The next defenders of religious freedom in America

[Farm Boy]

The problem is that they're believing stupid things and it's affecting the rest of us.

That issue is not anything that resembles being limited to the scope of this thread.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Your problem immediately begins by viewing those that are murderous as representative for the religion. For the likes of you, there is no Dorothy Day or Al-Farabi. There is only the KKK and Al-Qaeda.

If you want to be an atheist, no problem. Please just don't be an atheist crusader. Being such would have more easily forgiven if you were an angsty teenager.

Not only am I not an atheist crusader, I'm not even an atheist.

I'm also not terribly concerned about the occasional wild lunatic. My concern about absolution from the big man in the sky is mostly reserved for theocratic nations more than individual actions.

That's why I'm pleased by the actions of the Satanist group in this thread. The US is way too heavily armed to allow it to become any more theocratic than it already is.

 

[bhsup]

atheist crusader

Onward, antitheist soldiers, marching as to war,
with the visage of Dawkins going on before.
Richard, the royal Master, leads against the foe;
forward into battle see his banners go!

 

[Tahuti]

Not only am I not an atheist crusader, I'm not even an atheist.

I'm also not terribly concerned about the occasional wild lunatic. My concern about absolution from the big man in the sky is mostly reserved for theocratic nations more than individual actions.

That's why I'm pleased by the actions of the Satanist group in this thread. The US is way too heavily armed to allow it to become any more theocratic than it already is.

So, what are you exactly, agnostic? If that's the case, I'd expected better from you.

To each his own I guess.

Anyway, the notion that the US is moving towards theocracy is laughable at best. The Republicans are liberals who are only 10 years behind the Democrats.

Onward, antitheist soldiers, marching as to war,
with the visage of Dawkins going on before.
Richard, the royal Master, leads against the foe;
forward into battle see his banners go!

There is no god but no god, and Dawkins is no god's messenger!

 

[Wolfbeckett]

This atheist crusader nonsense comes up every time the topic of religion and atheism is broached. So let me reiterate, as I have so many times, in so many different forums:

Most of the people you perceive as "atheist crusaders" ARE NOT CRUSADERS. They speak out loudly against religion ONLY because there are religious people forcing their beliefs on others and/or committing heinous atrocities against their fellow man in the name of religion. If religious folks stopped executing people for having a difference of opinion and stopped trying to legislate their particular flavor of belief into law, then there would be nothing to "crusade" against. Every single atheist that I personally know has no problem whatsoever with religious people who believe silly things, as long as those people are not trying to use force to spread their ideas. We don't want Christian fundamentalists turning science classrooms into theological philosophy classrooms. We don't want Scientologists suing people for criticizing them. We don't want radical Muslims beheading people and blowing up buildings. If these things stopped, we would have literally nothing worth complaining about. Outspoken atheism is not a crusade. It's a defense against those using force, whether physical violence or legal pressure, to try to strong arm others into doing and believing what they say.

 

[Tahuti]

We don't want Christian fundamentalists turning science classrooms into theological philosophy classrooms. We don't want Scientologists suing people for criticizing them. We don't want radical Muslims beheading people and blowing up buildings. If these things stopped, we would have literally nothing worth complaining about. Outspoken atheism is not a crusade. It's a defense against those using force, whether physical violence or legal pressure, to try to strong arm others into doing and believing what they say.

Well, no sane religious person want any of this either. However, I fail to see why outspoken atheism is the only way of doing so. This effectively polarises religion against science and reason, giving atheists a monopoly on the latter, which - if you think of it - is highly unreasonable itself. The flipside is that fundementalists are being given a monopoly on religion, thus making the problem worse, amplifying the negative aspect of religion and muting the positive ones. Not everyone has to be an atheist and not everyone has to be religious.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

Well, no sane religious person want any of this either. However, I fail to see why outspoken atheism is the only way of doing so. This effectively polarises religion against science and reason, giving atheists a monopoly on the latter, which - if you think of it - is highly unreasonable itself. The flipside is that fundementalists are being given a monopoly on religion, thus making the problem worse, amplifying the negative aspect of religion and muting the positive ones. Not everyone has to be an atheist and not everyone has to be religious.

There's no reason in principle that it has to be the only way of doing so. But the ball is in the court of the sane religious people to speak out publicly against the shenanigans that their more radical counterparts are engaging in. And indeed some of them do that, which is great, I personally am willing to embrace any ally who is against what the crazies are doing. But there aren't nearly enough of them, of if there are, there isn't enough media coverage of their opinions.

And well, as to polarizing religion against science, they kind of are polarized against each other by definition. Religion is defined by what people believe based on their faith. Science is defined by what we believe based on evidence. If your religious beliefs gain testable, repeatable, provable evidence supporting them, then by definition they become scientific hypotheses.

Lastly, if fundamentalists are being given a monopoly on religion, then it's up to the non-fundamentalist religious people to take back their market share, nobody else is going to do that for them. More highly visible religious leaders coming out publicly saying "religion isn't science, keep it out of science classrooms" would help. More Islamic leaders, especially in regions of the world where religious violence is a real problem, publicly saying "Hey guys, killing people for religious differences is evil, stop doing it" would also help. Sane religious people need to be vocal opponents of this nonsense, or else I'm afraid the perception that the fundamentalists are running the religion show will just continue to be perpetuated.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Well, no sane religious person want any of this either. However, I fail to see why outspoken atheism is the only way of doing so. This effectively polarises religion against science and reason, giving atheists a monopoly on the latter, which - if you think of it - is highly unreasonable itself. The flipside is that fundementalists are being given a monopoly on religion, thus making the problem worse, amplifying the negative aspect of religion and muting the positive ones. Not everyone has to be an atheist and not everyone has to be religious.

But plenty of religious people you would call sane want, demand, and routinely get religious symbols emblazoned on their government...as long as the symbols are their own.

 

[Farm Boy]

There's no reason in principle that it has to be the only way of doing so. But the ball is in the court of the sane religious people to speak out publicly against the shenanigans that their more radical counterparts are engaging in. And indeed some of them do that, which is great, I personally am willing to embrace any ally who is against what the crazies are doing. But there aren't nearly enough of them, of if there are, there isn't enough media coverage of their opinions.

They're everywhere. The non-fundamentalist religious people. If you're missing them, you aren't listening.

And well, as to polarizing religion against science, they kind of are polarized against each other by definition. Religion is defined by what people believe based on their faith. Science is defined by what we believe based on evidence. If your religious beliefs gain testable, repeatable, provable evidence supporting them, then by definition they become scientific hypotheses.

Lastly, if fundamentalists are being given a monopoly on religion, then it's up to the non-fundamentalist religious people to take back their market share, nobody else is going to do that for them. More highly visible religious leaders coming out publicly saying "religion isn't science, keep it out of science classrooms" would help. More Islamic leaders, especially in regions of the world where religious violence is a real problem, publicly saying "Hey guys, killing people for religious differences is evil, stop doing it" would also help. Sane religious people need to be vocal opponents of this nonsense, or else I'm afraid the perception that the fundamentalists are running the religion show will just continue to be perpetuated.

Again, I think you just aren't listening. Most mainstream denominations in the US have no problem teaching a standard science curriculum. The Catholic Church certainly doesn't have any problems with teaching science in the US. I see random idiots hating on private Catholic schools that include some religious education more than the other way around. Mainstream Christian churches come out against capital punishment in the states over and over and over again. Just because random dillweeds that happen to be the sort of people who pursue worldly power and find it convenient to claim a religious community doesn't make that the end of the road or even the dominant force of opinions within said community.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

They're everywhere. The non-fundamentalist religious people. If you're missing them, you aren't listening.

I'm listening. When Christians want to jam their religious symbols into city halls and state houses I hear them cheering. The only dissent I hear from religious people is from the excluded religious people...like these satanists.

 

[warpus]

That issue is not anything that resembles being limited to the scope of this thread.

I never claimed that religious extremists have a monopoly on people believing stupid things and affecting the rest of us in negative ways, so that's okay.

 

[Tahuti]

But plenty of religious people you would call sane want, demand, and routinely get religious symbols emblazoned on their government...as long as the symbols are their own.

What's wrong with symbolising that and only that? Unlike France, the US hasn't had a Jacobin phase in its history in which every trace of religion was erased from public life and thankfully so.

It is fair to say that the US has a predominantly Christian heritage. By virtue of being Christian, some Pre-Talmudic Jewish heritage as well. Not Modern Jewish, not Islamic, not Hindu, not Sikh. Arguably some Pagan Greek, Celtic, Roman and Germanic heritage as well.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It is fair to say that the US has a predominantly Christian heritage. By virtue of being Christian, some Pre-Talmudic Jewish heritage as well. Not Modern Jewish, not Islamic, not Hindu, not Sikh. Arguably some Pagan Greek, Celtic, Roman and Germanic heritage as well.

And your point?

If I were to assume what your point is it would be 'so that cultural heritage justifies abusing those of other faiths or no religious belief at all in order to purify the population'. To which my reply would be 'great idea, but didn't work in Germany'.

So, please, explain the point you are actually trying to make, since I prefer not to believe that was it.

 

[Tahuti]

'great idea, but didn't work in Germany'

Ding dong! Godwin's Law!

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Ding dong! Godwin's Law!

Except in this case it was unavoidable, since you were basically stating the position. I was hoping I had just misunderstood you.

 

[Tahuti]

Except in this case it was unavoidable, since you were basically stating the position. I was hoping I had just misunderstood you.

There is nothing wrong with ethnic and religious particularism, which can go hand to hand with ethnic and religious pluralism. By playing the Nazi card, you hoped - and failed - to smokescreen the failures of the ideology of colourblindness.

 

[Farm Boy]

I'm listening. When Christians want to jam their religious symbols into city halls and state houses I hear them cheering. The only dissent I hear from religious people is from the excluded religious people...like these satanists.

You're listening. But I think you, particularly, might have an inclination for selective hearing.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You're listening. But I think you, particularly, might have an inclination for selective hearing.

There are voices like yours out there...but there are a whole lot more 'moderate but sure let's allow the militant to oppress' voices than there are voices like yours.

 

[Farm Boy]

There are voices like yours out there...but there are a whole lot more 'moderate but sure let's allow the militant to oppress' voices than there are voices like yours.

Well, I don't have any problem with the satanists handing out their booklets. Or their goat statute thingy, or them leading moments of silence/prayer/reflection at town council meetings. But that means I don't mind with the local priest gets to either. Which seems to not infrequently get slapped with the party to oppression label and is actually indicative of the viewpoint of the religious people I'm familiar with.

 

[Tahuti]

You're listening. But I think you, particularly, might have an inclination for selective hearing.

Preach brother!