Are people who join atheist groups
Quote: rxwineYou're saying they were "probably only referring to muskets argument", something you should already be familiar with, and reject, I assume.
I didn't say that. I said that the notion of "positive rights" is a recent delusion and did not exist even in concept at the time. As such, there are no privileges - such as off days on religious holidays, provided space for churches, bans on Danish Cartoons - that come with being part of a religion.
It really is only there to say that US is a secular country, and that's it.
For a long while, almost a century, Islam used to be almost peaceful. It's only recently that relatively secular, tolerant and even somewhat democratic Sunni Islam started to be replaced by authoritarian Shi'a Islam and outright fundamentalist Wahhabi and various sectarian movements.
Worse still, US itself played and keeps playing a key role in this transformation of Islam from a reasonably peaceful religion to a set of hardline fundamentalist cults. Radical Islamism has been supported since Afghanistan in the 1980s, prominently in Iraq in 2003 (yes, Hussein was a bad apple, but the Sunni sect he belonged to was the most peaceful one), and recently in Libya.
Quote: siliconeThat is the problem with our society today is that we are wayyy too open minded.
Huh? So, we need to be more close minded?
Quote: siliconeWe must stand for something or we are nothing.
Being open minded does not preclude "standing for something."
Quote: siliconeI beleve in allowing people to love thier lives however, when one attempts to tell the world that their way is the only way then .... is when I believe we need to stop.
Then, we agree. Religious groups should not force their way on others.
Quote: siliconeAs for this prop 8 thing... I have many friends that are wuote unquote different or living alternate life styles and I am not opposed to them doing so so as long as they do not impinge their beliefs upon me or society. Yet I become very perterved becaus ethe government is paving the way for them to give their significant other benefits and That is where I draw the line.
I don't know much about "Prop 8," but it doesn't sound like anyone who advocates gay marriage is trying to impinge their beliefs on anyone else -- they just want the freedom to get married and enjoy the benefits that other married couples have.
Quote: siliconeMy question is: so in order to put my elderly parent or my adult child on my benefits I woudl have to profess to the world that I am living an alternate liife style with those folks? This is unfair. I do not care of people live their lives as they want but when government starts handing out extra rights based on that then is when I get heated and do not like or respect that population.
Again, I don't know much about the details of Prop 8, but I doubt that it would grant any special benefits just for gay people -- of course, that likely would be unfair.
Quote: siliconeMy parents worked and paid into the system as well as my adult child and when they need teh benefots I have I shodl be allowed to give them those just as someone living an alternate life style is being allowed to do now per our supreme court. So where is the equality here !!? I believe all people are created equal why are we treated indifferent ? That os what causes society to hate on others of different lifestyles, religions, beliefs etc... Government cultivates that hate.
Let's not jump to conclusions. Please provide a link to the Prop 8 clause(s) that grants special benefits.
Quote: AZDuffman"Tolerance is the virtue of believing in nothing" aka "the virtue of a man without convictions.
On the contrary -- tolerant individuals usually have to have the strength of their convictions to fend off continual attacks by the legions of intolerant.
Quote: onenickelmiracleWould an atheist even believe society even exists? Logically, the idea of society is merely the opinions of others passed on as facts to sway individual actions or complacency.
Huh? Of course, "an atheist" believes that society exists.
Not sure about your definition of "society."
Quote: P90There is no such thing as a tolerant society.
Of course, there is.
Quote: P90Countries that employed a policy of "tolerance" towards incompatible cultures only amounted to petri dishes of protected intolerance by violent minorities.
You're going to have to be more specific.
Quote: rxwineQuestion for anyone. How do you square the constitutional freedom of religion against something like Islam. If you don't think Islam is good for the country.
You don't. Muslims have the same rights as anyone else. Freedom of religion is a fundamental principle of the U.S.
Quote: tuppOn the contrary -- tolerant individuals usually have to have the strength of their convictions to fend off continual attacks by the legions of intolerant.
Doesn't make sense, by definition the more tolerant you are the less convictions you have.
Quote: tuppOf course, there is.
Not to date.
Feel free to name one and get refuted with ease.
Quote: tuppYou're going to have to be more specific.
Islamic diasporas in the UK have been allowed to implement Sharia law. Guess what hap... wait, no guessing needed. If this isn't bad enough for you, you have to be ELISA.
Quote: AZDuffmanDoesn't make sense, by definition the more tolerant you are the less convictions you have.
By who's definition?... and do you mean "fewer" convictions, or weaker convictions?
Quote: P90Not to date. Feel free to name one and get refuted with ease.
You yourself used the phrase "Countries that employed a policy of 'tolerance'"..., so by your own words such societies existed (and they still do).
Most Western countries have tolerant societies.
Quote: P90Islamic diasporas in the UK have been allowed to implement Sharia law. Guess what hap... wait, no guessing needed. If this isn't bad enough for you, you have to be ELISA.
Of course, there are recent exceptions. Tolerance has worked well for a long time. We should not let a minority of radicals dissuade us from our fundamental principles.
Once we give-in to intolerance and abandon our principles, the radicals have won and we are just like them.
Quote: tuppHuh? Of course, "an atheist" believes that society exists.
Not sure about your definition of "society."
You can't prove society exists because it's intangible and ambiguous. You have your body and it's clear the cells work for the same goal keeping you alive, but to say all the people living act for a bigger similar goal isn't so easy. It's not my idea, but others have claimed it before such as Margaret Thatcher. If there is society, who is part of it and who isn't, for instance?
Quote: tuppBy who's definition?... and do you mean "fewer" convictions, or weaker convictions?
Just simple logic. When you are "intolerant" it is because of something going against what you believe. If you are more prone to saying, "anything is fine with me" then you really believe in nothing. And I guess it could mean either or both fewer and weaker.
Quote: tuppYou yourself used the phrase "Countries that employed a policy of 'tolerance'"..., so by your own words such societies existed (and they still do).
No.
When the governments applied a policy of 'tolerance', like they did in UK, all they got was sanctioned violent intolerance by local groups.
A society where you get stoned by your yesterday-immigrated neighbor and your government tells you to "tolerate it" is not a tolerant society.
Quote: tuppOf course, there are recent exceptions. Tolerance has worked well for a long time. We should not let a minority of radicals dissuade us from our fundamental principles.
No.
"Tolerance" has only worked as long as we only had to tolerate people who are exactly like us, except for a harmless quirk we don't notice 99.9% of the time and aren't bothered by the other 0.1%.
Quote: tuppOnce we give-in to intolerance and abandon our principles, the radicals have won and we are just like them.
No.
What separates us from them is not "tolerance", a recent libertard invention.
What separates us from them is freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of enterprise, non-violence towards others.
It's as meaningless to "tolerate" an intolerant culture as it is to fuck for virginity. All it accomplishes is enabling far worse injustice.
We can give up our pretend "tolerance", and we'll still be better - by our freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of enterprise, non-violence towards others.
You can't solve every problem in life by "tolerating" it. You can tolerate different sexual preferences, skin color, language. You can't tolerate "cultures" that deem everything you hold dear as evils to be destroyed.
In short, tolerance is respecting others' right to live a different life.
Including Pastafarians....(really? you cracked me up with this one. "Oh, great spaghetti! Cannoli get together and lasagna! Dammed be all antipasto worshipers!"...lol)
Quote: AZDuffmanJust simple logic. When you are "intolerant" it is because of something going against what you believe. If you are more prone to saying, "anything is fine with me" then you really believe in nothing. And I guess it could mean either or both fewer and weaker.
Really?
Quote: P90You can't tolerate "cultures" that deem everything you hold dear as evils to be destroyed.
Obama is tolerating Islamofacists with drones.
Quote: P90When the governments applied a policy of 'tolerance', like they did in UK, all they got was sanctioned violent intolerance by local groups. A society where you get stoned by your yesterday-immigrated neighbor and your government tells you to "tolerate it" is not a tolerant society.
Nevertheless, the UK is currently a tolerant society. What the government may or may not have told its citizens in a few recent events doesn't change that, nor does (thankfully) a few incidents of violence.
Quote: P90"Tolerance" has only worked as long as we only had to tolerate people who are exactly like us, except for a harmless quirk we don't notice 99.9% of the time and aren't bothered by the other 0.1%.
Not sure what you mean by "worked." It's not a question of "is it 'working?' It's a question of "do we want a free society?"
Anyway, relating to the topic of the OP, please explain how tolerating atheists hasn't "worked."
Quote: P90What separates us from them is not "tolerance", a recent libertard invention.
Are you referring to recent tolerant "libertards" such as: Thomas Jefferson; Abraham Lincoln; Mahatma Gandhi; or Martin Luther King, Jr.?
Quote: P90What separates us from them is freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of enterprise, non-violence towards others.
You have just listed the basic tenants of tolerance.
Quote: P90It's as meaningless to "tolerate" an intolerant culture as it is to fuck for virginity. All it accomplishes is enabling far worse injustice. We can give up our pretend "tolerance", and we'll still be better - by our freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of enterprise, non-violence towards others.
Again, you are condemning tolerance and advocating tolerance at the same time. I don't understand your point.
Quote: P90You can't solve every problem in life by "tolerating" it. You can tolerate different sexual preferences, skin color, language. You can't tolerate "cultures" that deem everything you hold dear as evils to be destroyed.
Of course, anyone who commits a violent criminal act should be punished. However, it would be wrong to condemn an entire ethnic/religious group or race because a few in a group commit a crime. Only the criminals should be condemned.
Quote: tuppOf course, anyone who commits a violent criminal act should be punished. However, it would be wrong to condemn an entire ethnic/religious group or race because a few in a group commit a crime. Only the criminals should be condemned.
Take the general U.S. conservative position on Israel/Palestinian situation.
Such as - One side is an irrational angry rock throwing mob making irrational demands, and the other side is Israel.
In actually, there are guilty and innocent players on both sides. This second is the tolerant position. Liberals tend to parse individuals out for examination. I hate to say it, but conservatives tend to broadly group everyone together and pronounce either "good" or "evil" on one or the other.
And that is my GENERALIZATION on liberals and conservatives. hah ha ha.
Quote: tuppNevertheless, the UK is currently a tolerant society. What the government may or may not have told its citizens in a few recent events doesn't change that, nor does (thankfully) a few incidents of violence.
No.
A society where intolerance and violence based on religion are tolerated because "multiculturalism" supposedly trumps natural rights is not a tolerant society.
Quote: tuppYou have just listed the basic tenants of tolerance.
No.
They are the basic tenets (sic) of capitalist democracy.
Tolerance isn't a necessary part of it, even if it's a usual part.
Again, there are two kinds of tolerance.
The good kind:
"We don't care what color you are, go to college and you get the exact same treatment. We don't care what you do in your bedroom - oral, anal, watersports, interracial, scat - just don't come to work smelling like it."
The bad kind:
"Even though your culture is primitive barbarism and stands against everything we stand for, it's as good as ours, because, umm, tolerance! Welcome, feel free to bring your Sharia Law book and enforce it!"
See right above.Quote: tuppAgain, you are condemning tolerance and advocating tolerance at the same time. I don't understand your point.
Quote: tuppOf course, anyone who commits a violent criminal act should be punished. However, it would be wrong to condemn an entire ethnic/religious group or race because a few in a group commit a crime. Only the criminals should be condemned.
No.
First of all, please don't mix up ethic groups and religious groups. You don't choose your ethnicity. You do choose your religion.
It would be wrong to condemn a culture that is compatible with ours just because a few in it commit a crime.
It is, however, the only right thing to do to condemn a culture that holds up as a virtue what we consider a crime.
Doesn't matter if it's just one of their facets. Doesn't matter if they "have a right to it". Doesn't matter if they were brought up this way.
The only way they may be allowed entrance, international travel, access to technology, or any other assistance or involvement in the international community is if they irrevocably renounce at least the part of their beliefs that is incompatible with our society.
If your religion says you should stone gay people and you actually believe it (Xtians don't, most barely know the Holy Bible has text on the inside too), you should have to check it at the door. Or go back to your quarantined reservation, the choice is yours.
Quote: AZDuffmanJust simple logic. When you are "intolerant" it is because of something going against what you believe. If you are more prone to saying, "anything is fine with me" then you really believe in nothing.
I think you're using some poor phrasing. "Anything" covers a lot of ground and I doubt you're going to find many people that say "anything is fine with me," so I'm not sure why you'd bother with such an example.
For me, many things are fine. I don't care what consenting adults do outside of the public eye. I don't care if people don't want to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle. I think owning guns is perfectly alright if you're not a felon convicted of a violent crime or a lunatic.
On the other hand, I don't want to partake of every single thing consenting adults can do behind closed doors. I always wear a helmet when I ride a motorcycle. And I own a single gun at this time and have no longing for a weapon with a large capacity magazine.
What I believe in is freedom. Freedom for people to make their own decisions about their own lives.
I also think "tolerance" is an unfortunate word to use for these issues. It has a connotation that I don't think serves us very well.
Quote: YesThereRealI heard their no such thing as athiest is that true? I dont no if shoudl believe it.
Yup, there really are atheists (well, maybe not in a foxhole, but I've never been there so can't say for sure), believe it.
Also a strong belief in a spell checker is recommended. :)
Quote: rxwineI hate to say it, but conservatives tend to broadly group everyone together and pronounce either "good" or "evil" on one or the other.
And that is my GENERALIZATION on liberals and conservatives. hah ha ha.
And like most generalizations it does nothing to foster understanding.
Quote: MonkeyMonkeyAnd like most generalizations it does nothing to foster understanding.
What? Conservatives often overgeneralizing to declare things one way or the other. Yes, it fosters much less understanding.
Quote: rxwineWhat? Conservatives often overgeneralizing to declare things one way or the other. Yes, it fosters much less understanding.
Sorry, I don't come across enough conservatives to believe that is some kind of wide spread behavior, therefore your assertion isn't worthy of comment and can have no validity.
Quote: MonkeyMonkeySorry, I don't come across enough conservatives to believe that is some kind of wide spread behavior, therefore your assertion isn't worthy of comment and can have no validity.
isn't worthy of comment
Except it was apparently.
Quote: MonkeyMonkeyYup, there really are atheists (well, maybe not in a foxhole, but I've never been there so can't say for sure), believe it.
There are no atheists in foxholes because godfearing folk shoot them in the back for Jebus.
Quote: 24BingoThere are no atheists in foxholes because godfearing folk shoot them in the back for Jebus.
I'm guessing that was supposed to be funny?
It fails to meet that criteria for me for a couple reasons:
- As I recall Tillman was a pretty good guy that gave up a promising future to serve his country. And he ended up dead. That pretty well sucks and isn't funny.
- While not particularly religious myself, I think making fun of someone's spiritual beliefs (the Jebus remark) to be in extremely poor taste. Every time the usual suspects haul out the Flying Spaghetti Monster I think, Wow, what a bunch of *****. A religious belief is typically a deeply held tenet and making fun of it is (to me) in the same neighborhood as making fun of someone's mother. So, again, not funny.
But hey, YMMV.
Quote: MonkeyMonkeyA religious belief is typically a deeply held tenet and making fun of it is (to me) in the same neighborhood as making fun of someone's mother.
That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. Believing in invisible incorporeal dragon is insanity; it doesn't become less crazy because the book that says so is 1,000 years old, all it becomes is legitimized insanity.
Religious people, their religions and their tenets should be mocked and discredited tirelessly, indiscriminately and mercilessly, in hope that it may save at least a few potential victims from acquiring one of these infectious mental diseases.
Quote: P90
Religious people, their religions and their tenets should be mocked and discredited tirelessly, indiscriminately and mercilessly, in hope that it may save at least a few potential victims from acquiring one of these infectious mental diseases.
Replace "religious" with "homophiles" and tell me how such a statement would play.
Quote: AZDuffmanReplace "religious" with "homophiles" and tell me how such a statement would play.
I don't think any group should be protected from free speech.
That said, while there is a debate on what fraction of choice is there in sexual orientation, by and large it's not something you choose. Religion is something you may be predisposed towards, but ultimately you do choose and purposely acquire it.
So I would consider mocking religious people more akin to mocking bugchasers.
Quote: MonkeyMonkey- While not particularly religious myself, I think making fun of someone's spiritual beliefs (the Jebus remark) to be in extremely poor taste. Every time the usual suspects haul out the Flying Spaghetti Monster I think, Wow, what a bunch of *****. A religious belief is typically a deeply held tenet and making fun of it is (to me) in the same neighborhood as making fun of someone's mother. So, again, not funny.
+1
Your posts are saving me a lot of time because you keep saying exactly what I'm thinking. I am not religious either (never been to church a day in my life), but I agree that mocking a person's religion is in very poor taste.
Also, the source of this comment is ironic because Bingo's the guy who throws a fit whenever anyone mocks his "ethically dissimilar" remark.
Quote: P90I don't think any group should be protected from free speech.
That said, while there is a debate on what fraction of choice is there in sexual orientation, by and large it's not something you choose. Religion is something you may be predisposed towards, but ultimately you do choose and purposely acquire it.
I didn't say I had a problem with free speech. What I said was make such a statement about homophiles and tell me how it would play. People choose who they lie down with, and heteros certainly choose to be either a Lady GaGa homophile or not.
And by standards of atheists, homosexuals must choose their lifestyle because no "gay gene" has been proven and if we cannot prove it we must deny its exists.
Or have I been getting the atheist position wrong?
Quote: AZDuffmanAnd by standards of atheists, homosexuals must choose their lifestyle because no "gay gene" has been proven and if we cannot prove it we must deny its exists.
Ouch! An AZ slam dunk. ;)
Quote: AZDuffmanI didn't say I had a problem with free speech. What I said was make such a statement about homophiles and tell me how it would play. People choose who they lie down with, and heteros certainly choose to be either a Lady GaGa homophile or not.
I have no problem with making fun of gay people on my own time. They make just as open a butt for any joke as any other group. They aren't, on the other hand, particularly deserving of special mockery above and beyond, the way religions and similar cults are.
Quote: AZDuffmanAnd by standards of atheists, homosexuals must choose their lifestyle because no "gay gene" has been proven and if we cannot prove it we must deny its exists.
Or have I been getting the atheist position wrong?
You have been getting the scientific position wrong.
Current research indicates that the predominant factors in homosexuality are associated with early upbringing, as early as 4 years old, with some effects of genetic disposition and environmental on hormone production. It's not a matter of conscious choice what kinds of sexual attraction will you have. There is, of course, a choice to engage or not to engage in sexual activities at all, equally available to people with straight and gay orientation.
But, unlike organized religions, these activities don't harm or affect anyone outside of them, don't comprise mass stupidity, and don't seek to enforce cretinism in schools, so there's no reason not to engage in them.
I see gay people the same way as I see, IDK, let's say Citroen owners. I'm not one and I have no desire to be one, but... hell if I care? It's only the religious crowd that has this unhealthy obsession with who and how everyone else is having sex with.
Quote: P90I
You have been getting the scientific position wrong.
Current research indicates that the predominant factors in homosexuality are associated with early upbringing, as early as 4 years old, with some effects of genetic disposition and environmental on hormone production. It's not a matter of conscious choice what kinds of sexual attraction will you have. There is, of course, a choice to engage or not to engage in sexual activities at all, equally available to people with straight and gay orientation.
Actually I am pretty close to what you have written above, except that I think we need to teach that it should be avoided instead of condoned.
Quote:But, unlike organized religions, these activities don't harm or affect anyone outside of them, don't comprise mass stupidity, and don't seek to enforce cretinism in schools, so there's no reason not to engage in them.
So you are saying they have not been the primary cause in the spread of AIDS; have not sued business owners who have refused their business; and have not passed a law in CA requiring teaching about homosexuals in history and presentation of homosexuality in a positive way only?
Don't see how it's going to change much, though. People who want to do it won't be dissuaded by having been told in school not to.Quote: AZDuffmanActually I am pretty close to what you have written above, except that I think we need to teach that it should be avoided instead of condoned.
Quote: AZDuffmanSo you are saying they have not been the primary cause in the spread of AIDS;
Not really. A very small number of individuals, particularly Gaeten Dugas, have been the primary accelerant in the delivery of GRID, as it was then known, to the civilized world. They happened to be gay people, and Dugas at least exhibited what today is known as "gift-giver bugchaser" behavior.
But it could just as well have happen through, for instance, the prostitution vector, or simply through any hyperactive sexual behavior. It was going to happen one way or the other - as it was not until there was public awareness of HIV that condoms came into common use for its prevention.
Today, bugchasers are only a minor factor and while HIV is most spread amongst the gays, it's in large part simply because it got introduced through them.
The continued spread of HIV in sub-Saharan Africa is related to their own religious-like beliefs. In particular they believe that diseases are caused by evil spirits entering inside, and they will cure themselves of a disease by passing it to someone else, normally believed to require a virgin. Their culture's position on the altruism/egoism spectrum being what it is, that's exactly what they keep trying to do.
Not making this up.
(This should really be held up as one of the highlights of multiculturalism - the delusional liberal belief that all cultures are equally valuable and worthy of being preserved and maintained).
Don't see a problem here. If there is a problem, it's with the legal system, certainly not a fault of the groups that it gives such a right to sue.Quote: AZDuffmanhave not sued business owners who have refused their business;
Quote: AZDuffmanand have not passed a law in CA requiring teaching about homosexuals in history and presentation of homosexuality in a positive way only?
Just had to be CA. Yeah, that's a definite excess.
Even so, the fault lies not with the gay people. The fault lies with the legislative mentality that all special groups deserve to have their special feelings legally protected. It's that which is wrong; no group - religious, sexual, ethnic, automotive - should be afforded such protections.
Mostly it's the religious groups that demand them and get them, though. Or get violent and then let off with a slap on the wrist when they don't.
Quote: P90That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. Believing in invisible incorporeal dragon is insanity; it doesn't become less crazy because the book that says so is 1,000 years old, all it becomes is legitimized insanity.
Religious people, their religions and their tenets should be mocked and discredited tirelessly, indiscriminately and mercilessly, in hope that it may save at least a few potential victims from acquiring one of these infectious mental diseases.
you sound mean to mock people cuz of there believes.
Quote: MonkeyMonkeyI'm guessing that was supposed to be funny?
There's nothing funny about it, until someone starts bleating that "there are no atheists in foxholes." The whole country ought to know just why that is.
Quote: AZDuffmanAnd by standards of atheists, homosexuals must choose their lifestyle because no "gay gene" has been proven and if we cannot prove it we must deny its exists.
Or have I been getting the atheist position wrong?
If a gay gene contradicted our observations as thoroughly as a personal, singular god, much less one who created the world in the manner laid out in the Bible, contradicts our observations of the universe... you'd still be wrong, because "homophilia" doesn't require a gay gene. It doesn't even necessarily require homosexuality not to be a choice. It just makes the homophobic "change thy sinful ways!" position look that much weaker that it appears that sexual preference is fixed for most folks early on, and long before those monstrous scare-'em-straight programs you advocate through euphemisms like "consider they might not be gay."
Quote: Beethoven9thAlso, the source of this comment is ironic because Bingo's the guy who throws a fit whenever anyone mocks his "ethically dissimilar" remark.
Have you noticed it's pretty much* only you? Incessantly? In every thread I post in and a few I haven't? Most of this board are literate; you're just stalking me. Stop.
(* Possibly bar one comment from SanchoPanza, of which I'm not sure if it's aimed at me or you.)
Quote: 24BingoHave you noticed it's pretty much* only you?
(* Possibly bar one comment from SanchoPanza, of which I'm not sure if it's aimed at me or you.)
Um...I wasn't even talking to you. I was talking to MonkeyMonkey regarding that snide 'Jebus' remark (which was meant to mock religious people). That remark was in very poor taste.
Quote: 24BingoThere's nothing funny about it, until someone starts bleating that "there are no atheists in foxholes." The whole country ought to know just why that is.
Ok, hmmm... where to start.
- The "no atheists in foxholes" was a joke to someone that didn't seem to grasp the whole atheism thing. If you want to call that "bleating" then whatever, sounds like you've got a stick in an uncomfortable place to be coming off like that. And the whole, nasty "Jebus" thing as well.
- Maybe if the whole country ought to know, then you can explain whatever it is your point is supposed to be because Pat Tillman being shot be friendly fire isn't a direct connection to the "no atheists in foxholes" thing for me.
Quote: P90That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. Believing in invisible incorporeal dragon is insanity; it doesn't become less crazy because the book that says so is 1,000 years old, all it becomes is legitimized insanity.
Religious people, their religions and their tenets should be mocked and discredited tirelessly, indiscriminately and mercilessly, in hope that it may save at least a few potential victims from acquiring one of these infectious mental diseases.
I suppose that's one way to look at it. My view is that as long as the followers of a religion aren't hurting anyone they should be left alone. I don't think the laws of the USA should be molded in the image of Christianity, and I think in the places where Sharia law is being (or attempting to be) imposed it shouldn't be either. I don't think people should be allowed to use their religious beliefs to discriminate except under some very specific circumstances. For example, I don't think a church that vehemently opposes gay marriage should be compelled by law or lawsuit to allow that marriage to take place in their place of worship.
Personally, I have a lot better things to do than to busy myself with tearing down others belief systems, tirelessly or otherwise.
Quote: MonkeyMonkeyI suppose that's one way to look at it. My view is that as long as the followers of a religion aren't hurting anyone they should be left alone. I don't think the laws of the USA should be molded in the image of Christianity, and I think in the places where Sharia law is being (or attempting to be) imposed it shouldn't be either.
This could be a problem because the Enlightenment, US Constitution, and basically the entire basis of systems of law in Western Countries is based on Christianity and a certain amount of Jewish (10 Commandments.)
We could go to an atheist system where the ruler is supreme and the peoples are treated more as his property than his subjects for a few years if anyone likes, then compare.
Quote: AZDuffmanThis could be a problem because the Enlightenment, US Constitution, and basically the entire basis of systems of law in Western Countries is based on Christianity and a certain amount of Jewish (10 Commandments.)
Up to a certain point, yes, and we even have national holidays based on Christian events, but taking the 10 commandments for instance we certainly haven't codified them all into law...
- Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
- Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image
- Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain
- Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. (ok, this is kinda sorta implemented with the can't buy liquor on Sunday thing)
- Honour thy father and thy mother
- Thou shalt not kill (as in murder, ok that one is in there)
- Thou shalt not commit adultery. (frowned on, but I don't think it's specifically illegal. Maybe grounds for divorce?)
- Thou shalt not steal. (ok, sure)
- Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour (I suppose if you've been sworn in, in a court you could be held in contempt)
- Thou shalt not covet (hard to enforce)
So that's like 2 1/2 out of 10 and those 2 1/2 are pretty much tenets of every faith so it's not like the Judeo-Christian set has a lock on them.
Quote: AZDuffman
We could go to an atheist system where the ruler is supreme and the peoples are treated more as his property than his subjects for a few years if anyone likes, then compare.
I don't understand the fixation on seeing things in such a binary view. There are many stops between full on religious and completely lacking religion. And I don't see the benefit of the laws of a nation being so religiously-centric that they impose any particular religion on the population.
Quote: MonkeyMonkey
I don't understand the fixation on seeing things in such a binary view. There are many stops between full on religious and completely lacking religion. And I don't see the benefit of the laws of a nation being so religiously-centric that they impose any particular religion on the population.
Where in the Western World is this happening? Even Israel does not impose a religion, ask the muslims living there.
As to the former, you need to talk to a few of the atheists on this board and in the USA. The USA isn't close to "full-on" religion but said atheists are determined to make it completely lacking in religion.
As an example, a speaker cannot say a prayer before commencement; kids stopped form quietly reading a Bible during recess, etc. Only a matter of time before they demand Christmas be removed as a national holiday.
Quote: AZDuffmanWhere in the Western World is this happening? Even Israel does not impose a religion, ask the muslims living there.
As to the former, you need to talk to a few of the atheists on this board and in the USA. The USA isn't close to "full-on" religion but said atheists are determined to make it completely lacking in religion.
As an example, a speaker cannot say a prayer before commencement; kids stopped form quietly reading a Bible during recess, etc. Only a matter of time before they demand Christmas be removed as a national holiday.
I'm sorry AZ, I worked all night and I'm tired. I don't have the energy to play untwist the agenda right now. You brought up how this country is based on Judeo-Christian ethos, I mildly disagree. The bits it has in common with J-C it also has in common with most other religions of the world, and most other countries of the world. I don't want to see it become any more J-C centric than it already is, and I don't want to see Sharia law take hold either.
Not sure why you want to be mad at atheists, but feel free, I don't have a dog in that fight.
Quote: AZDuffman
As to the former, you need to talk to a few of the atheists on this board and in the USA. The USA isn't close to "full-on" religion but said atheists are determined to make it completely lacking in religion.
I'm an atheist And I'm also fine with religion. You can believe whatever you want. You want to put up a gigantic manger scene on your own private property, go for it. Spend as much of your money you want on religion. That's your right. The problem I have is taking public tax dollars to promote a particular religion like a town council using tax dollars to put up a manger scene in a public square.
I also have a problem with churches being tax exempt. They should pay their fair share. Check out downtown Clearwater, no tax revenue because scientology owns downtown Clearwater. Walking around downtown Clearwater is like a twilight zone episode, so bizarre being cult central.
Quote: AZDuffmanOnly a matter of time before they demand Christmas be removed as a national holiday.
Replace it with Newtonmas.
