Atheists: Get A Life!!!!!
- Thread starter madanthonywayne
- Start date
superstring01
Moderator
Every law, in some way, discriminates. Laws which oppress should be fought to the bitter end. Having "In God we trust" on money is not some rapid slide down the slippery slope, nor has it ever been. Having the president say, "So help me God", as laughable as it is (I've never seen God, Vishnu, Allah or even an angel come down and enforce it) oppresses no one except simpering crybabies who scoff at the notion that some people are just religious. So what, and why do we need them to check that aspect of their personality at the door. Do we then make atheists check their beliefs at the door because it taints their judgment?
In the USA there is no freedom from being annoyed or even offended, but if you are the type who's offended by "In God We Trust" and "So Help Me God," well, then, you really do need to get a life. I mean, have we come to the point where we quip over trivial nonsense? This is not about oppressing religious minorities or selecting a national religion, those things have never been an American institution, EVEN WHEN the USA had God & Christ on every street corner and in the school room. The USA is the first country that not only tolerated Jews but embraced them and made them absolute equals. And while the individual states don't have as great a record (as Tiassa pointed out), the trend did start at the top, at least, and slowly work its way down. Progress isn't always a dash along the highway.
I know it's in vogue to draw convoluted connections between a nation who posts "The Ten Commandments" in a court room and Nazi-like oppression, but the truth is that the ONLY thing that stops the USA and other free nations from sliding to the extreme is not a bill of rights that pushes the VAST majority into a corner, but good common sense and reasonable & prudent judgment.
The Congress should NOT make any law that respects an establishment of religion. There should not be prayer in school and the USA should not force religions upon people. But the USA is--for better or worse--a Christian nation with a strong Judeo-Christian background. Respecting that history by having that philosophy openly dot the political landscape is not to be unexpected or even unaccepted. While I don't believe that this has in any way helped the USA (i.e. opening the Congress with a prayer hasn't balanced the budget, the inaugural invocation didn't make Nixon an honest president), I have yet to see any proof that it has damaged the republic.
~String
Last edited:
superstring said:
Do you really need this explained to you?
A lot of people want them to stop using references to the Christian God because not everybody is Christian. Others want it to end for that reason and because they know religion promotes submission and condemns doubt. It represents unquestioning worship. As a matter of fact, aren't Christians called "sheep" by Jesus?
Though getting rid of things like the pre-congress Christian prayer, "Under God" and "In God We Trust," and religious displays on government property would be largely symbolic, it would be a really big step.
Some people would call having a Christian prayer before congress meets oppression of religious minorities. They would also call that prayer the establishment of of a national religion.
Why does it always come back to the Jews? There are less Jews in this country now than there are atheists. Anyway, you say progress isn't always a dash, and that's true. It's not. But without someone trying to force the issue every step along the way, it wouldn't happen at all. Maybe you should consider that before you tell people who consider dropping religious references progress to shut up or get a life.
I applaud you.
superstring01
Moderator
They would be wrong. Words like "oppression" have specific and measurable definitions that aren't subject to the whims of human pettiness.
~String
Stop repeating that rumor as if it were a fact. It's hearsay based on a quote from a guy who spoke with Bush but doesn't even speak English! (Abbas, I think). Can you find a direct quote from George W Bush himself saying he was ordered to go to war by God?
It is amazing how people keep repeating the same bullshit over and over until they start believing it.
In another thread, Iceaura is trying to convince people that the Right-Wing-biased media was soft on Palin and too harsh on Obama! :bugeye:
What sucks about these tactics is that it forces someone like myself, who can not support Bush in the least, has to rush to his defense in the face of fanatical lies. It is exhausting.
So I guess you'll just have to afford me the same linguistic leeway that you used when you said "All laws, in some way, discriminate".
But let me justify the term "oppression" further. Religion oppresses free thought and free will. It promotes submission, and demands respect from everyone who doesn't follow it. Have you noticed that to call religion any of these things is considered "hate speech" on television and in print (and on Youtube)? Not only that, but faith is considered a virtue, and those virtues are spoken about at great length in various places, including television and print media. However, you cannot speak of the virtues on non-belief on television, because doing so requires you to cast religion in a negative light, which is not allowed.
It's about more than just getting the words out of the song or the prayer out of congress. It's about taking religion down a notch, so that true free speech can return to this country.
superstring01
Moderator
No. I don't. I didn't stretch or alter the definition of the word "discriminate" one iota. Discriminate means, bluntly, "to mark as distinguished by features; to make a distinction; to expose differently". There is absolutely no "leeway" involved. Laws discriminate between right and wrong, what's acceptable and what's not. "Oppress" means to crush or subjugate with authority or power. Both have distinct and inseparable definitions which I followed precisely.
That's subject to some debate. While there is a dose of submission to an ethereal and supernatural power (some with more than others) you'll have to do more than make a claim and accept it to be considered fact. As an agnostic, I sympathize with the notion that religions are binding and illogical, but to claim that all of them oppress free thought and free will or that they force people to demand respect from those who don't follow them is patently ridiculous. I know many people from several different religions and most are tolerant, loving and respectful individuals. Yes, historically religions have done nasty shit (I tend to be on the other side of this debate with my family), but I also think that religions like all philosophies are capable of evolving to suit our contemporary world (or cosmic) views.
No. No. And no. I don't frequent "you tube" except to look for (and laugh at) things like "Thriller Wedding Dance" and "Powerthirst. I get my news from a wide range of sources and I don't see atheists, Muslims, Wiccans, Christians, Hindus, Jews, Raelians and whomever else struggling to say what they want. Free speech in this country is not oppressed. People are free to post shit like "Two Girls and a Cup" and nonsense like "Kill All Ni**ers" all over the web, so you'll pardon me for wondering where you got the notion that free speech didn't exist. We're here, using it now, or hadn't you noticed?
Bullshit. Christopher Hitchens is all over the web and TV (even FoxNews!!!). Carl Sagan has tv shows all over the cable networks. Hell, you couldn't even avoid atheist-minded programs if you tried on NatGeo, ScienceChannel and other such networks. As an atheist leaning agnostic, I have absolutely zero trouble finding and enjoying religious free works and entertainment.
You'll have to show me some proof that atheists are not able to speak their mind in the USA. Again, claiming it doesn't really prove anything.
~String
Who was the last person elected to a major office that was open about their lack of faith?
Edit: Check out this very lonely dude, who just came out a little over a year ago, AFTER having won his seat. And this is in San Fran, where a gay was elected into office 30 years ago!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17594581/
superstring01
Moderator
So, because there aren't enough atheists in government, there isn't enough free speech?
~String
No, the fact that an openly-atheistic person could never get elected means there is no free speech.
So laws against drinking and driving discriminate against...who? Laws against murder discriminate...who?
And I just demonstrated how invoking God in politics and governance oppresses people.
If they don't oppress free thought and free will, try to justify adultery, or murder, or rape, to a priest. Of course, you can do all of those things if you like, but let's hear what the church's stance on these matters are. Try to justify gay marriage to a priest.
Yes, some of these people are very kind, very tolerant folks. The institutions, however, are not. And that's the point.
And part of this argument is philosophical. Can you convince the church to change a practice? Or change what is considered sin and what isn't? These institutions deal in absolutes, and there is nothing up debate. Religion doesn't evolve. People might, but religions do not.
Unless you get on a big enough stage and insult a faith. Why don't you ask Pat Condell if we have a problem with freedom of speech? Or how about cartoonists who depict Mohammad?
Once your voice can be heard by more than the few people that frequent this forum, or some other forum, the second you speak out against a faith, you find yourself censored. It's OK for a faith to talk about "Godless America", or how we're all sinners damned to hell, or how homosexuals will all burn, but you're not allowed to speak out against religion. Then you're being "rude".
Atheist-minded programs? Wow. OK.
Hitchens is an exception. I'm not saying they don't exist. But he's an exception because he's extremely popular, and not just because of his anti-theism opinions. He's also, to some extent, a Jefferson biographer. And then there's his Vanity Fair column. Also, he's a political pundit, and a convert to the Right. From there, he has been a loud proponent of the war.
What does Carl Sagan have to do with atheism? He may have been an atheist, for all I know, but I don't recall him ever saying God didn't exist, or that he didn't believe in God.
You cited Hitchens, so I'll cite Condel, who had one of his videos removed because Youtube deemed it as "hate speech".
And let's not pretend that religions and faith itself doesn't demand respect that it doesn't deserve. You may very well know some wonderful theists, but try telling a person that they believe in a fairy tale. See what happens. We're supposed to not only accept it, but respect it. We're not allowed to tell people that they're thick-headed children for believing.
The bottom line here is that I should not have to listen to my government open a session with a prayer to an imaginary creator. I find it offensive. I should not have to mention an imaginary creator when I salute my (VERY REAL) flag, and the (VERY REAL) nation and history it represents. I shouldn't have to, and neither should my children, and it offends me that we have to. Oh, right, we don't have to, but if we don't, we're not singing the same song, or pledging the same pledge. See? I've already been ostracized, and the pledge ain't even over yet!
superstring01
Moderator
Look at the definition of "discriminate." The word actually carries no moral meaning. It simply means what I said: "To distinguish". A law against murderers distinguishes between right and wrong. Did I not say this already? I sense that you think that the only meaning for "discriminate" is the "southern oppression" variety. While it does carry that meaning, it's true definition is what I said. And yes, all laws discriminate, as in they allow a discriminating public to define what is acceptable and what is not. Discrimination, in this case, is a good thing.
No you didn't. You made a claim, but backed it up with very little hard evidence and/or philosophical rationality. You posited the notion and left it at that. By whatever scientific method possible, you're required to prove it. Show me how atheists are discriminated against by more than lofty claims. Your word doesn't count. I can come up with a SLEW of court cases, for example, where atheists (secularists, evolutionists, etc) have won against theists. It seems to be the trend of the times we live in (and, as I've stated before, I'm mostly for this wall of separation).
That's a bold leap. One which you've stated before, but not demonstrated one bit. You said "they" and when you do you are lumping all of "them" into one category. We're talking RELIGION and not "the Catholic Church" (who's doctrine, BTW, didn't condone any of the things you said, though the hierarchy did, and if they'd follow the doctrine, then they'd not have this problem, which brings us to the crux of the matter: people are corrupt with or without religion). See? "They" in this case refers to all theological beliefs: Protestant, Orthodox, Catholic, Muslim, Shinto, Buddhist, Hindu, Jew (and many more). All of them. (it should be noted that the primary Atheist movement of the last century didn't do much better to its citizens: Communism). Can you show me how all of them "tried to justify adultery, murder, or rape, to a priest"? Probably not. For example, my father attends an Assembly of God church, (a fairly conservative one) which is passionate about separation of church and state, they lean towards pacifism, is against the death penalty, and really doesn't suffer much of the crap that the Catholic church does. Can you show me that every single religion (not most, or even many) does all of these things?
When you talk about religion, you're talking about all of them. Try to distinguish... or dare I say, "discriminate"?
So all religions are guilty because of the Catholic Church's sins?
What institutions? Most of them are evolving. In 1900 you'd never see a public debate about ordaining gay priests, you see this now in a number of churches. Ideology and institutions evolve or they die. It's a simple truth. The Assembly of God has a saying, "The six words of a dying church are, 'We have never done that before.'" And it's true. The real truth is, religion and humanity are reflective of each other. Churches have slowly but surely been evolving with our society. Were we NOT religious, we'd still be oppressive and violent people, it's our nature, and religions just reflect this fact. Just take a look at societies where religions were banned, they don't do much better and in fact, do far worse.
Well, you're wrong. And you've, again, made statements and confused those statements with fact. Show me proof that ALL religions don't evolve (remember: we're talking ALL of them).
Here's faiths that do and have evolved: Evangelical Lutheran Church, Church of Christ, Unitarian Union, Scientology, United Church of Christ, United Methodist Church, American Baptist Church, Episcopalian Churches of America & Canada and it's parent organization the Church of England have ALL adopted relatively liberal stances on war, homosexuality, female priests, etc. And even outside the church, modern western variations of: Wiccans, Sufis (an ancient branch of Islam), Hindus and Buddhists are all liberal on the issues of homosexuality and female empowerment (the two--I guess you could say--modern western social dilemmas).
So when you say "religions don't change or evolve" you're either lying or just plain haven't bothered to do the digging.
I had no problem tracking down the cartoons. I have them posted on my myspace page. I also found Pat Condell's homepage and other articles on him quite easily (there's this nifty website called "Google"). Maybe Pat Condell hasn't made it big because he's just not plane funny. Insulting people, of any type, is really not the way to make it in any industry. And, besides, people make fun of religions all the time on TV, you just can't be mean. You're just cherry picking because you're trying to make a leap that non-Christians are oppressed, which we are not.
Well, I'm a gay agnostic, and I haven't seen the issue's you've been ranting about. While I have admitted that most Americans don't understand--and indeed--fear non-Christians/Jews and tend to favor those with a Judeo-Christian background. Again, I can sight court cases and laws that protect atheists dating back to Engel v. Vitale (1962).
Then you haven't read his books and/or seen his TV series produced in the 1980's. He openly states how religion is pretty much pointless and serves no modern purpose. He states openly that all religions are false and that the only thing that exists is our real and visible universe. Other popular contemporary atheist with best selling books (and lots of TV airtime) are Michio Kaku, Brian Greene, Richard Dawkins, & Stephen Hawking. The philosophers, actors, and scientists who hold a non-religious worldview are too many to name and can be googled or wiki'ed at will.
Okay. Well, I also can point out that YouTube is pretty vigorous in calming the waters against anybody who is just a little to aggressive in their POV. Try getting on a video that says that atheists are dumb for not believing in god or that all jews should be kicked outta' Israel. See how long it lasts.
"Let's". I never claimed anything either supporting or contradicting this claim. I think that religions are varied and cannot be lumped together.
JDawg, telling a person who is passionate about a belief that their belief is silly and dumb IS HATE SPEECH. Calling it a "fairy tale" is hostile. While you and I may believe this (and I do), it is blatantly insulting. So if you're looking for sympathy on this issue, you won't find any. Try discussing, logically, what you believe and avoid painting believers in a negative light. You'll find that ears and minds open up a lot better. I, for example, have patiently moved my boyfriend and a friend at work slowly away from religious dogma, not by insulting them, but by asking the right questions at the right time that make them think about what the believe. Telling a person something gets you no where, asking them to ponder the ambiguities actually works, especially on religious matters.
Well, it's not the bottom line. "I should not have to...." is that the best you can do? Turn the channel on the TV. You'll be okay. The only things on TV that even come close to offending me are Springer and Tyra. There are more pressing issues. It's not like your government has come into your home and said, "WORSHIP WITH ME!" But, to violent atheists, that's what you'd believe is happening.
Weak minds get offended easily. Truly intellectual minds, rooted in a logically and morally sound ideology don't get offended. They can't be. Understanding always neutralizes offense. The nature of being offended is the fear that some opposing ideology, statements and/or judgment may contaminate them or those they care about. Logical minds; intelligent minds understand that there is nothing to fear by nonsensical statements or belief. They either laugh at the silliness or simply take the time to play the anthropologist and try to figure out why the issue is the way it is. I can't think of a single thing a person can say that would offend me. Ever. Whether it's insulting "my momma" to calling me a "fag", telling a terribly racist joke or eating their own shit. It just doesn't register that way. I spend more time wondering why they do it than worrying about its vanishingly small impact on my psyche. It's not that I can't be annoyed or bothered. It's not that I can't be pissed off or motivated by confusion. But offense is, basically, an emotional eruption caused by incompatibility of judgment. When I see a prayer, I wonder how long it will be that people buy into the nonsense or what it was that led people to need prayer. I don't, however, get a case of the vapors over people doing what I would never do. As a Jesuit philosopher friend of mine (who is the quintessential Christian) once wrote me, "Seek first to understand. Never judge. Never hope. Both cloud rational behavior."
Suggested reading: "Don't Sweat The Small Stuff... And It's All Small Stuff" by Richard Carlson (though, he's a theist, so his evil ideology is probably contaminated).
Then don't. I don't. I don't salute a flag. That's too religious. I don't say pledges either. Flags are a thing--made by man--that inevitably take on quasi-religious meanings of their own, given enough time. I make no oath to any organization except my good judgment.
~String
Last edited:
superstring01
Moderator
Mothers milk, sliced bread and quantum physics all lead to holocaust denial.
This is going to be my new signature at another forum. You will be credited.