A Request Directed to Sciforums' "Atheists"

[Mr.Dickwaffle]

Mentaly challenged pleasure worker.

 

[quinnsong]

Mentaly challenged pleasure worker.

Damn my conjuring skills suck!

 

[spidergoat]

...
If we're just trading out one irrationality for another, it really does seem to come down to aesthetics and egotism. Downticket rationality is important.

And of course you have it all figured out that such things as abolishing the Federal Reserve are irrational? Some atheists have appalling political philosophies and notions of social justice, but so what? These things aren't so clearly false, they are more just differences of opinion. Atheists aren't monolithic.

 

[GeoffP]

Well now, atheists are beyond reproach. Always right, never to be criticised..

So you object to what you perceive as atheists being above reproach. But not other groups, then? Weird.

You still don't understand it all, do you?

Children are starving and the only people responding to it are the Christian fundamentalists. And what do atheists do? In my previous post you'll see they sought to stop it.. by threatening to sue a public school who were gathering toys voluntarily given to them by people in the school community, a toy drive organised by a Christian Church and it was deemed unconstitutional. Now, doing this a few weeks before Christmas.. Did they offer to help those needy and starving children instead? Nope.

When it gets to the point where atheists are taking aid and toys from children in 3rd world countries before Christmas, then really, we've sunk so low, there is little to no hope for 'salvation' from ourselves.

I see - and all atheists did this, of course. This was "their movement" at work, naturally. Listen, in the old days, before I'd been in some of the arguments on here, I might have let what you and Tiassa are doing alone: just centralised criticism, nonspecific for... whatever reason. The day is long, people are tired. But that's not the way we roll on SF, is it? Shit, even the assertion that you're doing that, somehow, is enough to get a banning aimed at you. So while I sympathise with what you two are up to in a weird way that embarrasses me, on the practical, real front I don't. This shit is enough for a banning and would be in other circumstances.

Unless you are going to argue the hand of God in Africa causing extreme drought, resulting in crops not growing as being the "influences of absurd theological supposition"?

As in: the fight by the Church against birth control in their new constituents. This is general to Africa, but while you're describing a specific scenario, population pressure is not helping and has been a thorn in the side of the developing continent. We could fan this sucker out to HIV - actually, hell yes, let's do exactly that. No rubbers isn't helping that shit, either, and it's this kind of blind influence of absurd theological supposition (there's that phrase again, now it's in the zeitgeist) about reproduction and religion's role in it that's hurting them. But why would you link up 'God's hand' with 'supposition'? Is it God's supposition, somehow?

The latest issue in Sudan is caused by lack of supply. I guess if they stopped lynching Muslims, then the trade routes might have remained open.

Fucking atheists. Just look what they're doing! Oh, right. Never mind.

So how do you intend to fix it?

Is that the point of this thread? I thought we were castigating atheists... or maybe castrating them. Which is it you want to do? Maybe you should set up another thread.

Heaven forbid I remove you from the land of finger pointing and philosophical 'what if's' and ask you to look at the bigger real life picture of women's rights, gay rights and the rights of minorities. No, best to just say it's all the fault of religion and leave it there. Get rid of religion and problem solved!

Of course! That's surely the entirety of my premise. No, no: no need to ask me further and 'larnify' yourself. Just make an assertion and stick to it.

You would not have had a civil rights movement if it weren't for theists voting and protesting for them. You would not have had a woman's rights movement or women's rights in general, nor gay marriage or minority rights if theists did not fight for them.

Correct! Strangely, this smacks of a post I made above that you didn't read. Let me know if you don't read this one. I’ll get started on the unread rebuttal to the points that I didn’t make. Nihilism, pfft.

Pass thanks. I donate my money to worthy causes. While you may be a cause, you are not worthy.

But you just said that I solved Africa's problems in, like, three sentences. Surely that's worth some cash! What the hell do I have to do to impress you people?

Atheists are not a group.

We are individuals.

We aren't a religion, we aren't an organisation or a movement (supposedly).

Ha! Tiassa knows better than to sniff that bullshit:

And on, and on, and on.

Can we put this bullshit about there being no atheistic "movement" to rest, now?

Or, at least, if we are to recognize "atheists" as any sort of common plural, can they we at least get some agreement on what that body is and means?

I'm sorry, but I don't see why "atheism" gets that sort of privilege. If there is no solidarity, then there is no solidarity. Rationally speaking, you can't have it both ways.

You tell her, T!

It wasn't a group attack. It was a comment about atheists on this site who have taken on a more militant and evangelical tone and have gone overboard and who instead of using reason in their argument, they do nothing but spend all of their time abusing people because they are theists.

Alright, I'm calling you all out.

Would you please stop deliberately misrepresenting atheism as a brainless cult?

Owp!

So what are you going to do about it? How are you going to reverse the Christian fundamental stronghold that American ultra right fundamentalists are having in the region?

I'm going to keep on doing what I've been doing, exactly as I've been doing it.

I actually did read it, along with several other papers and books.. Atheists feminists have noticed for a while now how the discourse is dominated by the likes of Dwarkins and his ilk - all male and all very wealthy and privileged and outside of the realm of understanding the realities faced by women and those in poverty.

Well you missed the part where two authors described it as misogynistic process outside their direct control: as in, media. And this seems very likely to me, too. I think they're right.

Tell me, GeoffP, since you are such a supporter of women's rights, I take it you no longer object to abortion on moral grounds and you fully support a woman's right to choose?

Oh. Is that women's rights or ethics? Toughie. Who shall decide?

(I might add that this thread is not about that, or about me, but I can understand your impish fascination with my opinions. It's a natch.)

 

[Trooper]

You are only giving credibility to dishonest examples of anti-atheist sophistry like the one below.

Atheism the New Fundamentalism?

A fundamentalist is unwilling to consider the unsettling possibility that the universe is more complex, mysterious, and multi-dimensional than anything our symbol systems, descriptions and analyses can apprehend. A fundamentalist systematically disregards anything that might contradict his worldview, be it carbon dating or mystical experience. A fundamentalist is unwilling to examine definitions and presuppositions, or hear about developments, scientific or otherwise, that might cast doubt or suggest seeing them in a new light---like the bumper sticker popular a decade or so ago with Biblical literalists,
"God said it, I believe it, and that's that."

God has nothing to do with the fundamental workings of the universe, until proven otherwise…and that’s that. Atheists are not fundamentalists by any reasonable definition of the term… and that’s that.

"Maybe scientists are fundamentalist when it comes to defining in some abstract way what is meant by 'truth'. But so is everybody else. I am no more fundamentalist when I say evolution is true than when I say it is true that New Zealand is in the southern hemisphere. We believe in evolution because the evidence supports it, and we would abandon it overnight if new evidence arose to dispute it. No real fundamentalist would ever say anything like that..."—Dawkins

What makes atheists not selfish?

What makes Christians not selfish? Atheist offerings are refused all the time.

What would you have us do, Bells?

Do you want us to fast? Should we give to charity? What diet should we observe?

 

[(Q)]

This atheist group deems giving Christmas presents to the needy to be unconstitutional because the group that organised it through the school is a Christian group and so, the poor children would be preached at when given their Christmas presents. Protecting poor children from indoctrination by denying them Christmas presents.. Nah, not selfish at all... I mean they could have organised it themselves, offered to take the boxes to give to needy children for Christmas without any religious overtones. But no. But that's not selfish is it? Give to the needy? Fuck that! Poor kids shouldn't be indoctrinated into Christmas anyway. So no toys for them.

As an atheist, that story is a disgrace and an embarrassment and shows the pure selfish nature of the new age atheists who are so caught up in policing religion that they sought and succeeded in taking toys from needy kids because it was a religious group giving said toys to said needy and poor children.

And you query whether fundamentalist atheists are selfish?

"Seriously?"

Let's look at the facts from the article you linked rather than creating a strawman. This is not about poor kids getting no toys for Christmas, this is about separation of church and state:

“It is a clear constitutional violation for administrators of a public school to push students to participate in a proselytizing religious program,” attorney Monica Miller said. “Students at East Point Academy should not be used like this.”​

Of course, a fact in an article does not preclude the authors right to opinion, no matter how hypocritical and insulting:

The school also had to inform boys and girls that their good deeds would not be allowed because of a bunch of intolerant non-believers.

So, thanks to a bunch of godless, heartless "humanist" bullies, dozens of poor children will wake up on Christmas morning without a single toy.

How inhumane of the humanists.​

 

[Balerion]

Waiiit a minute..

Your defensive ridiculous centric diatribe aside, now you are claiming that Hitler was merely racist and not anti-semitic - ie he hated them for their race and not their religion?

While anti-semitism is now considered a form of racism, do you honestly believe that he did not hate the religious group and just hated the Jewish race?

Did I say that? Did I say any of that?

No.

Wow dude, I've heard some batshit crazy defenses of evangelical atheism, this one takes the cake.

I'm sorry, are you saying that Hitler is an example of evangelical atheism??

 

[Aqueous Id]

Then what needs to be proven, before anything else, is that the coach was, in fact, impinging on the rights and privileges of those who are not Anabaptist; namely, we have to show that they have been denied the right to their own assembly/guidance and/or that they are being persecuted or penalized for not participating. Otherwise... well, what are they being deprived of?

They are being deprived of the freedom to choose which religion they wish to practice or not to practice at all. The coach chose Baptist prayers and services for them. Since he is a state teacher, those actions are illegal under the 1st Amendment, as incorporated under the 14th Amendment. All of this was worked out by 1962, when the Supreme Court ruled that school prayer violated the rights of students to choose for themselves. This was why I asked you if you would feel violated if you worked at the post office and your boss told you to sacrifice a chicken to Joan of Arc for the safe return of the mail carriers (Santeria). Do you see the point of all of this?

In any case, if this ends up in court, and makes it past the preliminaries, the burden of proof will land on the State of S. Carolina. In civil law, the charges are assumed true until proven false.

and?
the guy wanted baptized, the "federal employee" baptized him.

You mean he was a state employee. For that reason he is prohibited from baptizing his students.

what point am i missing?

You're missing the past 52 years of Constitutional Law, ever since school prayer was banned.

To clarify, let me go back to some of your earlier remarks:

i have no idea how you can arrive at that conclusion. [that baptizing on a public campus is illegal]
this is all about laws.

Specifically, the Civil Rights Act, as it engages the 14th Amendment, as it incorporates the 1st Amendment.

the issue at hand is congress and their limits on religious freedom, their ability to pass laws regarding religion.

That might have been a valid point if we were living between 1791 and 1868. But then the 14th Amendment was enacted, drastically expanding the meaning of freedom of religion. Now the practice of religion was elevated to a protectible liberty interest. Further, the Civil Rights Act of 1877 (42 USC § 1983) gave the federal courts jurisdiction to hear claims of violations of the religious liberty by employees of any of the 50 states. The issue at hand, therefore, is completely different than you think. Now any act or omission by any state, or by any official of any state, which infringes upon the religious liberty of any other person, is subject to redress in a federal district court. That's why the atheist group Kitt is referring to has notified the college that they are in violation. This is a required step, to encourage all parties to attempt to informally resolve their disputes before bringing them to court. That tells you there is a legal structure in place you probably weren't aware of.

it has NOTHING to do with a member of congress or any other government employee baptizing someone.

It has everything to do with a teacher at a public school or college bringing his or her religion into the classroom, or onto the field, and imposing it on the students. That's a Civil Rights violation for the reasons I explained above.

now back to this:

if a uni coach wants to baptize someone on the uni grounds then what right do you or i or ANYONE have to say anything about it?

We have the right to say anything we want about it. But any person who feels injured by it can sue the college under the Civil Rights Act. If the claim has any merit, the court will address it, otherwise it will be thrown out. However you have this backwards. Your sentence should read: If a student wants to play sports, what right does the coach have to violate the Supreme Court ban on religion in the schools, by making Baptist prayers and rites, such as baptism, part of the afternoon football practice? Therein lies the rub.

oh, that's right, some ho got their panties too tight again.

It's just a matter of law. As you said:

this is all about laws.

Which is what started this discussion. Some lawyer wrote a letter which appears to be the opening move of a Civil Rights Lawsuit. Therefore the laws are all fully engaged; the parties will either settle or place it in the hands of a federal judge who will either dismiss, or grant some or all of the requested relief.

Finally, revisting this remark:

ah, i see now why it's referred to "separation of church and state".

That's the doctrine which all the courts live by in cases of this sort, to ensure that the civil rights of students are not violated by teachers who like to preach religion to their students. The state can not assert any particular creed, prayer or practice, period not as an entity and not by or through any individual in their employ, especially not teachers.

You have to understand, AI, how funny half-witted, would-be "theological" examinations are when coming from people tailoring their arguments for political purposes.

Don't be so hard on yourself. But laugh at yourself all the same if it makes you feel better. :bugeye:

To wit, the Josephus passage is forged;

Which passage are you referring to?

it always astounds me when "atheists" address this point but can't deal with the reality.

I am more astounded by your astonishment than by your accuracy.

The thing is that the forgery is a forgery when that helps the cause that doesn't exist,

The thing is that facts offered in evidence, preferably with some meat on the bone, are supposed to be basis for claims when disputes arise. Although I can see how that might be ignored in favor of causes that don't exist.

but not so much if one finds another political purpose for complaining about the forgery as if it was real.

Since one didn't establish what was forged one stands in contradiction to one's own complaints about the political puposes of others.

Argumentatively, it's a malleable point.

And even flaccid.

It's one thing to pick on a lack of argumentative consistency among the religious, but another entirely to rely on that lack in defense of atheism.

It's one thing to state the fallacies of treating religious legends as historical narrative, and quite another to wax philosophical about the pointlessness of arguing against them.

And here I'll even make a definitive statement about atheism: Integrity hurts the cause that doesn't exist.

Then I'll add to that Integrity and concise factual statements cures most of the polemic.

No, really, dude, go ahead and rely on the works of theists such as Karen Armstrong to prove your point.

No, dude, really, I insist: you go first.

Oh, wait, you're not even smart enough to do that.

Oh, that's OK, it really wasn't that smart an idea after all.

Sorry, didn't mean to challenge you on a point covered by the Americans With Disabilities Act.

It's OK. I'm willing make reasonable accommodations for you. Oops--the ignore button didn't work. Looks like my only challenge now is one of compliance.

 

[quinnsong]

Please don't go anywhere let me get my popcorn.

 

[Balerion]

Putting Bullshit Where It Belongs

In the body of your posts. Exactly.

• American Atheists: "Organisation working for the civil rights of atheists, promoting separation of state and church, and providing information about atheism." They're also preparing a convention.

​

• Union of Rationalist Atheists and Agnostics: Italian movement for twenty-three years.

• Atheist logo: Promoted by Pharyngula.

• British atheists: Raising funds for congregational atheists.

• Atheists United: A Los Angeles group with political, philosophical, and public service missions.

• "The Day the Atheist Movement Died": It would seem that Atheist Revolution would disagree with Sciforums' atheistic cohort; at the very least, there was, until about July, 2011, an atheistic movement. (I have no idea what the author is on about; you'll notice the piece never explains Dawkins' offense explicitly; apparently, as of December, 2013, everyone is supposed to be in the know on whatever Dawkins did wrong.)

• Skeptic Ink: On the "Growth of the Atheist Movement".

Since I don't feel like repeating myself, I'll go ahead and quote myself instead:

I mean, whatever might be called an "atheist movement" (which is in every case better defined as something else--a secular movement, a humanist movement, a civil rights movement) does not do the things you are accusing it of doing.

Really?

Yes, really. I'm sure you'd like me to take this broad question at face value, because then you can define it after the fact and make it appear that I'm in agreement with you, or some other dishonest trick, but I'm not going to do that.

Is it atheism that makes you think that's a useful question? Or is it just trolling that has nothing at all to do with atheism?

How is it trolling to ask you to refine the question?

Certes, pick a definition: Of central importance? Of or relating to essential structure, function, or facts? Belonging to one's innate or ingrained characteristics?

You realize that there are differences within the definition, no?

Really? This is hard?

For you, apparently it is. Otherwise you wouldn't have wasted so much verbage punting such a simple question.

That is to say, do you really need an obscure argument to explain that the Nazis were wrong? Or is killing six million people for the sake of a label self-explanatory? You know, prima facie? Self-evident?

What I need is for you to ask the question you mean to ask, rather than asking me something vague which you can refine after the fact. So, let's try again:

What do you mean by "fundamentally?" Which aspect of Naziism do you view as being fundamental to their nature? What is it, exactly, that you're asking me to agree or disagree with?

For instance, if a dictator was to wipe out all the atheists, would it take a particularly complex and esoteric ethical argument to establish why this is the wrong thing to do?

Not at all. And I've already made the argument you're asking for. Well, supposedly asking for; the fact that you haven't taken what I've said, and insist upon this rather broad question instead, suggests an ulterior motive.

Seriously, where is the gray zone on killing millions of human beings for the sake of a label?

Where do you get this notion that they were killed "for the sake of a label?"

Your argument, on this point, is not supported by the historical record available to us.

I'm pretty sure it's available to everyone. GeoffP makes some excellent points on the matter, as does the National Holocaust Museum:

Hitler and other Nazi leaders viewed the Jews not as a religious group, but as a poisonous "race," which "lived off" the other races and weakened them. After Hitler took power, Nazi teachers in school classrooms began to apply the "principles" of racial science. They measured skull size and nose length, and recorded the color of their pupils' hair and eyes to determine whether students belonged to the true "Aryan race." Jewish and Romani (Gypsy) students were often humiliated in the process.​

And Hitler's antisemitism didn't just come out of thin air. It has a long, ugly history in central Europe, particularly in Germany. That kind of hatred, on that scale, can't be won by a single personality. It has to live in the culture, have some kind of tangible history.

I can't tell if you're choosing to ignore this, or are simply ignorant of the historical record. Probably both, now that you've been corrected.

As far as I'm concerned, stupidity is stupidity is stupidity. The only difference in classifications such as theist or atheist is a matter of prescribed solution. Kind of like the question of antiviral or antibacterial; it makes no sense to take azythromycin for a cold. Really, if one chooses to behave like an idiot, the only reason it matters why they are doing so is to address the specific problem.

I would obviously disagree. And, as usual, the facts are on my side in this case.

 

[leopold]

Humanity is also filled with great love, . . .

no it isn't.
you hardly EVER see two strangers hug one another but they will readily lie to you, possibly even cheat you and steal from you.
jealousy abounds, usually manifested in ego.

you ARE an idealist.

 

[Balerion]

Please don't go anywhere let me get my popcorn.

Ok, we get it. Stop trolling the thread.

 

[Kittamaru]

They are being deprived of the freedom to choose which religion they wish to practice or not to practice at all. The coach chose Baptist prayers and services for them. Since he is a state teacher, those actions are illegal under the 1st Amendment, as incorporated under the 14th Amendment. All of this was worked out by 1962, when the Supreme Court ruled that school prayer violated the rights of students to choose for themselves. This was why I asked you if you would feel violated if you worked at the post office and your boss told you to sacrifice a chicken to Joan of Arc for the safe return of the mail carriers (Santeria). Do you see the point of all of this?

I do, and I understand what you are saying; however, there is a difference between being told to do something, and being given the opportunity to do so. If there was any kind of coercion going on here (which has yet to be shown or proven) then there is a serious issue. If not, well, I understand that legally there is a problem, but that legality is a strange one.

Let me rephrase - with what you have shown me, I understand that, by the letter and interpretation of the law, what he did was wrong... what I don't understand is why it is deemed wrong. If he was forcing others to take part against their will, then yes, I see the problem. If not... I dunno, just seems rather vain?

In any case, if this ends up in court, and makes it past the preliminaries, the burden of proof will land on the State of S. Carolina. In civil law, the charges are assumed true until proven false.

Which seems... goofy to me... I thought the US was supposed to be "innocent until proven guilty"

 

[Balerion]

I had missed this..

Are you serious?

You missed quite a bit more than that.

 

[leopold]

You mean he was a state employee. For that reason he is prohibited from baptizing his students.

tell me, what law says this?
there is NOTHING illegal about ANYONE giving anyone else a baptism.
the only possibility is that it wasn't consensual.
you are mistaken about "separation of church and state".
there is no such clause in the US constitution.

edit:
i believe the phrase "separation of church and state" should be replaced with what is actually stated in the constitution.

BTW, prayer was in our schools because that is apparently what the people wanted.

 

[GeoffP]

Have to concord with Balerion. I disagree here though:

Really, if one chooses to behave like an idiot, the only reason it matters why they are doing so is to address the specific problem.

I would obviously disagree. And, as usual, the facts are on my side in this case.

Now, if I read Tiassa's somewhat strangely constructed sentence, he means that the only reason that we should care why people behave like idiots is in pursuit of the solution to the problem they are being idiots about. I think. Balerion disagrees, but I think Tiassa might have stumbled on something here: wouldn't it be more efficient to correct the essential source of the idiocy? That's as I read his statement, anyway. Maybe I'm not reading it right; the syntax is doing me bloody 'ead in.

My assumption of this interpretation is based on my supposition that he meant to write if one chooses to behave like an idiot, the only reason it matters to us why they are doing so is in relation to the specific problem. But doesn't that contradict with his above statement that the kind of stupidity doesn't really matter? Surely, if one is being stupid in relation to some cause, doesn't that also imply a source for that stupidity; which is to say, in relation to the problem based on a personal belief? It's causative, isn't it? Or it's implied causation. Some issues are just not going to generate the same number of idiotic comments, and we have to be cognisant of that fact. Or it really is source-dependent: say, for example, one had a weak association with a meme that riddled one with subconscious elements of guilt for some reason or other. And let's say that another person did or was considered to have insulted that parent meme. Might that not have a decent chance of generating an absurd reaction from the first person? Say they lashed out with a kind of ridiculous generalisation or something. Not all positions generate the same levels of stupidity, that's all I'm saying.

 

[Aqueous Id]

What makes atheists not selfish?

I would offer that the unwillingness to surrender to propaganda is tantamount to unselfishness. For example, religions tend to promote the most selfish of ideas imaginable: that I will live forever in bliss and you will burn forever in hell. That's of course only one variation on a theme, but it covers a huge population.

Do me a favour, ask the many atheists arguing in this thread what they thought of the 'ground zero mosque'.

My opinion is that reaction to it was emblematic of the religious based xenophobia. Reaction also smacked of incredible stupidity, unaware of how many devout Muslims recoiled in horror during 9/11. Also bearing on this is ignorance of the conflict between Sunni and Shiite religions, as well as the extreme factions of Shiites who were a psychopathic minority. That being said, the conversation over the causes of religious psychopathy have been buried in this thread which I think stems from Tiassa's opening lunges.

Atheists deem it inappropriate and are taking them to court because they have nothing to display as a symbol of the atheists who died in the 9/11 attacks.

Without the obvious point that as atheists, we don't really have a symbol, but to protest to stop parts of the rubble being displayed because it's become a semi-quasi religious symbol that brought a sense of comfort to the first responders and their families? You don't think that is selfish?

I don't think it matters too much one way or the other. If the idea to give maximum comfort to the families, then let each family put up its own shrine. I'm conflicted on whether this is a sacred burial ground or something that should have been redeveloped for some other useful purpose--perhaps a hospital.

And the running mantra for many defensive atheists in this thread was about how much the atheist movement cares about women's rights...

Just recently we had a bill to guarantee equal pay for equal work for women shot down by the Religious Right-dominated Republican Party. While this may be local only to the US, it is a clear and present danger to equality of American women. I appreciate your skepticism, but there is another reality, which is the reality of what's happening on the ground. I actually think this is one of Tiassa's (and Yazata's) gaping holes in their posts. Like in the science threads (not that either of them are imbeciles) we see cranks relentlessly arguing against the most basic principles of science--without ever touching on the actual data experimenters have collected, upon which the math and theory is based. Here I see the same thing--and almost contrived disconnect with the empirical reality of religious ideology: it's impact on public policy. Yazata dismissed this, and Tiassa won't bother with facts. Yet even as we speak these facts are unfolding. I don't know what will happen next, but I suspect the atheists will turn out en masse as soon as we have a female candidate for high office. (That is, one who is well qualified, meaning Sarah Palin didn't ever count.)

Nah, not selfish at all..

How about this case?

An elementary school is canceling a Christmas toy drive they have participated in for three years after a threat of legal action this year, WLTX reported.

East Point Academy in Cayce, with 360 students, is a publicly-funded charter school under the South Carolina Public Charter School District.

For the past three years, the school has participated in "Operation Christmas Child," which is affiliated with Samaritan's Purse.

Under the program, kids collect toys, pencils and other small items, pack them into shoe boxes, and donate to needy children.

That has now stopped after the school received a letter last Monday from the American Humanist Association, a national nonprofit organization with over 20,000 members and 125,000 supporters across the country, according to the letter.

The mission of American Humanist Association's legal center, according to the letter, is "to protect one of the most fundamental principles of (American) democracy: the Constitutional mandate requiring separation of church and state."

The letter called the school's involvement in Operation Christmas Child "unconstitutional."

"The letter was very explicit that there would be litigation against us if we did not stop," school East Point Academy's principal, Renee Mathews, told WLTX.

---

The letter claimed it was sent on behalf of a parent at the school.

It points to the fact that Operation Christmas Child is part of "Samaritan's Purse," an international Christian based organization led by Franklin Graham, son of Evangelist Billy Graham.

"There's no religious literature tied with it," Mathews said. "There's no speakers who come. There's no religious affiliation at all."


​

This atheist group deems giving Christmas presents to the needy to be unconstitutional because the group that organised it through the school is a Christian group and so, the poor children would be preached at when given their Christmas presents. Protecting poor children from indoctrination by denying them Christmas presents.. Nah, not selfish at all... I mean they could have organised it themselves, offered to take the boxes to give to needy children for Christmas without any religious overtones. But no. But that's not selfish is it? Give to the needy? Fuck that! Poor kids shouldn't be indoctrinated into Christmas anyway. So no toys for them.

As an atheist, that story is a disgrace and an embarrassment and shows the pure selfish nature of the new age atheists who are so caught up in policing religion that they sought and succeeded in taking toys from needy kids because it was a religious group giving said toys to said needy and poor children.

And you query whether fundamentalist atheists are selfish?

"Seriously?"

I agree with you in principle here but I disagree with the facts. In order for the school to change its policy, it had the advice of an attorney (probably the State Attorney General's office). The decision to cancel, then, would arise from the evidence that there was a clear violation.

I'm also leery of media reports that rely on tugging people's heart strings, whereas the bare facts can be simply buried in recrimination.

Let's talk about the harm in this. Was anyone actually hurt, and if so, why? For example, what would stop the neighborhood from organizing an independent toy drive, to carry on the tradition of the school? I suspect they could even do some of it on the school grounds, perhaps under the Parent-Teacher Association (PTA). I would have to research this to see what exactly what was at stake.

Decades ago an issue like this cropped up in my neighborhood. The schools simply changed their thems to "Winter Holiday". One of the more bizarre things I saw happen was a movement to try to block monster costumes that kids had traditionally used on Halloween. (Do you have such a tradition?) Quite a few parents resorted to mild characters, like cartoon characters, to keep their kids from dressing up as monsters. The scariest part of this was that they harbored some irrational fear that the costumes dared the Devil to possess the child. Ironically, the ones that were forbidden from dressing as monsters went into a heavy metal/skinhead/Goth period in their adolescence, while the ones who had their fling were more likely to dress rather plainly.

In short, the idea is to reduce all harm. Usually public schools are not a place for launching charity fund drives, so it doesn't bother me that a tradition like the one you mentioned might be curtailed. I would fully support, however, some public place where people can gather irrespective of their religions for the purposes of organizing charities like the one you describe.

 

[Aqueous Id]

tell me, what law says this?

It's not one law, but a body of laws, culminating in the 1962 decision to ban school prayer.


see wiki:

In two landmark decisions, Engel v. Vitale (1962) and Abington School District v. Schempp (1963), the US Supreme Court established what is now the current prohibition on state-sponsored prayer in schools. While the Engel decision held that the promulgation of an official state-school prayer stood in violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause (thus overruling the New York Courts’ decisions), Abington held that Bible readings and other (state) school-sponsored religious activities were prohibited.[11] Following these two cases came the Court's decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), a ruling that established the Lemon test for religious activities within schools. The Lemon test states that in order to be constitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment any practice sponsored within state run schools (or other public, state sponsored activities) must adhere to the following three criteria:[12]
1. Have a secular purpose;
2. Must neither advance nor inhibit religion; and
3. Must not result in an excessive entanglement between government and religion.

there is NOTHING illegal about ANYONE giving anyone else a baptism.

Let me be clear I'm talking about Constitutional tort, not criminal law. Yes, this baptism on the campus is outlawed by the same body of laws that forbids school prayer.

the only possibility is that it wasn't consensual.

That sounds like the affirmative defense for rape, not this. Here the only question is whether the students independently went and did a baptism without the coach's participation. Further, there can be no presumption of consent where a conflict of interest arises. That is, each student had to do whatever the coach asked of them in order to feel he would be equally treated. You're missing a huge chunk of what civil rights is all about. There can be no pressure of any kind, not even a trace.

you are mistaken about "separation of church and state".
there is no such clause in the US constitution.

You're just mistaken about what I actually said:

That's the doctrine which all the courts live by in cases of this sort, to ensure that the civil rights of students are not violated by teachers who like to preach religion to their students. The state can not assert any particular creed, prayer or practice, period not as an entity and not by or through any individual in their employ, especially not teachers.

You have to understand what happened after the 14th Amendment was passed. it extended the right to religious privacy to all people subjected to any state official's conduct. It solidified the "wall of separation between church and state", to include the modern ban on school prayer, as well as all of the other Baptist doctrine and preaching the coach brought onto the field. All of that is now legal doctrine.

edit:
i believe the phrase "separation of church and state" should be replaced with what is actually stated in the constitution.

What is actually stated in the Constitution includes the part you don't acknowledge: the 14th Amendment. All of that has filtered into the current doctrine which erects a wall between church and state. You can't cherry pick the Constitution. You have to swallow it whole. That's what common law does. That's why there is a doctrine called Separation of Church and State.

BTW, prayer was in our schools because that is apparently what the people wanted.

They also wanted the 14th Amendment. It paved the way to throw all religion out of the schools. If they want prayer back in the schools, then they only need the 75% majority that ushered in the 14th Amendment.

 

[leopold]

AI and others,
i'm going to hazard an opinion here.
you are not going to excise god from society, it isn't going to happen.
the fact that this phenomenon is global in nature is testament to that.
isn't it you that says children are atheist by nature?

 

[spidergoat]

AI and others,
i'm going to hazard an opinion here.
you are not going to excise god from society, it isn't going to happen.
the fact that this phenomenon is global in nature is testament to that.
isn't it you that says children are atheist by nature?

That's OK. We can relegate it to a fringe belief that isn't a threat to secular society.