people and property because of their religious affiliations? There are sites that support that level of criminality, if that is what you are after, then you can go and post there at your own peril and the same applies to Sorcerer. But that type of discourse is not acceptable or allowed here. At all. Regardless of who you are. Is that plain enough for you?

If you wish to file a complaint about that mod note to Sorcerer, then please, you are free to take it to the owners of this site and explain to them how and why Sorcerer should be allowed to incite murder and terrorist attacks against others because they are theists. I wish you good luck with that venture.

 

[Balerion]

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).

Did you go to a public school? It probably wasn't legal if you did.

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.

We most certainly do not have to take it in good faith. I have no reason to simply assume that the coach isn't pressuring anyone, either directly or indirectly, especially since we know that such environments tend to do precisely that.

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

No, it doesn't. It says nothing of preference. You've imagined that.

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

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.[/quote]

From Lee v. Wesiman, 1992:

Yes. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that government involvement in this case creates "a state-sponsored and state-directed religious exercise in a public school." Such conduct conflicts with settled rules proscribing prayer for students. The school's rule creates subtle and indirect coercion (students must stand respectfully and silently), forcing students to act in ways which establish a state religion. The cornerstone principle of the Establishment Clause is that government may not compose official prayers to recite as part of a religious program carried on by government.​

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).

Again, you're off-topic. None of those decisions have anything to do with the Establishment Clause, nor the complaint against Clemson.

This isn't a free speech issue. It's one of state-sponsored religious practice.

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"...

Don't be so literal. I was obviously speaking in the context of this complaint, and the people in this thread. No one involved is questioning the rights of people to believe what they want to believe.

 

[Balerion]

Did he actually advocate that people go out and burn and bomb police stations and murder police officers?

Had you actually taken time to read what Tiassa wrote, you'd see he was actually advocating against slaughtering police officers. Sorcerer has taken his militant atheism to openly advocating murdering people and committing acts of terrorism. If you can't tell the difference between the two, then I pity you and whatever little credibility you have just lost because it is clear that your role here is to simply burn some torches and pitchforks and simply to just fight and insult and abuse people for the sake of it.

And I will not go away. If he persists in posting such threats on this site, then he will be removed from this site permanently. Unless of course you wish to see this site as the playground for people who incite hatred and death and harm to people and property because of their religious affiliations? There are sites that support that level of criminality, if that is what you are after, then you can go and post there at your own peril and the same applies to Sorcerer. But that type of discourse is not acceptable or allowed here. At all. Regardless of who you are. Is that plain enough for you?

If you wish to file a complaint about that mod note to Sorcerer, then please, you are free to take it to the owners of this site and explain to them how and why Sorcerer should be allowed to incite murder and terrorist attacks against others because they are theists. I wish you good luck with that venture.

My bad, I overlooked those posts by Sorcerer. Yikes.

I sincerely apologize. I should have followed your links before I opened my fat mouth.

 

[Bells]

That's fine and I appreciate your having looked at the links. It is why I recommended he removed them and stop delving into such dangerous ideology.

 

[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.
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.

And that's fine. I disagree with that, but I don't think you're delusional or unworthy of respect based on your beliefs.

 

[Balerion]

That's fine and I appreciate your having looked at the links. It is why I recommended he removed them and stop delving into such dangerous ideology.

I don't think it's ideology. I think it's frustration.

 

[Bells]

I don't think it's ideology. I think it's frustration.

Perhaps.

Either way, it's a dangerous road to head down.

 

[Balerion]

Perhaps.

Either way, it's a dangerous road to head down.

Absolutely. Especially since that attitude isn't necessary for an atheist. We're on the right side of history, and the right side of the law (at least here in the US). The Founders took care of us by ensuring the shenanigans of the religious right has a finite shelf life.

 

[Kittamaru]

Did you go to a public school? It probably wasn't legal if you did.

Then it is a violation of our right to assemble and right to worship... period.

We most certainly do not have to take it in good faith. I have no reason to simply assume that the coach isn't pressuring anyone, either directly or indirectly, especially since we know that such environments tend to do precisely that.

That is a very... paranoid... worldview. Tell me, do you abstain from going to Doctors because you fear they will intentionally misdiagnose you so they can write out more prescriptions and schedules more appointments to make more money off you? Do you refuse to eat in restaurants because of the possibility the waiter/waitress might spit in your food?

No, it doesn't. It says nothing of preference. You've imagined that.

How do you come to that conclusion? As examples:

Anti Defamation League - Page One, Paragraph Five - Establishment Clause - This clause prohibits a joining between government and religion, such as no official state religion, no preference by government of one faith over another or religion generally, no taxes to support religion, and no government support for religious worship or practice. (I address this more below)

Library of Congress - Religion and the Federal Government - The twentieth proposed amendment deals with religion; it is an adaptation of the final article in the Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776 with this additional phrase: "that no particular religious sect or society ought to be favored or established by Law in preference to others."

Library of Congress - Religion and the Bill of Rights - James Madison took the lead in steering such a bill through the First Federal Congress, which convened in the spring of 1789. The Virginia Ratifying Convention and Madison's constituents, among whom were large numbers of Baptists who wanted freedom of religion secured, expected him to push for a bill of rights. On September 28, 1789, both houses of Congress voted to send twelve amendments to the states. In December 1791, those ratified by the requisite three fourths of the states became the first ten amendments to the Constitution. Religion was addressed in the First Amendment in the following familiar words: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In notes for his June 8, 1789, speech introducing the Bill of Rights, Madison indicated his opposition to a "national" religion. Most Americans agreed that the federal government must not pick out one religion and give it exclusive financial and legal support.

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

I... think some part of your post is missing here? Decided that what?

From Lee v. Wesiman, 1992:

Yes. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that government involvement in this case creates "a state-sponsored and state-directed religious exercise in a public school." Such conduct conflicts with settled rules proscribing prayer for students. The school's rule creates subtle and indirect coercion (students must stand respectfully and silently), forcing students to act in ways which establish a state religion. The cornerstone principle of the Establishment Clause is that government may not compose official prayers to recite as part of a religious program carried on by government.​

The government isn't doing so here... a single coach is leading his team in prayer IF they so choose to join him.

Again, you're off-topic. None of those decisions have anything to do with the Establishment Clause, nor the complaint against Clemson.

This isn't a free speech issue. It's one of state-sponsored religious practice.

The only way I can even see this being considered "state sponsored religious practice" is because the coach and the chaplain, being staff members, are paid from taxes. Okay, I can understand that argument... but, wait... pastors are paid out of churches income... and churches are tax exempt... so in a way, the government is "granting" churches FAR more money than these two are earning just by not taxing churches...

Not only that, but at least here in Harrisburg, two of our largest hospitals (Hershey Medical Center and Community General Osteopathic Hospital) have several chaplains who are versed in most major religions... they are state funded (and in the case of Hershey Med Center, the Penn State Four Diamonds holds HUGE fundraisers for various things at this hospital, all sanctioned by the school). How is that any different?

Don't be so literal. I was obviously speaking in the context of this complaint, and the people in this thread. No one involved is questioning the rights of people to believe what they want to believe.

Except you are... you are calling into question the coaches (and apparently at least some number of the teams athletes) desire to have these religious practices and to have them led by a proper chaplain.

 

[Aqueous Id]

The school football team has some religious people on it.

Let's agree that the players are not of the same religion as the coach.

The coach, also being religious, brings in someone to lead religious meetings for those religious people.

It's more specific than that. "I'm a Christian" the coach tells the players. But in fact he means something specific. Roman Catholics are Christians. So are Copts, Greek, Syrian and Russian Orthodox, Methodist, Episopalian, Presbyterian, Calvinist and Lutheran. But not the coach. He's an Anabaptist, of some unspecified denomination. So I would rewrite your statement like this:

The coach, who is an Anabaptist, brings in someone to act as Chaplain, who leads Anabaptist meetings for some of the players.

Here's what the plaintiffs say:

The school has a written policy called "Guidelines For Athletic Team Chaplains" which states that students must select their own chaplains and seek approval from the coach.​

I think the court will probably require that the internal policy be enforced. Either that, or they may strike down the link between athletics and religion altogether.

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

That's one side of the story. The other side tells it this way:

"I'm a Christian," Coach Swinney tells Clemson recruits. "If you have a problem with that, you don't have to be here".​

https://chronicle.com/article/With-God-on-Our-Side/143231/

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

It looks to me like it violates the rights of the students who are not Anabaptists.

Much the same... what does it matter if someone is religious or not?

It's not "being religious" that matters. It's doing religion, spreading it among non-believers, as a government employee. Evidently he did an immersion baptism of a player during practice.

If they aren't hurting you... why do you care?

Because it's exclusionary. The people who believe differently are treated differently. It's discrimination on the basis of religion.

As I understand it, you consider yourself a Christian. Suppose you worked at the Post Office, and every hour on the hour you were required to say a silent prayer to Thor. Would you care? How about if you were asked to sacrifice a chicken to Joan of Arc, so that she would bless the safe return of all the mail carriers? I think the best way to test this is to put the shoe on the other foot. If it wouldn't bother you having to accommodate the foreign religion, then it's probably OK.

 

[Kittamaru]

Thing is, that very link you posted, students are saying this:

Some players who don't share Mr. Swinney's beliefs say they were not offended by his approach.

Aaron Kelly, a former Clemson receiver who is a Jehovah's Witness, says his coach was respectful of his religious choices. But sometimes he felt "a little left out" as he watched his teammates attend church together, gather for Bible studies, or have baptisms.

and

Players and parents notice a focus on family here that they don't see many other places. Every Wednesday is family night, when coaches and staff members bring their spouses and children to the team dinner. Players say that provides a positive model, especially for students who don't come from two-parent homes.

Mr. Swinney also encourages kids to hang around his team's practices, a move designed to help keep coaches on their best behavior. Whenever a coach gets too worked up, the chaplain walks up behind him and tugs on his pants pocket.

To be honest... it seems that a LOT of colleges could learn a thing or two from this. Coaches that are kept in line? Encouraging students to remain family oriented and instilling values of common decency?

I'm sorry... but if that's what is coming out of this religious phenomenon... then I say we need more of it... because right now, I look at college athletics and see a lot of schools letting their "star athletes" get away with everything shy of murder because they dont' want to hurt their teams chances... I see coaches who get so obnoxious and rude/crude that young children are taken from the area to avoid them hearing them... so a few people feel left out... you know what? When I was in school, I felt left out a lot because I was different from my peers (I had an IED and GIED, as I was both ADD and gifted). Does this mean that my school should do away with the IED and GIED programs and force everyone to the same level?

I used to referee youth and young adult soccer... let me tell you, more than once I've had to send the ENTIRE sideline (people watching) to their cars because profanity started to become the norm... more than once I've told a coach that if he talked to a player the way he just had again, I would have him escorted off the field.

So... yeah, I have a bit of a personal view in this, and it isn't because of my own religious viewpoints... it's from a moral standard.

The only real fault I can see here is that they are "government funded"... but as I said above, the same could be said for churches and hospital chaplains so... yeah.

As far as the schools internal policy... that is something the school has to work out. Having an out-of-state group sue the program though? That's just vulgar.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Thing is, that very link you posted, students are saying this:

The question or not of whether any actual harm was done will come out in the trial--if it makes it that far. The state will probably file a motion for summary judgment, and, if they can prove no student was harmed, I think the court will throw the case out. Otherwise, if it sticks, then it means there is probably more to this story than the media reports reveal.

To be honest... it seems that a LOT of colleges could learn a thing or two from this. Coaches that are kept in line? Encouraging students to remain family oriented and instilling values of common decency?

In schools I attended we had simple rules to go by. Break them, and you're out. The question of instilling decency is fine--but what does this have to do with athletics? The idea is to get good exercise, to be physically healthy, to have a great time, and develop a sense of self worth--that you can make it out there in the world when you're finally on your own.

I'm sorry... but if that's what is coming out of this religious phenomenon... then I say we need more of it... because right now, I look at college athletics and see a lot of schools letting their "star athletes" get away with everything shy of murder because they dont' want to hurt their teams chances...

This makes it look like athletics is inherently evil, like something is wrong with the programs that needs to be overhauled.

I see coaches who get so obnoxious and rude/crude that young children are taken from the area to avoid them hearing them...

I think they should be fired.

so a few people feel left out... you know what? When I was in school, I felt left out a lot because I was different from my peers (I had an IED and GIED, as I was both ADD and gifted). Does this mean that my school should do away with the IED and GIED programs and force everyone to the same level?

That's an excellent example. The exact same law (civil rights USC 42 sec 1983) protects people with behavioral or learning impairments as it does people of any particular religious orientation. The test here is that the government entity must offer all people equal access to the programs and services. There can be no exclusion from the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of those programs based on a person's individual impairments or beliefs. Therefore, if placing you in the general classroom environment deprived you of access to, say, the biology lab, because a kid was taunting you with a dissection knife, and it was determined that for your safety and peace of mind you should get your lab experience in a non-threatening setting, then by law they should make special accommodations for you. Here the accommodations would be that each student gets a coach of his own religious orientation which is probably impossible since there needs to be one coach. For that reason I think the court may rule in favor of the plaintiffs.

I used to referee youth and young adult soccer... let me tell you, more than once I've had to send the ENTIRE sideline (people watching) to their cars because profanity started to become the norm... more than once I've told a coach that if he talked to a player the way he just had again, I would have him escorted off the field.

This is the down side of athletics. It often brings out the infantile forms of the defense mechanism.

So... yeah, I have a bit of a personal view in this, and it isn't because of my own religious viewpoints... it's from a moral standard.

The only real fault I can see here is that they are "government funded"... but as I said above, the same could be said for churches and hospital chaplains so... yeah.

The law only covers official conduct. Once you're in the private sector, no problem. The Jewish kid taken into a Catholic school is counseled, and of course the parents, on the fact that they do prayers or Mass or whatever. It's more like entering into a contract. If the student decides he's been excluded he can quit and move on. But there can be no such contract in a public school. It has to be an equal-opportunity learning environment.

As far as the schools internal policy... that is something the school has to work out. Having an out-of-state group sue the program though? That's just vulgar.

Actually it's very common for out-of-state groups to join in suits that affect all the states. I mentioned the Catholic Church. There are cases they actually join as interested 3rd parties (amicus curiae or friend of the court). Here they would side with the atheists. That is, Catholics don't believe in re-baptizing. Nor do they believe in salvation through faith alone. In my opinion all of the religions other than the Anabaptist ones have an interest in seeing the plaintiffs win. The atheist group is just a good voice for all of them.

 

[Kittamaru]

Okay, I see what you mean about the idea of having to provide for each individuals needs, and I would agree with you that trying to do so would be impossible or impractical. Though your comparison about public school and private school - is a college considered a public school? I ask because I genuinely am unsure how they are classified in that respect.

 

[Yazata]

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

Who is "we"? Who do you imagine that you are speaking for?

I thought that atheism was supposed to be disbelief in the existence of religious deities. So how does one get from that simple disbelief to the much stronger proposition 'Religion is nothing but a delusion and practicing religion can only be delusory'? It doesn't logically follow, unless one introduces additional unstated premises.

and it's difficult to respect deluded people.

Kittamaru was talking about respecting other people's human and civil rights.

It is exactly the same experience as encountering a grownup who still believes in Santa Claus.

That may be true of you and of how you experience things. But it isn't true of everyone.

I try to keep the five precepts. I even meditate occasionally. That's a religious practice and I take it very seriously. When I was a kid, my best-friend's father was a devout Catholic of a contemplative sort who often went on retreats and even spent time as a visitor in monasteries. He was one of the most spiritual people that I've ever met in my life and I still respect him tremendously. (He's dead now.) In fact, many of the people that I've come to respect most in the course of my life were highly religious people with serious religious practices.

 

[(Q)]

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?

You just said those beliefs are "egotistic, self-centered and are the ONLY correct beliefs". I'm assuming you're talking about believers because that's exactly what they are telling us. We, as adults, don't accept those beliefs because they are childish.


If a grown up still believes in Santa Claus, can you respect that person? Are they not disrespecting other adults by holding such a childish belief rather than accepting reality and growing up? Is this not harmful to the person and society as a whole? Grown ups walking around with the minds of children? How are we to allow such people positions of responsibility if they can't even get past their childhood beliefs? Yes, this IS exactly the kind of mindset that causes problems and that's what atheists are trying to avoid.

And yes, those beliefs are indeed causing direct harm to others, homosexuals being a prime example. Creationism being taught in schools as legitimate science harms people. Religiously lead politicians harms societies when they place their religious ideals before reality. Seriously, religions do a great deal of harm to individuals and societies.

And, it's not a matter of whether or not we want to try and change them, that is not the case. We could care less if people wish to wallow in delusion and fantasy, just as long as they keep it behind closed doors where it belongs and not out in public. Those folks will eventually go the way of the dodo as natural selection takes its toll.

 

[Kittamaru]

You just said those beliefs are "egotistic, self-centered and are the ONLY correct beliefs". I'm assuming you're talking about believers because that's exactly what they are telling us. We, as adults, don't accept those beliefs because they are childish.


If a grown up still believes in Santa Claus, can you respect that person? Are they not disrespecting other adults by holding such a childish belief rather than accepting reality and growing up? Is this not harmful to the person and society as a whole? Grown ups walking around with the minds of children? How are we to allow such people positions of responsibility if they can't even get past their childhood beliefs? Yes, this IS exactly the kind of mindset that causes problems and that's what atheists are trying to avoid.

And yes, those beliefs are indeed causing direct harm to others, homosexuals being a prime example. Creationism being taught in schools as legitimate science harms people. Religiously lead politicians harms societies when they place their religious ideals before reality. Seriously, religions do a great deal of harm to individuals and societies.

And, it's not a matter of whether or not we want to try and change them, that is not the case. We could care less if people wish to wallow in delusion and fantasy, just as long as they keep it behind closed doors where it belongs and not out in public. Those folks will eventually go the way of the dodo as natural selection takes its toll.

The problem is, you are generalizing. Christians that "get it" don't go around cursing and demonizing homosexuality. We don't go around saying that "science is wrong and evil and the devil" and all that horsewallow and hogwash.

Much like blaming guns for killing people or spoons for making people fat, you are blaming Religion for the actions of those that use it as an excuse for their own wrongdoings. The religion itself isn't the problem - the people using it as a tool to further their agendas... that is the problem.

 

[Yazata]

...some people defend their atheism so intently that it has become less about an "absence of belief" in deities and more about contesting any and all religious deity.

We sometimes see atheists directing hostility and contempt towards any and all expressions of religion and religiosity, whether it's theistic or not. So in some cases at least, what's happening in atheists' heads goes well beyond a mere disbelief in deities. There are additional ideas bouncing around in there as well, about the scope and nature of religion, about religion and religious practice always being a delusion, about religion's harmful role in history, and so on.

That sounds interestin... please give an example of it.!!!

See Fraggle's remark that I quoted in my post #437 up above, and my reply to it.

I'm sure if I dug around here I could find a few, but as an example:

the Wisconsin based Freedom From Religion Foundation is SUING the Clemson Tigers football program for having prayer and bible studies as a part of the team...

Why is this psychotic? How does this make atheism a religion?

The cause to keep a wall of separation between Church and State is not a religious one, and characterizing it as such as ignorant.

I think that I agree with Balerion on that. While Kittamaru's original point was a good one, the Clemson example might have been badly chosen.