[SteveM]

Religion is great when it is teaching tolerance and respect......not so great when it starts to take over level headed thinking. The US is only of the only modern countries where religion is mixed in government. Look at all the religious advisor wackadoos that were allowed in the white house. Religious fundamentalists getting access to power.....it's very scary.

I don't like any form of fundamentalist, Christian, Muslim or whatever. They are too busy trying to orchestrate the next ethnic cleansing, beheading someone, passing around the coolaid, locking people up in "residential schools"…..the list is endless.

Religion unfortunately taps into our primitive tribal instincts.......killing the other tribe off....war....

Sounds like this guy should lose his job as he clearly has an agenda

[Ratmagiclady]

of course they cant. thats my whole point. but your view would suggest that, that is exactly what they are trying to enforce. since you seem to think freedom of means you have no choice in having one or not and only a choice in what kind.

I get the feeling you are trying to jerk my chain.

It's certainly pretty surreal when conservative Christians who seem to dominate the dialogue in our nation start claiming only the 'majority' is 'oppressed' in America. If anyone *but* a Christian or Jewish person runs for national office, look what happens. The Right cries 'Persecution!' if anyone *else* is involved in their own government or public institutions, or any time they aren't allowed to impose their way, and only their way, on everyone.

To be quite honest, when you're in the majority, much of the burden of ensuring fairness and equality in a diverse nation falls upon you. When majorities share certain assumptions, and in this case senses of entitlement to complete cultural hegemony, it's all too easy to unwittingly run over the 'little guy.' Not to mention miss things.

It's easy to want your own way and only your own way when no one's able to question you. If you treat our American diversity as a *threat* to be suppressed, you're only making yourself more insensitive and myopic and absolutist. The results are pretty obvious in foreign and social and economic policy: it's certainly for a long time been a habit of the Right to simply wave a Bible or 'studies' cooked to match a religious view as a substitute for ever explaining themselves, however irrational or even hypocritical what they're saying or doing may be. It makes blind spots that we as a nation can't afford.

Cultivates, in fact, a sense that the 'majority' is under some kind of *threat* by those different, whenever questioned or differed from, and offers ready scapegoats for when that 'majority's policies are counterproductive and lead to bad results.

Start calling it a 'culture war' of one kind or another, and next thing you know, all bets are off. History shows countless examples of this. Stuff like this has a tendency to escalate in bad ways. It does bad things both to governance, and in fact, religion itself. There's the old saw, 'When you mix religion and politics, you get politics.' This is why our government is secular.

It not only protects our liberties where we are minorities, it also protects religion itself from turning into something else.

[séamuis]

You are free to enjoy and worship any religion you want. Even atheism. But it is a fact government is slowly but surely eroding a the ability to pray. It's like what they are doing to smokers. Sure, it's legal to smoke. But where? Pretty soon you won't be able to smoke in your own home. They're already trying to ban smoking in your car.

Tolerance is always preached. Unless you're Christian. It's ok to trample them. Seamuis, my views haven't changed from what I believed when I was an atheist. I felt back then as I do now If you want to pray aloud go ahead. It was a minute or two out of my day It really wasn't a big deal. If "they" tried to convert me I simply said not interested. Now I may start a conversation about salvation but if the other person says not interested we talk about something else.

atheism isn't a religion. because it isn't the disbelief or rather, faith that there is no god. it is the rejection of theism and the idea of the existence or rather the possibility of the existence of god(s). in order to be religious by definition one has to be a theist. this is where atheism differs from other forms of theism.

"Atheism is neither religion nor faith, but the happy freedom from them."

but again, many Christians nowadays reject the label of religion.

as for the rest, I agree for the most part. and as an atheist I have to make it very clear that I do not have a problem with public praying or anything else. (this includes schools) regardless of faith. as long as it doesn't impede the ability to learn ie: taking up classroom time. I also have no problem with public religious displays such as ten commandment statues nor do I have a problem with religious comments in public speeches, etc ,etc, etc. you get the idea right? all I ask is fairness for those of faith and those of not. and to use common sense. this means the rejection of the idea of "creationism". (and its teaching in the classroom as science) learning about its ideas? fine. but its not science and it doesn't belong in the science classroom. I think that it is a joke of the highest order, personally but science does not, destroy the idea of god.

one of my best friends is a baptist preacher. another is a Jehovah's Witness. I just want to make it clear that I am not your typical atheist.

and one of my favourite songs is Arlo Guthrie's version of 'last Train'.

[Ratmagiclady]

Religion unfortunately taps into our primitive tribal instincts.......killing the other tribe off....war....

Taps into, perhaps. Also blinds us to. Taps into our *primate* instincts, while obsessively denigrating and denying them. (Mind you, not all religions do this or have a built-in need to. But all have to watch out for this)

Tribes are made of *people.* 'Isms' are made of... What?

It's like, we're all 'Pentaxians' here. Perhaps there's a difference between that and being a 'Pentaxist.' (Or, irony be, but who can resist this one, a 'Pentax *ist. )

For a tribe, relations with the neighbors, and the ability to make full use of those within the tribe that are different, is an essential capacity. For an 'ism' these very capacities are degraded and denied and actively seen as a threat and weakness. (Well, too often, anyway. Secular'ism' in fact is kind of treated as a 'doctrine' intended to counteract these problems.)

---

Last edited by Ratmagiclady; 08-17-2009 at 09:34 AM.

If it were impossible we wouldn't have domesticated wheat or the flu or the common cold.

People who claim evolution is impossible are simply ignoring the real facts. It's not like playing billions of lottery numbers and expecting one astronomically-unlikely result to come up, as the anti-science says. Actually, evolution is pretty inevitable: structures that survive and replicate as can be observed in nature are the ones that survive and replicate. Increasing complexity over time is the natural result.

And there's a *lot* of time and a lot of instances. To claim it's 'impossible' is simply to appeal to the sense the sheer scale of time and amount of material in the universe is way too boggling to suit people's sense of a human scale.




This is nonsense on the face of it. How am I to have freedom *of* religion if I don't have freedom *from* the religions that believe it's OK to convert others by whatever means necessary?

Domesticated wheat was created by man. It was selective crossbreeding as we have done with many many other things.

By the same token you are denying them freedom of religion by not allowing them to pray out loud.

atheism isn't a religion. because it isn't the disbelief or rather, faith that there is no god. it is the rejection of theism and the idea of the existence or rather the possibility of the existence of god(s). in order to be religious by definition one has to be a theist. this is where atheism differs from other forms of theism.

"Atheism is neither religion nor faith, but the happy freedom from them."

but again, many Christians nowadays reject the label of religion.

as for the rest, I agree for the most part. and as an atheist I have to make it very clear that I do not have a problem with public praying or anything else. (this includes schools) regardless of faith. as long as it doesn't impede the ability to learn ie: taking up classroom time. I also have no problem with public religious displays such as ten commandment statues nor do I have a problem with religious comments in public speeches, etc ,etc, etc. you get the idea right? all I ask is fairness for those of faith and those of not. and to use common sense. this means the rejection of the idea of "creationism". (and its teaching in the classroom as science) learning about its ideas? fine. but its not science and it doesn't belong in the science classroom. I think that it is a joke of the highest order, personally but science does not, destroy the idea of god.

one of my best friends is a baptist preacher. another is a Jehovah's Witness. I just want to make it clear that I am not your typical atheist.

and one of my favourite songs is Arlo Guthrie's version of 'last Train'.

Friend, I know you went this route to bring up debate and discussion. I have a feeling you are like I was.

I am a Christian but if someone from another religion wants to bestow the blessing of their God and cares enough about me to ask the blessing of their God I sure am not going to object.

So what does an atheist say when someone sneezes?

[séamuis]

Friend, I know you went this route to bring up debate and discussion. I have a feeling you are like I was.

I am a Christian but if someone from another religion wants to bestow the blessing of their God and cares enough about me to ask the blessing of their God I sure am not going to object.

So what does an atheist say when someone sneezes?

if Im feeling friendly and nice? God bless you. otherwise nothing.


do atheists not use sayings with religious origins? its just a saying... maybe im more different than I thought.



I once had a talk for an hour and a half with two Jehovah's Witnesses at my doorstep, that continued at a local cafe. most of my friends (being older than me, and religious) say I have an 'understanding'.

Yeah, I have a feeling we were more alike when I was your age.

[séamuis]

Yeah, I have a feeling we were more alike when I was your age.

I don't hate religion. nor its influence, as long as such isn't the only thing people look to for decision making. this is again where common sense comes into play. unfortunately our people in charge do not use common sense, thus I have to often fight strictly from an atheist point of view. im always having to attempt to bunk the idea that atheism=hatred/destruction or wiping out of religion. of course this is a theist point of view more often than a non-theist.

[Ratmagiclady]

atheism isn't a religion. because it isn't the disbelief or rather, faith that there is no god. it is the rejection of theism and the idea of the existence or rather the possibility of the existence of god(s). in order to be religious by definition one has to be a theist. this is where atheism differs from other forms of theism.

Actually, Seamuis, not all religions require a God or Gods.

Buddhism, for instance, has different branches, some of which may say 'There are no Gods,' and some of which may say 'There are, but they're no more 'real' than we are, just another state of being in 'illusion.''

On the other hand, plenty of atheists define their reality by disbelieving in a very *specific* God, or otherwise see the world in very theistic terms: (ie, the world still revolves around the existence or nonexistence of a God, they just take the negative view)

A number of 'animist' and other traditions also are not based on belief in a god or Gods. So you can have nontheist religions: they have and do exist.

but again, many Christians nowadays reject the label of religion.

as for the rest, I agree for the most part. and as an atheist I have to make it very clear that I do not have a problem with public praying or anything else. (this includes schools) regardless of faith. as long as it doesn't impede the ability to learn ie: taking up classroom time.

Part of the problem here is that some few prominent religions have or entertain the religious belief that disbelief in their religion or its dictates constitutes being an 'enemy' of that religion... or an 'enemy religion.' It's mostly obfuscation when it comes to schools, they want to treat evolutionary science as a 'controversy' (like they might treat how to interpret different Scriptural authorities) when, as science, it's not a controversy, except within the dictates of their religious belief that science must obey their religion rather than be an independent process.

I also have no problem with public religious displays such as ten commandment statues nor do I have a problem with religious comments in public speeches, etc ,etc, etc. you get the idea right? all I ask is fairness for those of faith and those of not. and to use common sense. this means the rejection of the idea of "creationism". (and its teaching in the classroom as science) learning about its ideas? fine. but its not science and it doesn't belong in the science classroom. I think that it is a joke of the highest order, personally but science does not, destroy the idea of god.

It certainly doesn't. I, for one, don't have a problem with most public religious displays, though often it *is* over the line: Ten Commandments displays, for one, are over the line: this is literally having the government 'speak for God' and put up a stone billboard that starts right off with "Commands" who to worship or not worship. That can't fly.

There's celebration and sharing, and then there's just *claiming territory.*

It's too bad that the one's that kill the abortion doctors and the like always claim to be Christian. Torques me to no end. If they were truly Christians they wouldn't be murdering people. Like you said, common sense. It just seems to be lacking in our leadership lately.

[séamuis]

It's too bad that the one's that kill the abortion doctors and the like always claim to be Christian. Torques me to no end. If they were truly Christians they wouldn't be murdering people. Like you said, common sense. It just seems to be lacking in our leadership lately.

seems to be lacking everywhere lately.....

the old saying... common sense ain't so common.

huh... being an 'old' saying says something itself.

[Ratmagiclady]

Domesticated wheat was created by man. It was selective crossbreeding as we have done with many many other things.

Could 'man' have done that if the mechanism didn't exist already?

Actually, domesticating wheat didn't start by deliberate meddling and crossbreeding: it's a little more like wheat domesticated *us,* actually. Those traits which gave certain wheat advantages in 'being cultivated by other animals,' ...in this case humans, were replicated more and more.

By the same token you are denying them freedom of religion by not allowing them to pray out loud.

Hardly. For starters, *I* am not doing anything. I have no real voice in these matters unless I convince the majority religion that it's desirable to restrain their, err, enthusiasm toward marginalizing others.

People are free to pray out loud, but not in the name of government, nor is it freedom when one can either tacitly submit to a daily territory-marking by certain religious factions, ...or go unrepresented in government.

It's not *freedom* to have our government start its day by claiming only certain citizens, (ie, certain kinds of Christians) *count.*

There's blessing people in the name of Whoever, and then there's using it inappropriately. And this character in question was already under court order to stop using it inappropriately. He'd already convinced a North Florida judge (doubtless a Christian himself, certainly familiar with the comunity standards there) that he was abusing something before he violated that court order.

Easier to say "I" 'am taking away someone's freedom' to use the government to impose their ways than to look at the facts, I suppose.

[Parallax]

Regardless of your religious beliefs, or political beliefs, how can anybody possibly claim that telling someone they can't pray does not violate either or both of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I tend to agree with the "if they were muslim comment." You can't use public funds to put up Christmas decorations, or in most cases put them on government property even if payed for privately, yet in Minnesota they use taxpayer dollars for foot baths for the muslim students. Minnesota College to Install Muslim Foot Bath.
Recently there was a prison in the UK that took crucifixes out of the chapel so as not to offend muslims, but put in foot baths for them. Dhimmi Watch: UK prison: No to crucifixes; Yes to Muslim footbaths

[Ratmagiclady]

Regardless of your religious beliefs, or political beliefs, how can anybody possibly claim that telling someone they can't pray does not violate either or both of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It's not 'telling someone they can't pray,' it's telling someone they can't claim government favor in government places to exclude others in the name of that prayer.

I tend to agree with the "if they were muslim comment." You can't use public funds to put up Christmas decorations, or in most cases put them on government property even if payed for privately, yet in Minnesota they use taxpayer dollars for foot baths for the muslim students. Minnesota College to Install Muslim Foot Bath.

Government can put in foot baths if a lot of people want to clean their feet. They can put up hat racks if a lot of people wear hats and want to take them off when they eat. Now, government couldn't say the foot bath is *only* for Muslims, or the hat rack is *only* for Mennonites. But there's no reason to get indignant about reasonable accommodation, namely, why should Christians claim it abridges their rights if Muslim students don't have to try and lift their feet into a sink a few times in a school day?

Nothing says that a low sink has to be endorsing religion. (To be honest when I went to college, well, any cleaner feet at all would have been OK by me. )

On another interesting note, it's very common in that part of the country for anyone to expect guests to remove their shoes upon entering the house. Scandanavian thing, apparently, as well as a practical one. Seems to me that having those footbaths could be pretty handy if you're going visiting after classes.

Recently there was a prison in the UK that took crucifixes out of the chapel so as not to offend muslims, but put in foot baths for them. Dhimmi Watch: UK prison: No to crucifixes; Yes to Muslim footbaths

Having to pray under a cross whether you're Christian or not is a different matter than bathroom fittings.