It intrigues me... who do you consider atheist-bashers? I know a few here are being very outspoken... but I think most theists here (most, not all) would agree- leave us to our peace and we'd be happy to do the same for atheists.
A Request Directed to Sciforums' "Atheists"
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
- Status
I consider the atheist-bashers the ones who have misrepresented atheists and atheism, even after they've been corrected. Aqueous' post was probably a kinder plea than they deserved, and Yazata side-stepped it and continued his straw man attack.
And if you're so eager to leave us to our beliefs, why are you so intent on inventing this boogeyman?
My mom had 3 experiences in her life which gave her faith in Jesus/a higher power.!!!
I look forward to you'r elaborations.!!!
I'm not trying to invent any boogeyman - you asked for examples of why/how atheists can persecute religion, so they were provided. I don't believe all atheists to act or think like that... but there are those that do. Much like there are Theists that persecute all those who don't follow their religion.
My statement that I do not understand you was sincere. How or why you wish to be dismissive of me is equally incomprehensible.
Actually I was seeking the opposite--just direct answers.
If you pretend that the atheist complaint is not about the Religious Right then it's you that's reframing the discussion. What they have done, and the reaction they have caused (e.g., the lawsuits kitt mentioned, which are good empirical evidence of the actual conflict between the two parties) is a matter of public record. To say otherwise is tantamount to denial. Again, that's your prerogative, it just makes no sense to me. Why would a person of your intelligence deny that this is the totality of atheist fear and loathing?
I did not write their agenda, so I have no role in framing the discussion. How you even arrive at that conclusion makes no sense to me.
I don't see too many nasty hostile fundamentalists as far as the dialogue is concerned. I see them lying, manufacturing crises, manipulating their sheep, etc. Where they show the nasty hostile face is in their misanthropic treatment of the rights of others, principally immigrants, ethnic and religious minorities, women, same-sex partners, the poor, the sick, the imprisoned--all of those people that fundamentalists should understand they were commanded by Jesus (under penalty of being thrown into a lake of fire) to tend to. You seem to think that atheists are wrong for being incensed by this. That makes no sense to me. How can someone crusading on behalf of the victims be the bad guy? :bugeye:
I'm surprised you say this. None of that applies to current events. To even bring it up sounds like you want to defend the perpetrators. I was expecting you to defend the victims.
Actually you directed remarks of that nature to me recently, which makes no sense to me. I am the only poster I know of who has classified the offending religious group as Anabaptists; I have made numerous posts concerning exegesis, syncretism, mythology and cultural artifacts which distance me from the people you say are "woefully uneducated and ignorant about religion".
Do you deny that there are universally ethical behaviors and unethical ones? If a group of people (e.g. the group Kitt introduced) seek to defend the high ground of "Freedom From Religion" (presumably an example of the group-think you are alluding to) have they lost their ability to do independent thinking? What kind of independent thinking rejects universal ethics? Once a person has reached an ethical decision, what else do you expect of them, other than to act ethically (to remove the injustice, e.g., through litigation)? How or why you would oppose ethical conduct as "mere loyalty" as opposed to accepting it as a just and proper response?:bugeye:
Yet one is creating victims and the other is advocating on behalf of victims. Do you feel no empathy for the victims? Or do you deny that the Religious Right is victimizing people at all?
If someone does something evil, causing harm to innocent victims, and I chastise them for it, am I demonizing them?
I would never have guessed that you were a social conservative. Ok. That begins to explain your posts.
More importantly, you shouldn't mind. Their majority control will result in some of the policies you support being enacted.
Is there a radical left in the US? The shift has been to the right, with most all progressives sitting nearly dead center. I can't imagine what "radical left" means in the modern context. That leaves it unclear who on the left you consider a threat. Health care reformers? Those who seek amnesty for illegals? So far these sound like things Jesus would support. Of course there's a laundry list -- but it sounds like you don't care (have no empathy for the vics). Of course that's your prerogative. I just don't understand it.
That helps explain some of your reactions to my posts. Thanks for being candid.
I'm surprised you think that, but again that explains your reactions to my posts.
That's your prerogative. I guess if you want to "religionize" the political reality on the ground -- well, I won't ignore you since you're no crank, but at least now I can apply your libertarian quasi-conservative views when reading your posts, rather than assuming you were liberal. I do see my mistake. Thanks for clearing it up.
I agree with you that this about peace. The atheists are "bashing for peace" on behalf of the victims, and the Religious Right are bashing victims on behalf of their insane beliefs (insane because Jesus told them specifically to tend to the victims). And they want to be able to do that harm "in peace" -- without the atheists interfering.
I thought your example from Clemson was a perfect illustration of this. I was surprised when you said "where's the harm" but I do understand how you arrive at that conclusion. Like Yazata -- and now I have to assume that this includes Tiassa -- I think each of you lacks empathy for the victims of the Religious Right. I wouldn't have assumed it, since each of you displays far more intelligence than I thought possible for someone not to care about the victims. In your case it sounded like you simply hadn't thought of putting the shoe on the other foot -- which was why I asked you how you would feel if you were required to pray to Thor or to sacrifice a chicken to Joan of Arc. I think you would at least feel oppressed. I would be outraged. I would refuse to do it, and if there was any retaliation I would waste my net worth suing the perps over it. But that's just me. I assumed a lot, that you folks feel the same way I do. Obviously I was wrong.
Bells
Staff member
You have it wrong.
It's not that people do not see or has empathy with victims of the religious right. You only have to read threads on abortion or gays on this site to see just how wrong you are in that regard. The issue is that the response to such aggression, if it is violent or equally fundamental is just as bad as religious fundamentalists. I mean look at what one resorted to in this thread, suggesting that we burning churches to make them take notice and said that we should do as what you said would amount to militant atheism, including bombing houses of worship and murdering pastors. This is not what atheism is about. And it never should be.
One of the main things about atheists an atheism is that we often fight for religious freedoms against the fundamentalists. In that regard, we fight for religious minorities, be they theists or atheists.
So it isn't that we don't have empathy. It is that we don't think violence or fundamentalist type of response is the solution. And it isn't. Two wrongs never make a right.
It's not that people do not see or has empathy with victims of the religious right. You only have to read threads on abortion or gays on this site to see just how wrong you are in that regard. The issue is that the response to such aggression, if it is violent or equally fundamental is just as bad as religious fundamentalists. I mean look at what one resorted to in this thread, suggesting that we burning churches to make them take notice and said that we should do as what you said would amount to militant atheism, including bombing houses of worship and murdering pastors. This is not what atheism is about. And it never should be.
One of the main things about atheists an atheism is that we often fight for religious freedoms against the fundamentalists. In that regard, we fight for religious minorities, be they theists or atheists.
So it isn't that we don't have empathy. It is that we don't think violence or fundamentalist type of response is the solution. And it isn't. Two wrongs never make a right.
I did not ask for examples of how atheists persecute "religion," whatever that means. I asked for examples of atheists slaughtering religious people because of their faith, and what I got was you and Randwolf acting like you had given me examples, when in truth only one was even remotely relevant--that of a shortly-lived atheist group from 1930s Stalinist Russia.
Yes, there are atheists who want religion to go away. But there are none who are taking action against religious people. That simply is not happening.
The only thing you got right about that was "this is not what atheism is about." You're taking one example of a person having a tantrum on a forum and pretending it represents any kind of atheism that exists anywhere. Meanwhile, where are those atheists burning down churches or slaughtering priests? Where is this happening?
Likewise, atheists are not a religious minority. They are irreligious.
So far, none of you have been able to describe what "atheist fundamentalism" actually is, or give an example of it in action.
'Militant atheists' is a bit of a misnomer. The most that extreme atheists or anti-theists do is get up signatures to ban things. They dent feelings, not church doors. And given what some of our theistic - er, "neighbours" - are up to, I think we could stand with a lot more of it.
I'm glad you chimed in, Bells. I wasn't sure how to classify your position. Also, I don't get many opportunities to defend myself to you (I think this is a first)!
So far I'm not batting very well but I'm hopeful I'll do better conversing with you.This is why I said I was confused at first. But Yazata straightened me out. Adopting what he said, I'm left to conclude that there are different flavors of compassion. For example, all of you good folks may feel empathy for the victims of homophobia, but not necessarily feel empathy for the victims of religious discrimination. Kitt, for example, thought there was no harm to letting the Anabaptist coach impose his religion on the players. (Kitt was certainly not entrenched in that -- but it was his initial reaction.) My conclusion then, is that a person feeling empathy for one kind of harm may not necessarily snap to the totality of all kinds of harm. It comes in a package, bundled under American Fundamentalism (and whatever versions of it you see on the other side of the planet).
I am trying to understand this. You for example will stridently defend human rights in what could be called a state of "righteous indignation". Everyone experiences it, but nothing better describes it than the way any mentally healthy person would respond to witnessing bullying -- especially when the bully holds some leverage over the other person, such as superior size and strength. I don't think any atheist here is defending violence. I do think however they are expressing that same righteous indignation you would express. The only difference I see between you and us is that when we post our strident indignation (which I think is what you're referring to) we have skipped a lot of steps (does this make sense to you?)--what I mean is, we don't enumerate all the backstory that leads to the conclusion (for example, here's one of mine) "fundamentalists are mean stupid people". Since I have omitted the steps leading to that conclusion, it may appear that I am "generalizing to a stereotype" -- one of my pet peeves when I criticize other posters. But you have to look at the context in which I say "fundamentalists are mean stupid people" . It's always in the context of a broader discussion. Usually I have made it clear I was talking about "TBaggers" or some such clarification. Does that help? Because without your objection, I wouldn't have been able to figure out what's raising Yazata's hackles (other than he's just on the other side of empathy I feel toward victims, even if he empathizes, as you say, with victims of homophobia). BTW it just occurred to me that Yazata may in his heart see eye to eye with me, and yet just not like me for being beneath some standard (which he implied was academics).
When I read Sorcerer's post, it didn't offend me, because I undertood he didn't mean it literally. I took it as an expression of his own sense of righteous indignation, stated more as a grumble of complaint than a direct threat. And it's my understanding that he himself feels victimized by homophobes. So there I would tend to assume he's justified in feeling indignation. There was some resentment that followed his post, between you and him, which I felt was over a misunderstanding. I didn't jump in, thinking you two would work it out. But that resentment (or call it umbrage) that you felt toward him does appear to me to be similar to this resentment I now sense from Yazata -- I have no idea how long he has harbored this attitude, but I first noticed it when he replied to the same post you are referring to. Of course, again, he's made it clear that he supports some of the policies of the Religious Right, so at least now I understand him. My post was attacking the Religious Right, to demonstrate that they alone (and their predecessors) are the source of all militancy. Prior to this recent disclosure by Yazata I had simply assumed he was a full bore liberal. I remain puzzled by any intelligent voice which would ever rise to defend what I'm calling "mean stupid fundamentalism" and so it may be that Yazata will just continue to dismiss me like he did here recently rather than to accept my remarks as sincere. That in itself puzzles me. How and why intelligent people feel contempt for anyone speaking on behalf of victims is simply inconsistent. Something is wrong there. I may never figure it out. My base instinct is that this is typically the product of superstition, but if Yazata is superstitious, he's certainly hiding it.
That was why I was glad Kitt brought up the example of the atheist litigation. It was a perfect example of an orderly settlement of a dispute, through the courts, according to law, of what people here seem to be calling "militant atheism". And from what I've read the atheists are suing on behalf of religious players who simply weren't Anabaptists. As I recall one of them belongs to a religion which horrifies me -- Jehovah's Witness -- yet I wholeheartedly agree with the atheist litigators that this Jehovah's Witness should never be forced to participate in a rite or service (re-baptizing) that he does not believe in. I wouldn't wish that on Hitler. Not because I would give a damn what Hitler has to suffer, but because it insinuates harm into the world that will eventually victimize innocent people.
Now I'm confused about who "we" are. So far I have listed Kitt, Yazata, and probably Tiassa, although his posting style makes it hard to have candid dialogue (in the common vernacular, as opposed to the rather artistic flair of Tiassa's speech). And Kitt is much different. So far all he's shown was his own umbrage at people not being allowed to practice what he feels they should be allowed to practice. I think he agrees he wouldn't want to have to sacrifice a chicken to Joan of Arc (BTW I'm not just making this up; BillyT can probably expound on it since I've seen this done in his home town of São Paulo). So for that reason I think Kitt may agree to some extent that public prayer is not a good idea after all. I wasn't sure how to classify you, since by all your posts you are on the side of liberalism and against social conservatism in that it creates victims. That just leaves it for me to figure out if the only difference between me and you is that you don't "snap to the missing steps" -- that you don't assume all of this has always been a struggle against the Religious Right. Yazata has flat-out said that he refuses to discuss it. That's his prerogative, it's just very strange to me. To ever think that atheists are up in arms about anything else (other than the completely different scenarios of Cambodia, etc.) seems to me to be a bizarre form of denial. It's as plain as the nose on one's face, thanks to the blatant outrages of some of the worst spokespersons for the causes Yazata & Tiassa are defending. Even you have often joined in the discussion about the American situation, as a remote observer who sees this from the headlines, and thinks it's atrocious. The two prime examples that I know would light your fuse are (1) the idiot who said "God wanted those women raped" and (2) the American Anabaptist leader who said "God punished the Haitians (by sending them an earthquake) in retibution for a pact with the Devil made by their ancestors". There is no question in my mind whether you would give either of these people a severe tongue lashing if they were posting here instead of me. So that leaves it to the question of whether you "snap to the missing steps" -- that these shockingly hateful attitudes are what the louder atheists are responding to. Those attitudes are emblematic of shockingly hateful attitudes on a much larger scale across that broad spectrum of Anabaptists. That's the point Yazata and Tiassa choose to ignore. Those are the people Yazata candidly said he thinks of as good people, who are standing on higher ground than me.
Again, I never saw anyone defending violent atheism, esp. since I interpreted Sorcerer's remarks as mere justifiable bitterness, not to be taken literally. I fully agree that two wrongs never make a right. That seems off point though, since I'm referring to justifiable indignation -- the natural anger that arises out of empathy. I strongly disagree that it matters to diparage the idiot who said "God wanted those women raped". Yazata may get his hackles up when I say "idiot" (or retreat, claiming it's purely political) -- and Tiassa may use the same term to disparage me for saying it, but I doubt seriously it bothers you at all. In fact, I suspect "idiot" might be too mild a term for you to use.
As you see, Bells, I am trying to build bridges with posters here. I'm looking for the common ground. I simply can't accept that intelligent people are unethical. I know it happens, but it's for some hidden cause. I'm simply probing those causes and hitting snags. Tiassa got wound up and bailed out on me before I could corner him. Yazata crossed his arms, turned his head, and plainly said he refused to talk about it. Kitt kind of went silent, but I took that as acting out of respect, that he didn't want to bicker. I take that as high ethics, or just being mellow. And with you, I simply can't believe that you and I would ever be at cross purposes. I might say things that might piss you off, but I seriously doubt you would come to a full stop without speaking your mind. That's sort of my whole goal here. I fully expected to build bridges to Yazata and Tiassa. I just can't believe they harbor some closeted superstition which makes dialgue impossible. But I'm convinced you don't.
NOTE TO YAZATA
If you haven't put me on ignore: I'd be interested in what you meant when you said I don't understand religion (as if I lack any formal education in such matters). Do I really come across as a dolt to you? If so, I would have to ask: are you by any chance a university professor? That would imply an acute literacy in specialized topics that, I could see, might lead to that conclusion. Feel free to lash away at me, if that's what it takes for you to speak your peace.
Bells
Staff member
Better tell the Soviets that then.. Because the League of Militant Atheists weren't just signing things to ban things..
In my POV, this discussion and the equation of power (state and religion) comes down to the variable called rights. Rights are something that are only positive, in a mathematical sense. There is no such thing as negative rights, in the mathematical sense. Negative rights are violation of rights where rights are taken away. There is no right to take away positive rights from others so they count as negative.
For example, I have the right to vote, which is positive. Everyone who is old enough and meets the basic criteria has this rights. Since this is a right, we add all the votes. We do not subtract voters and votes from certain groups when we count them. This would be criminal. Nobody has the right to force another not to vote, or to count their vote as a negative vote, since this would involve a negative right and be criminal.
Atheist math often includes negative rights in their equations. A right like abortion is granted by law. Like it or not, this is mathematically positive since it adds another option of choice. In the ideal world, of only positive right, the women would provide an abortion for herself, so it is a self contained right. But abortion often requires someone else pay via taxes. It those people do not agree, we are subtracting their positive right to choose or not. If the atheists dealt with abortion, like religions do with their right to practice religion, the atheists would form an abortion charity to pay for abortions, so it is all positive, in an objective sense and does not create a negative right. There is no need for force if your intent is real; put money where mouth is. That would solve the negative right problem.
There is a difference between the objective violation of rights (creates negative rights) and a subjective violation of rights. Objective violation of rights has tangible value, and can be defined via the scientific method. Subjective rights, are not tangible and therefore cannot be quantified by the scientific method. Science is the backbone of atheism, correct? I would assume they would only count tangible or objective violation of rights.
If someone does not like abortion, this may impact them emotionally or psychological, but it does so in a subjective way. This is in their head and not in the tangible world of science. You can't quantify this, because one can fake it and act like a big baby, to make it appear like it counts for extra. If one child wish to get the other child in trouble or get more sympathy from mom, they cry louder and say the other hurt them worse. This is soft science, at best.
It is not the same a putting a new tax on me or measuring the size of bruises, which we can use science to measure. The removal of nativity scenes, if big babies cry very loud is not based in science and cannot be measured objectively. It is designed to have a subjective appeal based on an internal reality that is not subject to the scientific method, except by soft science. This is similar to a clique religion. Science can only quantify the tangible, not the ethereal and imaginary.
We have the right of freedom of speech. If someone is subjectively hurt by my words or ideas, it is their problem, since words are not reality based sticks and stones than can inflict cuts and bruises. There is no scientific way to measure subjective hurt, that can impact two people differently, depending on their mood, and which can be faked by almost anyone. This is not the same as a cut or bruise, which is verifiable by hard science.
Anything (words and demeaning art) can be said about religion and there is no PC censor, since we have the right of free speech and there is no tangible or objective hurt, even if there is subjective hurt. It is because religion creates adults with more subjective self control, so what is left to defend is objective violations and subject to science. This is a good example of adult behavior. The PC police, on the other hand, enforce subjective violations of free speech, like it was proven by science; subjective religion where words can be weighed on scales in their alternate realty.
When we transpose time and talk of Stalin or the Inquisitions, although based on facts subject to science, subjectivity enters when this is transposed to the present and used to condemn someone not even there. This is popular in the liberal religion. These connection violates the scientific basis of cause and effect in time and space. It should be condemned by atheism which is about science. This is generated by forms of religion, on both sides, which attempts to use unknown and unproven laws of science to make connections that can make negative rights. Quotas create negative rights based on unknown and unproven laws of cause and effect where past and present can merge.
Let me ask the atheists, would they agree to use only positive rights in the equation of state and church. To use only criteria that are subject to the scientific method to measure and quantify thereby no unproven laws of science and no counting subjective without science proof? This discussion could go forward if we all agree to use objective standards, even if this makes it hard to con the system.
For example, I have the right to vote, which is positive. Everyone who is old enough and meets the basic criteria has this rights. Since this is a right, we add all the votes. We do not subtract voters and votes from certain groups when we count them. This would be criminal. Nobody has the right to force another not to vote, or to count their vote as a negative vote, since this would involve a negative right and be criminal.
Atheist math often includes negative rights in their equations. A right like abortion is granted by law. Like it or not, this is mathematically positive since it adds another option of choice. In the ideal world, of only positive right, the women would provide an abortion for herself, so it is a self contained right. But abortion often requires someone else pay via taxes. It those people do not agree, we are subtracting their positive right to choose or not. If the atheists dealt with abortion, like religions do with their right to practice religion, the atheists would form an abortion charity to pay for abortions, so it is all positive, in an objective sense and does not create a negative right. There is no need for force if your intent is real; put money where mouth is. That would solve the negative right problem.
There is a difference between the objective violation of rights (creates negative rights) and a subjective violation of rights. Objective violation of rights has tangible value, and can be defined via the scientific method. Subjective rights, are not tangible and therefore cannot be quantified by the scientific method. Science is the backbone of atheism, correct? I would assume they would only count tangible or objective violation of rights.
If someone does not like abortion, this may impact them emotionally or psychological, but it does so in a subjective way. This is in their head and not in the tangible world of science. You can't quantify this, because one can fake it and act like a big baby, to make it appear like it counts for extra. If one child wish to get the other child in trouble or get more sympathy from mom, they cry louder and say the other hurt them worse. This is soft science, at best.
It is not the same a putting a new tax on me or measuring the size of bruises, which we can use science to measure. The removal of nativity scenes, if big babies cry very loud is not based in science and cannot be measured objectively. It is designed to have a subjective appeal based on an internal reality that is not subject to the scientific method, except by soft science. This is similar to a clique religion. Science can only quantify the tangible, not the ethereal and imaginary.
We have the right of freedom of speech. If someone is subjectively hurt by my words or ideas, it is their problem, since words are not reality based sticks and stones than can inflict cuts and bruises. There is no scientific way to measure subjective hurt, that can impact two people differently, depending on their mood, and which can be faked by almost anyone. This is not the same as a cut or bruise, which is verifiable by hard science.
Anything (words and demeaning art) can be said about religion and there is no PC censor, since we have the right of free speech and there is no tangible or objective hurt, even if there is subjective hurt. It is because religion creates adults with more subjective self control, so what is left to defend is objective violations and subject to science. This is a good example of adult behavior. The PC police, on the other hand, enforce subjective violations of free speech, like it was proven by science; subjective religion where words can be weighed on scales in their alternate realty.
When we transpose time and talk of Stalin or the Inquisitions, although based on facts subject to science, subjectivity enters when this is transposed to the present and used to condemn someone not even there. This is popular in the liberal religion. These connection violates the scientific basis of cause and effect in time and space. It should be condemned by atheism which is about science. This is generated by forms of religion, on both sides, which attempts to use unknown and unproven laws of science to make connections that can make negative rights. Quotas create negative rights based on unknown and unproven laws of cause and effect where past and present can merge.
Let me ask the atheists, would they agree to use only positive rights in the equation of state and church. To use only criteria that are subject to the scientific method to measure and quantify thereby no unproven laws of science and no counting subjective without science proof? This discussion could go forward if we all agree to use objective standards, even if this makes it hard to con the system.
Bells said:
My god, I, a rabid Communist, had completely forgotten the Soviet Union and their persecution of theists.
We'd better keep up a running tally of current Soviet crimes against the religious. Since you clearly have a better handle on it than I, I nominate you for that task. Diligence, diligence. It's the only thing that will save us from ongoing Soviet aggression.
I am curious to know how many of the posters in this thread live or have lived where Fundamentalism is the norm? Most live in the U.S. so Christianity is certainly the norm and I do not see nor have I heard of some atheistic militant war on Christianity (well except FOX news). What is the end game here, is it to stop the broad stroke criticism of all of Christendom? Then I have to agree. Do you have a formula for dealing with Fundamentalism other than well what you are doing is not working so just stop.
To all the centrists that like to straddle the middle where it is safe and you need never take a stand, TAKE A FUCKING STAND ABOUT SOMETHING, ANYTHING!
To all the centrists that like to straddle the middle where it is safe and you need never take a stand, TAKE A FUCKING STAND ABOUT SOMETHING, ANYTHING!
this thread is full of such examples.
BTW, hitler was an atheist that slaughtered millions for their religious affiliations.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
That group was a creation of the Communist Party, like so many of the "popular movements" in the early USSR.
The human brain malfunctions as often as any other large organ. And as an I.T. professional I have to say that it apparently malfunctions considerably more often than the inorganic computers we program. Stress, drugs, lack of sleep, physical illness, climate stretching beyond the human comfort zone...
Sure. Why can't we atheists differ from one another as much as religionists do?
What is an "atheist doctrine?" I suppose Madeleine O'Hare's group probably has one, but only a tiny percent of us actually bother joining atheist organizations.
Which atheists have poor math and science skills??? I spent three years at Caltech (before transferring and getting a degree in accounting), which everyone assures me is equivalent to a full four-year degree from most other universities. Almost all of my fellow students were atheists.
Uh... it's been widely argued that the "freedom of religion" guaranteed by our constitution does indeed protect only religion. It's frequently asserted that our laws do not in fact protect our right to not be religious. This is thrown in our faces every time we object to such things as the "under God" clause in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Apparently you missed the articles and photos of the Creation Science Museum in Kentucky. Or the prominent news story a couple of years ago when the Kansas State Legislature required creationism to be included in the biology textbooks in all public schools.
I'd say you're at least fifty years behind in reading your memos.
If that sentence was supposed to make sense, you'd better edit it.
How many atheists do you know personally??? We differ from one another as much as any other demographic.
This is hardly unique to Marxism. You too have apparently failed to keep up with your memos. The Taliban, a Muslim organization, destroyed the world's three largest statues of Buddha, carved into the side of a mountain in Afghanistan. They had to use military hardware to pull it off. Even the most devout Muslim Afghanis were irate about this: it was one of the nation's most important cultural treasures! The Japanese have promised to come and rebuild them, but probably not until the Muslim fundamentalists stop shooting everybody.
If you want to talk about religious persecution, you don't have to look any further than the Christians, who actually persecute Christians of slightly different faiths, and Muslims, who don't even allow Christian churches to be built in some of their countries. There are Christians in America who fervently scream at us that the Mormons are not even Christians!
But what they have done to the non-Abrahamists was an evil so great that they will never be able to atone for it. They burned the Aztec/Maya/Olmec libraries, because their content was "heathen." And they melted down the golden art objects of the Incas, because they were "pagan." In essence they destroyed two of the world's only six independently arising civilizations. One third of the recorded wisdom of the human race was destroyed by the fucking goddamned CHRISTIAN ARMIES with the full support and encouragement of the Pope!
Huh??? The Religious Right has been on a roll in America since the Religious Redneck Retard Revival of the late 1970s. I don't know any atheists who don't care about their victims.
Atheists are humans, and as such some of us are just as idiotic as the religious people.
I never stop pounding my head on my desk when I encounter yet one more person who does not understand that communism is an offshoot of Christianity. While most people with the surname "Marx" in the USA are Jewish, this is not the case in Europe. Karl Marx was a devout Christian and his philosophy was rooted in the Bible. His slogan, "to each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities," is an elaboration of a line in the Book of Acts.
I mean think about it for a second. Communism is a fairy-tale economic model in which a civilization can survive if what a man takes from it need not in any way correlate with what he gives back! It can only work if everyone is depending on God to take up the slack! Can you imagine any self-respecting Confucian or Hindu promoting such bullshit? Sure, plenty of Jews joined the Russian Communist Party, but primarily because they had been treated worse by the Czars than the rest of the population and they were hoping that the Reds would lift them out of their misery.
Today's communists may not display their link to Christianity, but it's still there nonetheless. If it weren't for Jesus, there would be no Lenin!
Huh?... Hitler was raised Catholic... And, never renounced it.
Umm, dont let the Religious Redneck Retards know. Hey, we may just have found a way to convert the Fundies!
I won't bother repeating what others have already said here, in that you have no clue what the fuck is going on and still have no idea what separation of church and state are all about.
It seems your problem is that you don't like where your tax dollars get spent. This turns back to the state again and is enforced by what we is called democracy, in that you are free to vote for whoever you want to hold state office and how they will spend your tax dollars.
The church has nothing to do with these matters and rightfully shouldn't. But, it would appear that this is far to complicated a concept for you to grasp.
So please, continue to repeat your ridiculous notions and delusions. Hilariously entertaining.
- Status