The next defenders of religious freedom in America

[Timsup2nothin]

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.

So, there's nothing wrong (in your view) with espousing the Nazi position, but it isn't fair for me to point it out when you do. Hilarious.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

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.

As I said...you are very reasonable. You are also the small minority, in my experience. I don't mind the local priests doing their thing at city council meetings, though I wasn't for it, but all the backslapping that went on when the ordinance allowing it got jammed through is going into massive reverse seizure mode now, because the infidels are trying to 'take advantage'.

 

[Tahuti]

So, there's nothing wrong (in your view) with espousing the Nazi position, but it isn't fair for me to point it out when you do. Hilarious.

What you mock as the 'Nazi position' was in fact the norm than the exception. Actually, it has never been a thing, though arguing explicitly for its benefits gets you branded a Nazi. Clinging to a religious and cultural tradition is of immeasurable benefit and ensures the stability of and freedom within a state.

 

[Borachio]

It also ensures religious intolerance, prejudice, and witch-hunts. So, not all bad.

 

[Farm Boy]

As I said...you are very reasonable. You are also the small minority, in my experience. I don't mind the local priests doing their thing at city council meetings, though I wasn't for it, but all the backslapping that went on when the ordinance allowing it got jammed through is going into massive reverse seizure mode now, because the infidels are trying to 'take advantage'.

Haven't seen the seizures. Have seen the ACLU lawsuits. Which I found odd that the ACLU was arguing against the moments of prayer/reflection rather than arguing for pluralistic enforcement.

 

[Tahuti]

It also ensures religious intolerance, prejudice, and witch-hunts. So, not all bad.

Do you have arguments for that?

 

[Borachio]

Um. No. Probably not. It's just a vague impression I've got from all that Inquisitioning, and Burning people at the stake, kind of anecdotes.

Do you have any evidence to show that the maintenance of religious traditions necessarily produces the reverse? Oh what was it, stability and freedom within the state? Yeah. That.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

What you mock as the 'Nazi position' was in fact the norm than the exception. Actually, it has never been a thing, though arguing explicitly for its benefits gets you branded a Nazi. Clinging to a religious and cultural tradition is of immeasurable benefit and ensures the stability of and freedom within a state.

It only ensures freedom within the state for the adherents of the religious and cultural tradition. But of course you don't have any concern for individual rights beyond your own so that's fine with you, yes?

 

[Tahuti]

It only ensures freedom within the state for the adherents of the religious and cultural tradition. But of course you don't have any concern for individual rights beyond your own so that's fine with you, yes?

That's an utter mischaracterisation of my position. I do not believe states should repress pluralism. Rather, I believe states should be allowed to have a dominant ethnic and religious tradition, which does not necessarily mean people of other religions and ethnic groups are repressed by that state.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

That's an utter mischaracterisation of my position. I do not believe states should repress pluralism. Rather, I believe states should be allowed to have a dominant ethnic and religious tradition, which does not necessarily mean people of other religions and ethnic groups are repressed by that state.

You just seem to be opposed to taking any pains to ensure that what is 'not necessarily so' doesn't actually happen. I'm not much of a believer in the 'good will of the majority' being adequate protection for the minority.

 

[Tahuti]

I'm not much of a believer in the 'good will of the majority' being adequate protection for the minority.

Neither am I. The state is nothing but its ruling class - for good or ill - and the ruling class may have an identity distinct from the people. This is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

[timtofly]

You just seem to be opposed to taking any pains to ensure that what is 'not necessarily so' doesn't actually happen. I'm not much of a believer in the 'good will of the majority' being adequate protection for the minority.

I am not sure of the point that you, Wolfbeckett, and Warpus are hinting at when you seem to be batting at windmills. I have seen some "religious" folks stand up and speak out against things in a public forum, or even try to get their views into legislation. THAT however is the American way. They are not forcing anything, but attempting to persuade other Americans to their point of view. If you denigrate their ability to do so, then you denigrate any form of political message and America would cease to be the land of Freedom. I don't see the American people hopping on the bandwagon enough to turn this land into a totalitarian theocracy. I would be opposed to that just as much as you are opposed to the idea of having to listen to another human's point of view. It would seem that every one is free to voice their opinions even if there are other people who get offended at them, but to label the free exercise of such public displays of governance as forcing people to change their mind or even way of life as wrong, would mean that even your speaking out against them is also equally as hideous.

This forum allows posters to speak their mind and thoughts within certain limits of verbal abuse. I don't see any one being forced at gun point to change their point of view or way of life. When it comes to a diverse and equally represented nation and you start limiting people's ability to speak their thoughts, just because it may offend others, you can't start clamping down without destroying what that nation stands for.

If a certain group tends to get their way, it is because there is a majority of people in that area who agree. They are not forcing themselves on any body, any more than if the majority went in the other direction. The whole issue gets mucked up when you start centralizing issues as a nation instead of letting the country be free and diverse according to the local needs and desires. In a land of freedom of thought one size does not fit all. That does not mean that you let people who oppose your views walk all over you. You can openly discuss your disgust as freely as those who speak disgustful things.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I am not sure of the point that you, Wolfbeckett, and Warpus are hinting at when you seem to be batting at windmills. I have seen some "religious" folks stand up and speak out against things in a public forum, or even try to get their views into legislation. THAT however is the American way. They are not forcing anything, but attempting to persuade other Americans to their point of view. If you denigrate their ability to do so, then you denigrate any form of political message and America would cease to be the land of Freedom. I don't see the American people hopping on the bandwagon enough to turn this land into a totalitarian theocracy. I would be opposed to that just as much as you are opposed to the idea of having to listen to another human's point of view. It would seem that every one is free to voice their opinions even if there are other people who get offended at them, but to label the free exercise of such public displays of governance as forcing people to change their mind or even way of life as wrong, would mean that even your speaking out against them is also equally as hideous.

This forum allows posters to speak their mind and thoughts within certain limits of verbal abuse. I don't see any one being forced at gun point to change their point of view or way of life. When it comes to a diverse and equally represented nation and you start limiting people's ability to speak their thoughts, just because it may offend others, you can't start clamping down without destroying what that nation stands for.

If a certain group tends to get their way, it is because there is a majority of people in that area who agree. They are not forcing themselves on any body, any more than if the majority went in the other direction. The whole issue gets mucked up when you start centralizing issues as a nation instead of letting the country be free and diverse according to the local needs and desires. In a land of freedom of thought one size does not fit all. That does not mean that you let people who oppose your views walk all over you. You can openly discuss your disgust as freely as those who speak disgustful things.

The problem is that for democracy to work the majority has to maintain respect for the minority. So when a majority of people agree on 'let's give these privileges to Christians and their priests since we're the majority and everyone else will just have to suck it up' it undermines the basic principle that keeps democracy functional. Eventually that undermining costs everyone, including the majority that thought they were getting bonus benefits.

 

[timtofly]

No, that is favoritism, not democracy. Privilege and narcissism will always ruin democracy, that is why I am puzzled that you speak out against ideas, and not favoritism or narcissism. If the point was not about "stupid ideas that affect the rest of us" Then what I posted does not have anything to do with what you posted.

 

[warpus]

A stable democracy will always have regulations in place to prevent a tyranny of the majority.

A "pure" democracy where everything gets decided based on the wishes of the majority would fall apart. There is a reason why this sort of thing isn't done.

 

[Traitorfish]

It's not clear that a "pure" democracy would be majoritarian. Seems to me that the purest democracy would lack coercive apparatus, which always act on some level as an authority independent of the demos, so would involve a strong tendency towards consensus.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

I am not sure of the point that you, Wolfbeckett, and Warpus are hinting at when you seem to be batting at windmills. I have seen some "religious" folks stand up and speak out against things in a public forum, or even try to get their views into legislation. THAT however is the American way. They are not forcing anything, but attempting to persuade other Americans to their point of view. If you denigrate their ability to do so, then you denigrate any form of political message and America would cease to be the land of Freedom. I don't see the American people hopping on the bandwagon enough to turn this land into a totalitarian theocracy. I would be opposed to that just as much as you are opposed to the idea of having to listen to another human's point of view. It would seem that every one is free to voice their opinions even if there are other people who get offended at them, but to label the free exercise of such public displays of governance as forcing people to change their mind or even way of life as wrong, would mean that even your speaking out against them is also equally as hideous.

This forum allows posters to speak their mind and thoughts within certain limits of verbal abuse. I don't see any one being forced at gun point to change their point of view or way of life. When it comes to a diverse and equally represented nation and you start limiting people's ability to speak their thoughts, just because it may offend others, you can't start clamping down without destroying what that nation stands for.

If a certain group tends to get their way, it is because there is a majority of people in that area who agree. They are not forcing themselves on any body, any more than if the majority went in the other direction. The whole issue gets mucked up when you start centralizing issues as a nation instead of letting the country be free and diverse according to the local needs and desires. In a land of freedom of thought one size does not fit all. That does not mean that you let people who oppose your views walk all over you. You can openly discuss your disgust as freely as those who speak disgustful things.

There are some things that are wrong, either morally or factually, and no amount of "speaking their mind" or "trying to persuade other people peacefully" makes those things right. I think we would all agree that radical muslims beheading people for being infidels is morally despicable, no matter how large a percentage of the population they manage to convince otherwise. Since presumably we're all in agreement on this one, I'm going to focus instead of the issue that I know more about: religious people in the US trying to change classroom curricula and textbooks.

In this case, it does not matter if 99.999% of citizens agree with the Intelligent Design or Creation Science folks. These concepts are religion, not science, and so they do not belong in a science classroom, period. Science is a strictly defined process whereby theories have to be, at least in principle, testable, repeatable, and potentially falsifiable. Any "theory" that can and does explain all contradictory evidence with "God made it that way on purpose" is not science, by definition. Religious people can use the democratic process to convince as many people as they want that they are right, and it will not change the fact that what they are pushing for is not science. Science is not a democracy.

I do not mind if people voice their opinions. I don't care if you want to go on TV and tell people that the universe was created 3 days ago by the Easter Bunny. I do not care. What I DO care about is when you go to school board meetings and lobby congress to try to get your Easter Bunny hypothesis of the origin of the universe taught in science classrooms as science. What I DO care about is when you try to strengthen your Easter Bunny argument by attempting to teach children that the leading scientific theories on the origin of the universe and life are controversial among scientists (they aren't). You keep trying to frame this as if atheists are anti-religion and that just isn't so. I don't care what you believe, I'm even willing to listen to you talk about your beliefs. But do not force them on other people.

I find it frankly hilarious that the religious people in this thread are saying "don't worry, most of us are sane" and yet, there's a major backlash against the atheists who are speaking out on this thread. So which is it? All we are saying is don't force your beliefs on others. If you are one of the sane ones you should be backing us up on that and supporting us. Instead, way too many get defensive, as if saying that forcing beliefs on others is wrong is somehow an attack against belief itself. Talk about sending a mixed message.

 

[Farm Boy]

I find it frankly hilarious that the religious people in this thread are saying "don't worry, most of us are sane" and yet, there's a major backlash against the atheists who are speaking out on this thread. So which is it? All we are saying is don't force your beliefs on others. If you are one of the sane ones you should be backing us up on that and supporting us. Instead, way too many get defensive, as if saying that forcing beliefs on others is wrong is somehow an attack against belief itself. Talk about sending a mixed message.

What support would you like? What exact statement do you want a quote bubble and a hurrumph for?

 

[Wolfbeckett]

What support would you like? What exact statement do you want a quote bubble and a hurrumph for?

At this point I'd settle for a cessation on accusing me of attacking religion.

 

[Borachio]

Bah! If a religion needs defending it's not worth calling it a religion, imo.