Author
|
Topic: Atheists: the most distrusted minority in USA - I
|
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273
|
posted 26 March 2006 02:01 AM
quote: From a telephone sampling of more than 2,000 households, university researchers found that Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in “sharing their vision of American society.” Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry.Even though atheists are few in number, not formally organized and relatively hard to publicly identify, they are seen as a threat to the American way of life by a large portion of the American public. “Atheists, who account for about 3 percent of the U.S. population, offer a glaring exception to the rule of increasing social tolerance over the last 30 years,” says Penny Edgell, associate sociology professor and the study’s lead researcher. Edgell also argues that today’s atheists play the role that Catholics, Jews and communists have played in the past—they offer a symbolic moral boundary to membership in American society. “It seems most Americans believe that diversity is fine, as long as every one shares a common ‘core’ of values that make them trustworthy — and in America, that ‘core’ has historically been religious,” says Edgell. Many of the study’s respondents associated atheism with an array of moral indiscretions ranging from criminal behavior to rampant materialism and cultural elitism. Source
Americans are not as dumb as one might think. They seem to have no trouble spotting the biggest threat to their way of life.Makes me feel special. [ 02 January 2007: Message edited by: M. Spector ]
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
a lonely worker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9893
|
posted 26 March 2006 03:02 AM
They're hated more than socialists? There goes all of my fun of freaking any of them out when I tell them I'm a proud socialist.Somehow its a little upsetting to find out a bigot hates another group worse than yours. Well I guess its off to Alberta where us eastern Toronto centric socialists are always loved!
From: Anywhere that annoys neo-lib tools | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Clog-boy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11061
|
posted 26 March 2006 08:38 AM
Ok, now I'm confused... I've always considered us atheists as the Switzerland of the religious world: We're neutral, we don't take sides, we're no threat to anyone... And now we're America's public enemy #1, eh..? Go figure...
From: Arnhem, The Netherlands | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
ephemeral
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8881
|
posted 26 March 2006 09:10 AM
quote: Originally posted by Clog-boy: I've always considered us atheists as the Switzerland of the religious world: We're neutral, we don't take sides, we're no threat to anyone...
That would be the agnosticists, Clog-boy. quote: “It seems most Americans believe that diversity is fine, as long as every one shares a common ‘core’ of values that make them trustworthy
lol. I gotta laugh. If I don't laugh, I would cry. Tolerating diversity... but not too much.
From: under a bridge with a laptop | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795
|
posted 26 March 2006 10:07 AM
quote: Many of the study's respondents associated atheism with an array of moral indiscretions ranging from criminal behavior to rampant materialism and cultural elitism.
HA!
quote: I decry the power of the Church and its use of that power, in America in particular! Throughout the world, as all know, the churches are so organized as to have the wealth, size and formation of a great corporation, a government, or an army. And in America, the wealthy individuals who rule in corporate affairs appear to be attracted to the church by reason of its hold not only on the mind but the actions of its adherents. Politically, socially and otherwise, they count on its power and influence as of use to them. And not without reason, since especially among the ignorant and poor, its revealed wisdom counsels resignation and orders faith in a totally inscrutable hereafter. In short, it makes for ignorance and submission in the working class, And what more could a corporation-minded government or financial group, looking toward complete control of everything for a few, desire?
Ha-HA!
quote: R. Laurence Moore's Selling God is an extended historical meditation on religious experience in the United States, where, from the start, the two spheres of reasoning "religious and commercial" have occupied almost identical territory. The larger canvass of the book is Protestantism, which from its sixteenth-century beginnings Moore regards as "an exercise in efficiency and bureaucratic streamlining that appealed to Europe's commercial bourgeoisie." But the specific focus is the manifold ways in which the story of religion in the United States may be written as a story of "commodification." Moore, a veteran interpreter of American religion who teaches history at Cornell, states his thesis at the start or close of almost every chapter: secularization in America has never meant a zero-sum struggle in which the "world" and the "church" battle to control the same bit of turf. Rather, secularization has always been a much more nuanced reality, with the gains and losses for religion attending the same set of circumstances. It is "religion's systematic and expansive complicity in mechanisms of market exchange" that provides Moore his argument and dictates the arrangement of his evidence.
Hahahahahahahah!!
quote: (CBS) Houston may be nowhere near heaven or Hollywood, but on Sunday mornings, it feels like a little of both.
Joel Osteen is pastor of Lakewood Church, the largest evangelical church in America with 30,000 weekly attendants. With a TV ministry, it's watched in at least 100 countries.
His production staff and studio rival any network. As CBS News Correspondent Byron Pitts reports, Osteen looks like an anchorman, talks like a Southern salesman and runs this congregation like a CEO.
Asked if it's part message and part marketing, Osteen says: "To me, we're marketing hope."
And hope sells. Last year, Lakewood brought in $55 million. Sales of Osteen's book "Your Best Life Now" became an instant best seller. But he makes no apologies for his style or his success.
"We need to be excellent for the Lord," says Osteen. "There's nothing that says we can't come in and have great sound and great lighting and be on time and have this service more produced if you'll call it that, because, you know what, God deserves the best."
I could go on. And on and on and on. But I prolly don't need to. Their arrogance and hypocrisy is no longer a surprise or even something particularly new; that first piece was written back in 1931, and it's only gotten worse since then. Just like the Vatican, awash in scandals of child molestation and coverups, turned around and mounted a public campaign to hound homosexuals out of the priesthood, organized religion and its adherents accuse secular humanists of the gawd-botherers' own worst failings, hoping to deflect attention from their own sins.
But try and tell most Yanquis that they live in a theocracy, and they sneer, saying that their society is not like Iran's or Pakistan's. One of my profs told me many years ago that the USA was proud of its guarantees of freedom of religion, but if you want to ever have political success there, you'd better at least claim to have some sort of belief in some kind of religion, "even" if it's some "second-rate" religion like Buddhism or Shintoism. "They're proud of their diversity of beliefs, but despise those who don't believe in something," he said.
I guess when you're in the business of selling moral certitude and an "invisible protector" that defies logic, reason and empirical study, you tend to cast a chary eye at any who stand on the sidelines and holler "the Emperor has no clothes!"
Bah. Humbug![ 26 March 2006: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]
From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
eau
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10058
|
posted 26 March 2006 03:25 PM
If we are the most hated then can I presume that means they fear us the most. Can't have free thinkers challenging the establishment can we. The timing of this post is ,,,well timely. I have just finished reading in the New York Times this morning that Ed Buckham, Tom Delays advisor and pastor, an evangelical Christian was taking bribes from Abramoff courtesy of a non profit group called Family something or other all the while mentoring Tom in the art of corruption. NOthing like hypocrisy about atheists to give me a morning smile.
From: BC | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 26 March 2006 05:21 PM
Ahh this is true, but they know what socialism is. If you ask them about a national health care program, most of them supporty it; if you ask them about higher wages they are for that too; if you ask them about increased workplace safety, they are for that too; If you assert that the rich get rich, and the poor get poorer, most will agree; if you say the system is stacked against the poor, they will agree their too. More worker control in the workplace? Environemental protection? Yes and yes. No one wants to work for more hours for less money. It is a blatant fact. [ 26 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
koan brothers
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3242
|
posted 26 March 2006 07:09 PM
The Ten Commandments of the Ethical Atheist quote: 1. Thou SHALT NOT believe all thou art told. 2. Thou SHALT seek knowledge and truth constantly. 3. Thou SHALT educate thy fellow man in the Laws of Science. 4. Thou SHALT NOT forget the atrocities committed in the name of god. 5. Thou SHALT leave valuable contributions for future generations. 6. Thou SHALT live in peace with thy fellow man. 7. Thou SHALT live this one life thou hast to its fullest. 8. Thou SHALT follow a Personal Code of Ethics. 9. Thou SHALT maintain a strict separation between Church and State. 10. Thou SHALT support those who follow these commandments.
web page
From: desolation row | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crippled_Newsie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7024
|
posted 26 March 2006 07:24 PM
quote: Originally posted by simonvallee:
Oh, and I don't mean to say all Americans do, I just am trying to analyze the mainstream mindset.
And your analysis is interesting. I just think you give my neighbors too much credit. I think it comes down to something simpler: 'Them ay-THEE-ist folks don't seem quite like you and me. I don't trust 'em, Pa. I juss don't.'
From: It's all about the thumpa thumpa. | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Geneva
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3808
|
posted 27 March 2006 06:34 AM
quote: Originally posted by Frustrated Mess: So it is decided then. Atheists, Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups are not Americans.
re atheists' impopularity:
I would be interested in the figures for Canada; I would wager they are substantially the same as above secular does not = atheist, by any account reminds me of a religious survey of Icelanders, which showed that they had the lowest percentage of regular church-going in the West, something like 4 per cent each week, yet in the same survey a huge majority of Icelanders said they prayed regularly they embrace secularism while rejecting atheism, which is a common modern mix [ 27 March 2006: Message edited by: Geneva ]
From: um, well | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273
|
posted 27 March 2006 05:50 PM
quote: Originally posted by Geneva: re atheists' impopularity:I would be interested in the figures for Canada; I would wager they are substantially the same as above
Come to think of it, the article I linked to didn't actually give any figures for the unpopularity of atheists in the United States.It did put the number of atheists at 3% of the US population. In Canada that number is significantly higher, and I expect the "tolerance" statistics would be higher, too. The 2001 census showed some 16% of Canadians had no religion, whatever that means. quote: Guth and Fraser (2001) found that 28% of Canadians “show no evidence of religious salience or activity.” According to Norris and Inglehart (2004), 22% of those in Canada do not believe in God. According to Bibby (2002), when asked “Do you believe that God exists?” 6% of Canadians answered “No, I definitely do not” and another 13% answered, “No, I don’t think so,” for a total of 19% being classified as either atheist or agnostic. According to Gallup and Lindsay (1999:121), 30% of Canadians do not believe in God or a “Higher Power.” Source
The same source puts the population of atheists in the USA at somewhere between 3 and 9 percent.
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214
|
posted 27 March 2006 07:53 PM
Actually, I think it offers more insight into the religious mind than it does on the status of athiests.The reason that we are not trusted is that they assume that withouth the promise of eternal reward or the threat of eternal damnation, we should be libertines. The only way to concieve of such a thing, is for the religious mind to be of a libertine bent in the first place.
From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Geneva
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3808
|
posted 28 March 2006 04:15 AM
quote: Originally posted by NWOntarian: Here's an interesting link that lists the approximate percentages of athiests in 50 countries. Canada is apparently 20th, USA is 44th -- though because of its massive population, it has a larger total number of athiests than Canada.Adherents.com
interesting site and info, but wildly inconsistent; the percentage of atheists in the UK, for instance, is given as 40+ plus percent on one chart and 14 percent on the other; and the numbers for Scandinavia are qualitatively higher than what I have read/seen elsewhere; will find other sources to compare, although this concurs: atheist data re the USSR while the references above are out of place, it is true that when speculation about entirely repressing religion comes up, it is worth studying what happens when a State actually decides to entirely oppress religion, eliminate it from society, ban its teaching and repress its books, schools and monuments (as a "virus", as one academic puts it today) for three full generations
in the case of the ex-USSR, the answer: it comes back again to some degree, as both the Orthodox resurgence and "new" religious movements in the CIS demonstrate. in any case, religious belief does not disappear, and rates of atheism/agnosticism are not higher than in other industrial states: A 2004 survey commissioned by the BBC found that 24% of those in Russia do not believe in God. According to Inglehart et al (2004), 30% of those in Russia do not believe in God, but only 5% self-identify as “atheist” (Froese, 2004). According to Greeley (2003), 48% of Russians do not believe in God, although only 19% self-identify as “atheist.” re moral standing and God: its sort of hopeless when caricatures abound, as they do here, but the relation between moral behaviour and belief in eternal /divine /transcendent laws is not quite the cartoonish one presented above, and has preoccupied moral philosophers for millennia; one of the greatest modern thinkers for my money, Immanuel Kant, concluded there could be no moral OBLIGATION, rather than just a reasoned moral choice, without God [ 28 March 2006: Message edited by: Geneva ]
From: um, well | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427
|
posted 28 March 2006 05:25 PM
quote: Originally posted by Geneva:
one of the greatest modern thinkers for my money, Immanuel Kant, concluded there could be no moral OBLIGATION, rather than just a reasoned moral choice, without God
I'm having trouble seeing this. If you have freewill--and everyone does, according to all religions I know of--then nothing is obligation and everything is a choice, whether reasoned or not. God can't MAKE me follow the golden rule; only I can do that. God can--I presume--punish me for failing (at least accordoing to the paradigm) and I must be free to choose that punishment, or I don't have free will at all. And millions make exactly this choice, or--to use Kant's terms--refuse this obligation. Clearly, they aren't obliged in the least. ~~~ Kant appears to be creating two categories: "reasoned moral choice" and "obligation". As apposed, it's clear that the later really means "unreasoned moral choice". [ 28 March 2006: Message edited by: S1m0n ]
From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
goyanamasu
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12173
|
posted 29 March 2006 05:27 AM
A prof who was self-inflated, along all dimensions, believed it was pithy and profound to tell the '60s radicals that they were essentially 'Kantians of the heart.' He never explained. With Kant I imagine this huge cloud (some Imperative or another) floating in the blue and in the mind that is responsible, tangibly responsible, for the French Revolution. Everybody knows the cloud will reappear either geographically, historically or in the Mind. So what happens on the real ground becomes significant thereafter only when this imagined cloud reappears and starts the precipitation. I know, clear as mud.
From: End Arbitrary Management Style Now | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Geneva
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3808
|
posted 29 March 2006 05:29 AM
quote: Originally posted by lagatta: Secularism and atheism don't mean the same thing at all. Secularism refers to the neutrality of the state and to religious beliefs being private matters. One can believe in a God and be a secularist.
definitely, at the recent 100th anniversary of the 1905 French law on separation of church and state, the public forum on the subject in my town was led by a Protestant pasteur; religious minorities have every interest in promoting freedom of religion and its separation from the State there is even an argument in European theology that religious observance has been sustained in the US but withered in Europe because of the latter's long organic association of church and State, absent in the former by constitutional decree [ 29 March 2006: Message edited by: Geneva ]
From: um, well | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
goyanamasu
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12173
|
posted 29 March 2006 06:02 AM
Geneva: that theory about "church and State", Europe versus the USA puts the cart before the horse. It attributes a greater part to the State as an ideological apparatus than it deserves, even in Europe.After the French Revolution and the American Revolution, the former was not followed by religious revival, even under Restoration and certainly not during the Empire or Republic. In the USA, with Methodism and other mov'ts, there were several religious revivals post Independence. Of course religious enthusiasts were attracted to North America and were encourage by the State: in order to settle territory. But by adding this dimension, it changes the dynamic of separation. After the West was settled, as a mere example, you see that Québecois textile workers from New Jersey to Maine were encouraged to practise their religion by employers (who had State support). They even brought in priest from La Belle Province.
From: End Arbitrary Management Style Now | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
goyanamasu
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12173
|
posted 29 March 2006 06:35 AM
Geneva: that 'guns' issue is more of a hot potato than you think, perhaps. A couple of historians have ruined their reputations trying to prove there were fewer gun toters than once imagined out West. I would emphasize the Puritan strain, the racism and self-annointment of white rule. It impresses me, too, that the KKK starts out anti-Catholic and prohibitionist (places like Kansas first), then turns on Afro-Americans. It was in this sense that religious feeling and bigotry gets a wollop of revival. As for France, anticlericalism was often much more than antichristianisation. But you know about that . . . I saw some nice woodcuts from England (in a book) printed on playing cards. Scenes like 'hanging the Jesuits'.
From: End Arbitrary Management Style Now | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Makwa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10724
|
posted 04 April 2006 08:53 AM
quote: Originally posted by goyanamasu: It impresses me, too, that the KKK starts out anti-Catholic and prohibitionist (places like Kansas first), then turns on Afro-Americans.
I wish you would not paint the Klan as at outgrowth of anti-Catholicism, as this minimizes it's specific roots as tool of white supremacy. Begun in the post-Civil war era in 1866, it was an organization devoted to anti-reconstructionism, including the murder of thousands of African Americans and some Republicans. Perhaps you are thinking of the second wave of KKK which broke out in 1915 after the movie "Birth of a Nation" which had strong anti-Catholic sentiments, but was still primarily a movement aimed at violence against African Americans. Before WWII, millions were listed as members, and it was responsible for thousands of lynchings of African American people.
From: Here at the glass - all the usual problems, the habitual farce | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308
|
posted 04 April 2006 01:40 PM
quote: Originally posted by Clog-boy: Ok, now I'm confused... I've always considered us atheists as the Switzerland of the religious world: We're neutral, we don't take sides, we're no threat to anyone... And now we're America's public enemy #1, eh..? Go figure...
Well, think about it . . . that's more or less what the Jews were back in the day. They were quiet about their faith, pacifistic, no threat to anyone. Sure, some of them were socialists and stuff--but then, some of everyone were socialists and stuff at the time. Then suddenly they were Germany's public enemy #1. There are other similarities--atheism tends to be a stance associated with relative affluence, urbanness, and higher education. Which is not to say there aren't plenty of highly educated urban well-off people who are religious, even deeply so. The point is more that atheism doesn't come up much as an option in other circumstances. So it's easy for Americans to see atheists as the liberals' liberal--an effete, oversophisticated bunch of yuppies that even middle-of-the-road US liberals can love to hate (since they don't mostly have the guts to hate the bible thumpers). It's a vulnerability similar to that of the Jews earlier in the century, a group associated with the urban, committed to education and scholarship, believed to be wealthy, and therefore readily scapegoated as the source/exemplar of all the ills associated with the oversophisticated big city. And it fits very well with the whole US religious deal at the moment. They're not deliberately scapegoating atheists as a real group, but atheism is the spectre they raise when they want to go after anyone--anyone or anything bad is bad because it's "Godless", right? Atheists aren't so much bad as people with a belief set--they're bad as a myth. Unfortunately for actual atheists, someone may at some point start noticing that they embody the myth.
From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
goyanamasu
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12173
|
posted 04 April 2006 01:50 PM
KKK Yes, I am thinking of what you termed the second wave. But is that indignation properly placed? The discussion was not about abolitionists. The point I would make is that the Klan did not string up Catholics, in the US. Such retorts easily grow into flames. Stringing up Catholic ante-dates . . . blah, blah . . . It helps avoid this cycle that a) I concede the point; b) I'm reading about how 16th century Spanish sailors under the command of a 'good' Catholic murdered Pacific islanders in bunches of 200 at a time. Their attitude appeared to be graded high to low: light skin tone down to dark regarding these indigenous people. [ 04 April 2006: Message edited by: goyanamasu ]
From: End Arbitrary Management Style Now | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273
|
posted 05 April 2006 03:54 PM
Then there was the Gallup Poll in 1999 that asked the following question of USians:“If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for President who happened to be a 'X' would you vote for that person?" When “X” is “Atheist” the result was 49%. Sounds pretty tolerant, eh? Well, here are the results for other “hated” minority groups: Baptist 94% Black 95% Catholic 94% Homosexual 59% Jewish 92% Mormon 99% Woman 92% Source
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273
|
posted 20 October 2006 06:56 PM
quote: Originally posted by M. Spector: Then there was the Gallup Poll in 1999 that asked the following question of USians:“If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for President who happened to be a 'X' would you vote for that person?" When “X” is “Atheist” the result was 49%.
The current figures are even worse: quote: In a Gallup Poll last month [September 2006] of 1,010 adults, majorities said Americans are ready to elect a female (61%), a black (58%) or a Jewish (55%) president. ....When it comes to religion, the Gallup Poll indicates that American voters are less picky about which God a candidate believes in than in whether he or she is a believer at all - just 14% said Americans are ready to elect a president who's an atheist.
Source
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Geneva
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3808
|
posted 21 October 2006 04:36 AM
a highly critical review of Dawkins latest: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/22/books/review/Holt.t.htmlThere is lots of good, hard-hitting stuff about the imbecilities of religious fanatics and frauds of all stripes, but the tone is smug and the logic occasionally sloppy. Dawkins fans accustomed to his elegant prose might be surprised to come across such vulgarisms as “sucking up to God” and “Nur Nurny Nur Nur” (here the author, in a dubious polemical ploy, is imagining his theological adversary as a snotty playground brat). It’s all in good fun when Dawkins mocks a buffoon like Pat Robertson and fundamentalist pastors like the one who created “Hell Houses” to frighten sin-prone children at Halloween. But it is less edifying when he questions the sincerity of serious thinkers who disagree with him, like the late Stephen Jay Gould, or insinuates that recipients of the million-dollar-plus Templeton Prize, awarded for work reconciling science and spirituality, are intellectually dishonest (and presumably venal to boot). In a particularly low blow, he accuses Richard Swinburne, a philosopher of religion and science at Oxford, of attempting to “justify the Holocaust,” when Swinburne was struggling to square such monumental evils with the existence of a loving God. Perhaps all is fair in consciousness-raising. But Dawkins’s avowed hostility can make for scattershot reasoning as well as for rhetorical excess. [ 21 October 2006: Message edited by: Geneva ]
From: um, well | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140
|
posted 21 October 2006 08:36 AM
The entire passage from the review reads: quote: Perhaps all is fair in consciousness-raising. But Dawkins’s avowed hostility can make for scattershot reasoning as well as for rhetorical excess. Moreover, in training his Darwinian guns on religion, he risks destroying a larger target than he intends.
I don't see Dawkins' book as destroying very much of anything. However, in another thread debating with M.Spector I called this approach by Dawkins a "shotgun" approach, blasting away ineffectively when a more focussed approach, a natural history of religion approach, would be better and more effective at identifying the harmful components of religion. The late Carl Rogers (1902-1987), who was brought up in a strict religious setting, overcame his early religious prejudices and managed to become the winner of the humanist of the year by the American Humanist Association. He mentioned in one of his books, On Becoming A Person I think, his fondness for a particular quote: quote: Don't be an ammunition wagon. Be a rifle.
Dawkins could use such advice. My two bits.
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273
|
posted 21 October 2006 11:56 AM
Continuing with the thread drift:I find Holt's review superficial and in some ways dishonest. He states that there are no decisive arguments for or against the existence of God (something that Dawkins would agree with, since he rates himself as a 6 out of 7 on a scale of certainty that God does not exist), and yet Holt claims that Dawkins fails to realize there are "sophisticated" philosophical arguments in favour of God's existence that are difficult to refute. It's as if Dawkins can be dismissed because he doesn't take on those arguments in serious philosophical debate, and thus the religious philosophers win by default. He also tries to use the tired old "law of entropy" argument to suggest that the existence of an intelligent creator, however "improbable", is compatible with the laws of physics. If Holt actually understood anything about entropy, he would know that the creation of the universe ex nihilo was a supreme example of reverse entropy. Dawkins's focus is not so scattered as some might think. He makes it clear in his opening chapter, which you can read online HERE, that his target is what he calls "supernatural religion": quote: By 'religion' Einstein meant something entirely different from what is conventionally meant. As I continue to clarify the distinction between supernatural religion on the one hand and Einsteinian religion on the other, bear in mind that I am calling only supernatural gods delusional.
Dawkins explains in detail what he means by Einsteinian religion, while showing how Einstein's words have been taken out of context to "prove" he believed in a personal God.
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mayakovsky
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5171
|
posted 21 October 2006 10:01 PM
It is odd that this 19th century argument has come around again. I usually adhere to the advice of another 19th century figure Walt Whitman, who argued that it is useless to argue about religion. But I love arguing about religion mainly because of the language!"I'm often left to feel that I've crossed a certain line. Perhaps we are most sensitive around the rim of our deeper fears?" Whatever makes you believe I say!
From: New Bedford | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140
|
posted 09 November 2006 11:06 PM
[M.Spector take note!]Alexander Saxton has recently released his new book, Religion and the Human Prospect. It's put out by Monthly Review Press and looks to be of a high quality. Here's an interview with the author. A few remarks from the interview follow. quote: Rosanne Dunbar-Ortiz: Why did it take so long for the Left, here and elsewhere, to recognize the religious surge that became politicized in the 1970s?Alexander Saxton: That religious surge marked the end of the so-called Age of Secularism which began with the 18th-century Enlightenment and ended shortly after World War II. The hard core of secularism was disbelief, or atheism, and this (in modern times at least) had its beginnings in the left wing of the Enlightenment. During the 19th century, Marxism and Marxist-oriented socialist and labor parties inherited the role of cutting edge for disbelief. But these parties faced a difficult problem. Their political task was to organize industrial workers in opposition to capitalism, yet religious belief remained more solidly based in working-class communities than among upper-class, educated, bourgeois supporters of capitalism. The upper classes tended to adopt skeptical, scientific styles for their own thought, while at the same time supporting and subsidizing clerical hierarchies that propagated religion in working-class communities ...
The author explores the question of why the left has failed to put a serious dent in working class religious belief. quote: AS: An essential first step for inducing believers to reexamine their beliefs would be a persuasive, secular explanation of how religion began, and why it spread universally among human societies, since religion's universality provides one of its prime claims to belief. For a variety of reasons, Marxists were unable to come up with such an explanation ...
Further, quote: ... describing recent critical writings by scientists about religion. Generally, these pay little heed to how religious belief actually worked in history and tell us instead why that belief is unreasonable, or unscientific. The book by E.O. Wilson is a good example. But I want to come at this from a different angle ... a critic of religion -- in order to wield any sort of persuasive power -- has to begin by explaining religion's origin and how it became universal. And when I say "explain," I mean not mystical or spiritual meditations, but a historical account that will be as hard-nosed and empirical as possible.
In conclusion, quote: My book concludes that the changed role of religious belief is irreversible. Religion can no longer function adaptively for the human species. On the contrary, it tends increasingly to become destructive. [the author hopes to convey the importance of ] ...the absolute necessity of recalling (at least one time each day) that the primary purpose is not winning debates about religion. The purpose is survival of human culture, which rests on the survival of biological life on earth. The first step, then, is not converting believers into non-believers, but turning them into fellow travelers [with] ... overlaps of shared experience.
Looks like an interesting read.
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603
|
posted 10 November 2006 10:49 AM
quote: I find Holt's review superficial and in some ways dishonest. He states that there are no decisive arguments for or against the existence of God
Meh, useless debate. Without the prior assumption that God exists, you cannot prove that God does. Reversely, without the prior assumption that God doesn't exist, it's impossible to prove the God doesn't. Athiests being hated is pretty simple to see as well... I've had the pleasure of going through a few God debates with some heavily Christian folks who will argue 'Without God, there cannot be good or evil, without good or evil there can't be morales' and then try to tie that in to the entire reason our code of ethics exists is because God does'. Heh, it was a fun discussion in the form of seeing the arguements that put that together. Using this justification, other religions are still bound by their codes or morales. Athiests are viewed as being free of these morales (and therefore not much liked). The actual dispute though isn't between religous/athiest groups... It's the difference between Ascenders and Descenders that the distrust stems from. Ascenders (that majority of religious) resist the temptations of this world for a future 'Ascendence' to another world (IE heaven). Most religions fall under ascender thought. Athiests are most commonly Descenders, who reject the spritual world or the ascendance thought and embrace the pleasures of this world (sorry, that's a 2 liner explaination of a multi-page theory. hehe). The hatred isn't truely directed as athiests, it's directed towards Descenders... It just happens to be almost all descenders are athiests. (there is a third category which is a mix between the 2... transcenders... Which is closer to what you're hitting on Morningstar) A fun thing to explain to those firm beleivers is the difference between religion and science and why they are polar opposites. Religion on one side of the scale is observing the world and using the core values you hold to define the world around you. Your values define what you observe Science on the other side of the scale is to observe the world and define what you beleive by what you observe. Your values are defined by what you observe
quote: if you refuse to worship, yet feel your spirit connection to everything around you, is that athiest?
I beleive the calssic defination of Athiest is an outright rejection of a greater power... So a few groups get lumped together as athiests. Personally I beleive this 'closeness to God' is a spiritual experience that any may reach... Just the religious nuts have defined this experience by using their values of God as opposed to defining their values by the spiritual experience we can all have. A large number of Athiests simply reject the notion because they only know it as defined by the Christian religion most Athiests reject.
eddited many times for grammar and spelling [ 10 November 2006: Message edited by: Noise ] [ 10 November 2006: Message edited by: Noise ]
From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914
|
posted 27 November 2006 10:59 AM
quote: lasting away ineffectively when a more focussed approach, a natural history of religion approach, would be better and more effective at identifying the harmful components of religion.
How do you know what's "harmful" and what's not? Let's take murder, for example. How do you affirm an intrinsic value in a human life? How is a person an ethical subject any more than cell of pond scum? Atheist ethics are no more firmly grounded in reason than those based on relgious doctrine. The notion that life - even as the sine qua non of ethics - has intrinsic value is not unassailable. Just because we have the desire to continue living (and might extend that to others) doesn't mean that we have any objective value. There is nothing outstanding about humanity, or human individuals. "Value" will always be a matter of ideology, atheist or not. Even the trap of "selfish genes" that Dawkins and the others fall into, while perhaps being a determinative fact, offers no grounds for a move to ethics. In short, you cannot derive an ethical standard from the mere fact of our existence, and thus, every "scientific" Atheist argument fails just like the religious ones. [ 27 November 2006: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]
From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140
|
posted 27 November 2006 11:27 AM
quote: B.L. Zeebub LLD: There is nothing outstanding about humanity, or human individuals. "Value" will always be a matter of ideology, atheist or not.
Well then, you really should avoid terms like "objective value" shouldn't you? quote: BLZ: How do you know what's "harmful" and what's not? Let's take murder, for example. How do you affirm an intrinsic value in a human life? How is a person an ethical subject any more than cell of pond scum?
I think you might be missing my point. Religion has changed. Christians, for example, no longer claim that the Sun moves around the Earth and scientists are not shown the instruments of torture when they claim that it is the Earth that moves around the Sun. The religion survives despite the change. Certain claims made by religion are abandoned. And it seems to me that it is a good thing to dispose of such unsubstantiated, and, in this case, harmful claims that hold human development back. Providing such examples isn't that difficult. If we dispose of such harmful claims then we would, presumably, be left with the unharmful part of religion. I'm more content with such an approach than that of Dawkins - though it is clear that he provides a very useful service. [ 27 November 2006: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273
|
posted 12 December 2006 10:05 AM
quote: Originally posted by unclebenny: I live in a country where, believe it or not, nearly everyone is an atheist (they're Buddhist, and Buddhists aren't theistic). But they seem to be no more reasonable (on the contrary), humane or tolerant. It makes me think that theism (or lack thereof) does not get to the heart of the problem here.unclebenny
No, it doesn't.The problem is with people believing in things without any evidence; accepting the existence of invisible spaghetti monsters, fairies, angels, Santa Claus, virgin births, resurrection, reincarnation, and 1001 other notions that foul the brains of billions of people on this planet and spoil their capacity to make rational choices and decisions, or to understand the true nature of the reality they live in.
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 01 January 2007 03:02 PM
Its a sad day for the rationalist when they take on the same mode of emo-filled political discourse as the people they say they are opposed to.So: quote: Why, then, are we atheists in general so unnoticed, and why is this changing? Since atheists, in general, think there are much more important and interesting topics to discuss than whether or not God -- which God? -- exists, we seldom raise the issue.
So, yes. And so what? Why write more about it? But perhaps I am just a puritan. [ 01 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palamedes
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13677
|
posted 02 January 2007 08:15 AM
I think what we are seeing is a backlash.North American society is trying very hard to stamp out religion of all forms in public - from courthouses, to schools, to football practices etc. The seperation of church and state in the US was only the first part. The second part was for simple things such as a 'Merry Christmas' greeting to be deemed as offensive. The religious (particularly Christians) see their traditions eroding, and are looking for a scapegoat. When religion is removed - the de facto state religion essentially becomes atheism. Thus, the religious view the atheists as being responsbile for no longer being able to practice and celebrate their religion publicly. History has also given us states with atheists leaders who determined religion was all hogwash and therefore decreed that religions be banned. Coincidentally, this is one of the fears the religious right has of socialism.
From: Toronto | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312
|
posted 02 January 2007 08:49 AM
quote: North American society is trying very hard to stamp out religion of all forms in public - from courthouses, to schools, to football practices etc.
Did you just step out of an Ayn Rand novel? You are certainly not describing anything I would be familiar with in the real world. quote:
The seperation of church and state in the US was only the first part. The second part was for simple things such as a 'Merry Christmas' greeting to be deemed as offensive.
By whom? This is one of the great lies by the demented right. Who, who exactly, deemed "merry christmas" to be offensive? Obviously you are a graduate of the Rush Limbaugh School of Smear By Lying. quote:
The religious (particularly Christians) see their traditions eroding, and are looking for a scapegoat.
Something we can agree on. Of course Christian traditions are eroding because Christians have abandoned them to the Greater God of Consumerism and Wanton Materialism. The other great Christian tradition, though, of racism and scapegoating is alive and well. quote:
When religion is removed - the de facto state religion essentially becomes atheism.
What utter bullshit. quote:
Thus, the religious view the atheists as being responsbile for no longer being able to practice and celebrate their religion publicly.
They don't do that? So all the christmass lights, the millions of tree sacrifices, all the nativity scenes, etc ..., were all done in secret and yet I was privy to them all. Amazing! I must be soooo special. quote:
Coincidentally, this is one of the fears the religious right has of socialism.
Yes, one of. Universal health care, equal rights for women, public education, being among the many, many others.[ 02 January 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Martha (but not Stewart)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12335
|
posted 02 January 2007 09:35 AM
I checked the Brights web page, which was pretty interesting. There is a section devoted to 37 Enthusiastic Brights -- perhaps they should claim the word Illuminati for this group. I noticed the following demographic breakdown among the 37 Enthusiastic Brights:Female: 7. Bearded male: 15. Unbearded male: 15. In the adult male population at large, about 20% sport beards. Thus, male Enthusiastic Brights are 2.5 times as likely to be bearded as the average adult male. Hmmmm. ; )
From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palamedes
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13677
|
posted 02 January 2007 09:40 AM
quote:
Did you just step out of an Ayn Rand novel? You are certainly not describing anything I would be familiar with in the real world.
So, you haven't noticed that the Lord's prayer is no longer recited in public schools? You don't think the practice of swearing an oath on the bible is coming under attack? You haven't noticed the re-branding of the word Christmas to holiday for nearly all government institutions - as well as major retailers? I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with it. But you would have to be pretty unobservant to be completely unaware that change (progress) is happening. There are cases every week of challenges to traditional religious practices. quote:
By whom? This is one of the great lies by the demented right. Who, who exactly, deemed "merry christmas" to be offensive? Obviously you are a graduate of the Rush Limbaugh School of Smear By Lying.
So no one has ever taken offense to it, and stores aren't instructing their employees to say Happy Holidays or Seasons Greetings instead of Merry Christmas. OK, chief, whatever. quote:
Something we can agree on. Of course Christian traditions are eroding because Christians have abandoned them to the Greater God of Consumerism and Wanton Materialism. The other great Christian tradition, though, of racism and scapegoating is alive and well.
Well, consumerism is one of the reasons - but not the only reason. Your post showing your extreme bigotry against Christianity tells me everything I need to know about your viewpoint. I guess Tommy Douglas must have been a racist as well. Does your bigotry extend to all religions or just Christianity?
From: Toronto | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214
|
posted 02 January 2007 09:56 AM
Well, I remember as a child almost every business wishing everyone a merry "X-Mass". I always found that pretty tacky.The annual parrade of outraged Christains bemoaning the passage of "Merry Christmas" has become annoying. It's a straw man argument. There is no larger movement afoot anywhere to attack Merry Christmas. Heck, you don't get much more secularist and athiestic than me, and I could care less how the season is expressed. I know there are secularist organizations that are currently attempting to get city councils to drop the recitation of the lord's prayer at the start of council meetings. Again, I don't really care so much about that, as I do other ways in which our government attempts to establish a religion as teh official state religion-- as it does here in Ontario by funding Catholic schools in prejudice over all, and persecutes those who don't want to fund religious education, or other non-sequitors. More disturbing is the Law Courts, who seem to believe that membership in any Priest Hood of any denomination comes with a get out of jail free card. There's the obvious examples of pedophile priests and ministers who have had their bosses cover up for them-- bosses that never get charged with being accessories after the fact-- or indeed, co-conspirators in these crimes. And once every couple of years in this province, a young teen or child is killed during an attempt to rid his or her body of a demon. The ministers and priests who encourage this dangerous idiocy never get charged with anything. That's what has to change. Put religion beneath the law, like everyone.... except politicians... various and sundry professionals...RCMP commissioners...... sigh.
From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 02 January 2007 11:24 AM
quote: Originally posted by Palamedes: North American society is trying very hard to stamp out religion of all forms in public - from courthouses, to schools, to football practices etc.
Crap. The United States, in particular, is one of the most overtly religious societies in the world. Not very many nations have the audacity to proclaim their fealty to god, on every single penny that they issue. Here is what it looks like from an Arab point of view: quote: America is the world's most avowedly religious country. References to God permeate the national life, from coins to buildings to common forms of speech: in God we trust, God's country, God bless America, and on and on. George Bush's power base is made up of the 60-70 million fundamentalist Christians who, like him, believe they have seen Jesus and are here to do God's work in God's country. Some sociologists and journalists (including Francis Fukuyuma and David Brooks) have argued that contemporary American religion is the result of a desire for community and a long-gone sense of stability, given the fact that approximately 20 per cent of the population is moving from home to home all the time. But the evidence for that desire is true only up to a point: what matters more is religion by prophetic illumination, unshakeable conviction in a sometimes apocalyptic sense of mission, and a heedless disregard of small-scale facts and complications. The enormous geographical distance of the country from the turbulent world is another factor, as is the fact that Canada and Mexico are continental neighbours with little capability of tempering American enthusiasm.
The other America
An interesting article too, as it discusses at length, some of the problems experienced by Arab leaders (in particular Yasser Arafat) in conprehending the complexities of American politics, and the cultural life they reflect. [ 02 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312
|
posted 02 January 2007 11:44 AM
quote:
So, you haven't noticed that the Lord's prayer is no longer recited in public schools?
And nor should they be as the key descriptor, in case you missed it while typing, is public. Now, I have no objections to the Lord's Prayer be recited in public schools so long as everyone then bows to the east and recites a passage from the Koran and then dons head skull and beads to sing from the Torah, and then, at the very minimum, recites the humanist pledge. Are you okay with that? Make for a long school day, I think. quote:
You don't think the practice of swearing an oath on the bible is coming under attack?
It should be, but, no, it is not. Recent news tells us it is the Koran that is under attack by other God freaks: Here's a heart warming example of that Christian tolerance I hear so much about: Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran.He should not be allowed to do so -- not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization. Civilization, no less. quote:
You haven't noticed the re-branding of the word Christmas to holiday for nearly all government institutions - as well as major retailers?
Indeed, I have. And who is responsible for such rebranding? Retailers who have also commercialized Christmas to the point baby Jesus has been supplanted by Santa Clause while a few months later sad, sacrificed Jesus has been supplanted by the happy, hoppy, egg depositing easter bunny. And how have Christians responded to this sacreligious co-opting of their most closely held beliefs and sacraments, with billions of dollars in annual spending, of course. And then they blame immigrants, and non-Christians for their thorough lack of any deeper meaning in the annual orgies of grotesque consumption. quote:
I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with it. But you would have to be pretty unobservant to be completely unaware that change (progress) is happening. There are cases every week of challenges to traditional religious practices.
If you don't think there is anything wrong with it and you even call it progress, why are we having this discussion? quote:
So no one has ever taken offense to it, and stores aren't instructing their employees to say Happy Holidays or Seasons Greetings instead of Merry Christmas. OK, chief, whatever.
Look, see above. As far as I can tell, Christians prefer the God of Consumerism and Capitalism which has branded and removed the Christ from Christmas far more than any son of the God of Abraham. quote:
Does your bigotry extend to all religions or just Christianity?
Unlike most Christians, I respect the right of everyone to believe and practice as they like. But, yes, I do have a bias against "all religions" as I believe people go to religion not for the discovery of truth but for the reinforcement of bigotries and pre-conceptions. Further, I don't think religion holds truth but rather discourages people from the journey of discovering truth whatever it may be. Religion was invented, in my view, to convince the masses to accept their daily suffering in servitude to their masters in exchange for a reward, beyond death, that never comes. It is for that reason it is never surprising to discover the close relationships between those who hold political power and those who hold religious power. Even more, I think humans are incapable of evolving socially and addressing the serious crises that confront us now and in the not too distant future so long as we remained committed to infantile beliefs that absolve us of responsibility for each other and the world we share.
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Palamedes
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13677
|
posted 02 January 2007 02:53 PM
I think you're missing the point. No one is saying America is not religious enough relative to other nations. They are saying that they can not practice their religion as much as they used to. They feel that their way of life is being encroached upon."America is the world's most avowedly religious country." And you don't really think that the US is the most avowedly religous country? Get real. Big deal, they have God on their coins. They're not executing people for not being Christian.
From: Toronto | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 02 January 2007 03:13 PM
quote: Originally posted by Palamedes: I think you're missing the point. No one is saying America is not religious enough relative to other nations. They are saying that they can not practice their religion as much as they used to. They feel that their way of life is being encroached upon."America is the world's most avowedly religious country." And you don't really think that the US is the most avowedly religous country? Get real. Big deal, they have God on their coins. They're not executing people for not being Christian.
Where is there a goverment that is executing people for not following the majority faith?
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palamedes
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13677
|
posted 02 January 2007 03:26 PM
quote:
Are you okay with that? Make for a long school day, I think.
It would be fairly easy to divide up the home rooms by religion, and allow for morning prayer of whatever faith they belong to. Then rather than have no religion, you would have all religions. Rather than provide that option, they have stripped religion out - thus presenting children with the sense that there is no religion. quote:
It should be, but, no, it is not. Recent news tells us it is the Koran that is under attack by other God freaks:
It should be, and it will be. It is only a matter or time. I won't address your anecdotal story where you imply that some crackhead is representative of Christianity. Christmas has been changing over the years. Commercialization has changed it, and you can be sure that many Christians are upset about that too. However, commercialization does not stop people from celebrating Christmas in public, the way that the recent surge has. quote:
If you don't think there is anything wrong with it and you even call it progress, why are we having this discussion?
Well. I am simply explaining one possible theory as to why there is a dislike of atheists. Some Christians perceive that as the growing tide that will outlaw their religion. "Unlike most Christians, I respect the right of everyone to believe and practice as they like. " You see, this is lip service that I hear a lot. But it isn't really followed - because I know that if there is ever a time when a religious right is up against a right of any other kind - the other kind will always trump the religious right. This is because fundamentally, you think that religion is a bunch of hocus pocus and you don't want to see anything sacrificed for it. Do you respect the right of men to marry two wives? Do you respect the right of Jehovah Witnesses to let their children die rather than get a blood transfusion? Do you respect the right of Mormons to go door to door? quote:
Further, I don't think religion holds truth but rather discourages people from the journey of discovering truth whatever it may be.
Think of this as your belief- as your religion. Now, it is one thing for you to hold these views. It is quite another for you to assume this to be the truth and therefore base all laws on your beliefs. I don't believe in religion either, but I don't assume that I am right and they are wrong.
From: Toronto | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 02 January 2007 03:38 PM
Yes, interesting that this was undertaken at the behest of religious authorities put into place at the behest of the USA. Nice. And just to make it clear the crime was conversion, not christianity itself, but that is just nitpicking. Anything else, anywhere? [ 02 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 02 January 2007 03:44 PM
quote: Do you respect the right of men to marry two wives? Do you respect the right of Jehovah Witnesses to let their children die rather than get a blood transfusion? Do you respect the right of Mormons to go door to door?
I respect the right of any consenting adults to marry any other consenting adults, including polygamy. It sure isn't any of my business. I also respect the right of anyone to go door to door selling anything, including religion, as long as they leave when they're told to, and Mormons generally do. I don't recognize anyone's right to let any child die for any reason, including religious. I respect people's right to let themselves die out of religious conviction and I even respect people's right to commit suicide or have someone help them commit suicide. But I definitely don't recognize that letting a child die of extreme neglect, no matter what the reason, is a "right", religious or otherwise. Just as I also don't consider forcing your children to undergo FGM to be a religious "right". Nor do I consider it anyone's "right" to beat their children or their spouses, despite what their idiotic fundy beliefs tell them is okay. As far as I'm concerned, people should have the right to do anything that might perhaps hurt themselves but not others in the name of their religion. When you start hurting other people with your stupidity, that's when you need to be contained.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
abnormal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1245
|
posted 02 January 2007 05:38 PM
My apologies if someone has already posted this. quote: Atheists say they've been threatened over their views DYLAN T. LOVAN Associated Press LOUISVILLE, Ky. - The note on Blair Scott's windshield wasn't a nice one.The anonymous writer had to have seen Scott's atheist-themed bumper sticker, an uncommon sight in the small south Alabama town where he lived at the time. "It just amazed me that people would take time out of their day to return to their car, grab a pen and paper and write a 'You're going to hell and you're going to burn in a lake of fire,' and stick it under my windshield," said Scott, a 36-year-old veteran who installs computer systems in prisons. Outspoken atheists like Scott remain a minority, but there are dozens of atheist chapters sprouting up around the country, and even many in Southern states dominated by conservative Christians. Many who consider themselves atheists said they're afraid to mention their views on religion or that they don't believe in deities. It's an especially unpopular opinion in the South, they said. "Do I think that any of these people are really afraid if someone knows they're an atheist that they're going to get shot down on the street tomorrow? No. But the thought is always there in the back of your mind," said Joe Mays, Louisville computer technician who helped organize an atheist group that meets monthly. Atheism is generally considered a disbelief in god or other deities, but some self-described atheists said they feel it is better described as a conclusion one arrives at sometime in their life. "I don't really care for the word belief," said Edwin Kagan, a northern Kentucky lawyer who has defended atheist clients. "People say do I believe in evolution? It's not something to be believed in, it's something to be learned. Like the multiplication table. Do you believe in the multiplication table, or do you use it, do you learn it?" Some estimates say as much as 15 percent of the population is atheist, though few call themselves by that title, said Jim Heldberg, national affiliation director for American Atheists in San Francisco. Heldberg said his group has 60 independent groups in many cities around the country. And there are many high-profile people who have expressed atheist views or a disbelief in God, including cyclist Lance Armstrong, golfer Annika Sorenstam and actresses Angelina Jolie and Jodie Foster. At a meeting of the Louisville atheist group earlier this year, several members spoke of a fear of retribution if they mentioned their views around family or at work. Most didn't want to be identified. The members - including a factory worker, a nurse, a real estate agent, an accountant and some who work in computers - considered putting up flyers in local bookstores to attract new members, but they scrapped the idea when one said they would likely be torn down. "Nobody's your friend when you're an atheist," one member said. Another member, Christopher Helbert, wryly suggested that he would rather his parents know he was gay than an atheist, because they would say "gay is curable." A study at the University of Minnesota this year lends credence to the group's discussion. It found that Americans favor gays and lesbians, recent immigrants and Muslims over atheists in "sharing their vision of American society." Respondents also said they were least accepting of intermarriage with atheists than with any other group. "I think the key to this animosity is probably this idea that somehow morality and religion are deeply linked and if you lose any kind of religious doctrine, you inevitably lose some purchase upon morality," ... "People think unless you've found Jesus, you can't love your neighbor in any significant sense," ... Some atheists have gone to court to challenge American institutions, most popularly the "Under God" portion of the Pledge of Allegiance, which was added in 1954. In 2002, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools, agreeing with a suit filed by atheist Michael Newdow of Sacramento, Calif. The Supreme Court in 2004 reversed that decision. Newdow has since revived the case and last year a federal judge ruled in his favor. Newdow said atheists cannot get elected to office and that elected officials consistently side with people of faith on many issues. "Government sends the message that it's a bad thing to be an atheist," Newdow said in a phone interview. Scott said when he was living in Mobile, Ala., people were tipped off to his atheist views after he wrote an editorial to the local newspaper protesting a proposed bible class at a public school. He said he never mentioned that he was an atheist in the letter. Scott said after that, his car was bashed up by a baseball bat and a cross was planted in his yard. He has since moved to Huntsville and now heads a local atheist chapter in that town, which he said is much more tolerant because of the number of NASA scientists who live there. "I think there's almost an unwillingness to come out of the closet for most atheists, especially in the Bible belt, because of the type of repercussions from people of faith," he said. "Some nasty stuff has happened to people, some really nasty stuff. And people are afraid of that."
emphasis addedI really wanted to post the entire article but the bits I've deleted really aren't important to the tone of the whole.
From: far, far away | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 02 January 2007 05:42 PM
quote: Originally posted by Michelle: Cueball, yes, it's about apostasy. But the fact remains that it is religious persecution, and that in some countries, you can be legally murdered by the state for converting while that is not the case here. That does not mean that there is no religious persecution here - there definitely is - but it is not enshrined in law that you can receive the death penalty for converting to another religion from Christianity. The opponent of my opponent is not my ally.
My original point really had nothing to do with wether or not the USA kills Non-Christians, but with the pervasivness of Christian culture as an institutionalized force in society. We don't see it because we are inured to it. This bit about "killing people because they are not Christian" is a red herring. I bit only because I knew where it was going, which was nowhere. I don't think I have any allies, really, mostly I am just pissed off. [ 02 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312
|
posted 02 January 2007 06:00 PM
quote:
It would be fairly easy to divide up the home rooms by religion, and allow for morning prayer of whatever faith they belong to. Then rather than have no religion, you would have all religions. Rather than provide that option, they have stripped religion out - thus presenting children with the sense that there is no religion.
Ah, segregation, another fine Christian tradition. Why do children need religion in public schools? Can't they get it at home? The religious right always tells us they children to not require sex education as they get that at home. Why is religion different? quote:
It should be, and it will be. It is only a matter or time. I won't address your anecdotal story where you imply that some crackhead is representative of Christianity.
It isn't anecdotal (if anecdotal means stories related not necessarily first hand) as it is world news. The web site I pulled that from is among dozens of so-called Christian sites all saying the same thing. You can't provide any real evidence, anecdotal or empirical to show the bible is being pulled out of public buildings. The story is about an elected official swearing an oath on a bible. Why is a bible, or any book, necessary? It is a throwback to superstition. quote:
Christmas has been changing over the years. Commercialization has changed it, and you can be sure that many Christians are upset about that too. However, commercialization does not stop people from celebrating Christmas in public, the way that the recent surge has.
Oh, bullshit, Christmas is everywhere. Christians have sold-out their God for commercialization and then cry like babies over one freaking Christmas tree -- a pagan symbol! quote:
You see, this is lip service that I hear a lot.
No, it is not. quote:
But it isn't really followed - because I know that if there is ever a time when a religious right is up against a right of any other kind - the other kind will always trump the religious right.
Yeah, like what? quote:
This is because fundamentally, you think that religion is a bunch of hocus pocus and you don't want to see anything sacrificed for it.
That is true. And I especially don't want to see people sacrificed for it. quote:
Do you respect the right of men to marry two wives? Do you respect the right of Jehovah Witnesses to let their children die rather than get a blood transfusion? Do you respect the right of Mormons to go door to door?
Michelle's addressed that far more adequatley than I could have. quote:
Think of this as your belief- as your religion. Now, it is one thing for you to hold these views. It is quite another for you to assume this to be the truth and therefore base all laws on your beliefs.
Nonsense. It is a personal belief. There is no dogma or institution founded around it, and I impose it on no other person. And unlike the religious right, of whatever denomination, I have no desire to make it the foundation of government with the inherent persecution or discrimination of anyone who does not share my views. I think if I could persuade enough people of the wisdom of my argument we could find see peace, but I hold out no hope of that. quote:
I don't believe in religion either, but I don't assume that I am right and they are wrong.
Sure.[ 02 January 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|