For all the apathetic atheists out there who think....

LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
For all the apathetic atheists out there who think....

we need to have a more tolerant view of religion...

you're wrong. Are we going to idly sit by while there are concerted efforts to change not only the social foundation of this country..but the political and legal one as well, towards a streamlined conservative christian one?

Take a look at this 72 foot xtian statue of liberty...

Her is the article: http://www.commercialappeal.com/mca/local/article/0,2845,MCA_25340_4809191,00.html

If you think neocon xtians are harmless, take a look at this.

Bringing the Church to the Courtroom
Christian Group Becomes Force in Major Legal Battles
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/09/AR2006070900903.html?referrer=email

By Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, July 10, 2006; Page A01

SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. -- A 29-foot war memorial shaped like a cross should be allowed to remain on public land. A teacher should be able to emphasize references to God in the Declaration of Independence. Protesters should be permitted to approach women near the doors of an abortion clinic.

These courtroom fights and dozens of others pending across the country belong to the portfolio of the ambitious Alliance Defense Fund, a socially conservative legal consortium. It spends $20 million a year seeking to protect what it regards as the place of religion -- and especially Christianity -- in public life.

Considering itself the antithesis of the American Civil Liberties Union, the Scottsdale-based organization has used money and moxie to become the leading player in a movement to tug the nation to the right by challenging decades of legal precedent. By stepping into the nation's most impassioned debates about religion in the public sphere, the group aims to bring law and society into alignment with conservative Christianity.

The group successfully challenged the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses in California and Oregon, and worked on statewide ballot initiatives prohibiting such unions. Its attorneys helped the Boy Scouts win approval of a policy barring gay Scout leaders.

The group has been battling embryonic stem cell research in Missouri and won a Supreme Court stay preventing the removal of California's 29-foot Mount Soledad cross. In Florida, where saving the life of brain-damaged Terri Schiavo became a crusade, the group supported efforts to nourish her.

"What we are really trying to protect are the things this country was founded on," said D. James Kennedy, leader of Florida's Coral Ridge Ministries and one of the prominent Christian conservatives who fashioned the alliance in 1993 as a sharp stick in the national culture debate.

That is not how opponents see the organization. While crediting the ADF with training troops for battles once fought by a haphazard assortment of government lawyers and often ill-prepared volunteers, critics question the alliance's commitment to tolerance and the Constitution.

"They're not for some form of generic religious freedom. They're for Christian superiority, that Christians take over the courts," said Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. "They are living in this fantasy world where the majority religion, Christianity, is claimed to be literally under attack."

Gary S. McCaleb directs the ADF's litigation team from a file-filled office in a nondescript Scottsdale office park. He said the 16 staff lawyers are in such demand that the ADF created separate divisions for marriage issues and for university free-speech questions.

The ADF underwrites legal fights and increasingly handles litigation itself. Groups receiving significant funding include the American Center for Law & Justice, founded by evangelist Pat Robertson, and Liberty Counsel, backed by the Rev. Jerry Falwell.

"We're certainly stretched. I feel I could put a hundred attorneys to work tomorrow," said McCaleb, who said the ADF files one to two cases a week and is deeply involved in 80 to 100 open cases at any one time. He calls this a "pivotal time" in U.S. history.

"What we see is an overarching agenda from the left wing and the pro-homosexual groups," said McCaleb, who perceives "clear hostility to Christian thought." He described the stakes as "the fundamental ability of Christians to speak their minds on the issues of the day."

The day McCaleb said this, lawyers were preparing to intervene in the dispute over the Mount Soledad cross, a war memorial erected in 1954 in La Jolla, Calif., and challenged by an atheist veteran. Federal judges ordered the cross to be removed from government land, but Justice Anthony M. Kennedy granted a temporary stay on July 3.

"For private citizens to be told they can't memorialize their dead is an outrage," said McCaleb, noting similar cases elsewhere. "It's not a matter of these crosses radiating secret Christian rays that will convert people."

Federal courts have said in the Mount Soledad case and other disputes that private land, including church property, is the appropriate place for such religious displays. They cite the Establishment Clause in the Constitution, which prohibits the government from sanctioning or favoring one religion over another.

What motivated D. James Kennedy and other conservatives -- including James C. Dobson of Focus on the Family and William Bright of the Campus Crusade for Christ -- to form the ADF was the impression that Christians were losing too many such battles.

"It was just years of seeing the ACLU and its cronies attacking religious organizations or religious exercise," Kennedy said. "And, very frequently, there was nobody that even showed up to defend the Christian position."

To change the equation, the alliance hired Reagan-era prosecutor Alan Sears. He later brought in corporate lawyer Jeffery Ventrella. Mostly under Ventrella's watch, the ADF has schooled more than 800 outside lawyers, each promising to donate 450 hours to the cause.

Ventrella runs an annual summer seminar, which this year brought 100 law students to Scottsdale. The idea, according to ADF documents, is to train them in "a distinctly Christian worldview of law" before they head to clerkships and other influential posts, "perhaps even Supreme Court justices."

Some of them met recently at a training session in Chicago. Lawyers and preachers jotted tips as ADF speakers explained that prayer is not always enough: Protecting the faith sometimes demands lawsuits and clamor.

"I was looking for a way to reconcile my faith and my professional life. The ADF helped me be not a Christian and a lawyer but a Christian lawyer," said Chicago litigator Melanie Jo Triebel, who says that the "Christian side of the debate" has not been effective enough.

The ADF's rising profile in churches and the media attracts an average of 300 inquiries a month. One recent day, a call came from a government employee disappointed by a diversity training video because it did not portray homosexuality negatively. A graduating high school senior called to say he had been told not to use Jesus's name in a speech.

"It's definitely an affirmation of our fallen state as humans," Renee Bergmen said of her work evaluating such complaints. "But it's a blessing to provide an answer, and that answer being faith in Jesus Christ."

Every December, the ADF monitors the expression of Christmas, fearful that the encouragement of greetings such as "Happy Holidays" and other steps taken in the name of cultural sensitivity are costing the day its religious identity. Last year, the organization received 434 calls.

A recent case, now pending, focuses on a Pittsburgh ordinance that requires protesters to remain 15 feet from an abortion clinic door. ADF lawyer Elizabeth Murray sued, saying she represented "a compassionate, professional nurse who has devoted much of her life to kindly and gently counseling women during a difficult time in life."

The ADF took up the cause of Stephen Williams, a fifth-grade teacher in Cupertino, Calif. School authorities, wary of proselytizing, said he was overemphasizing religious excerpts from the Declaration of Independence and other documents.

When Williams sued in November 2004, asserting religious discrimination as a Christian, the alliance attracted enormous attention -- particularly from the religious right and conservative media outlets -- when it announced, "Declaration of Independence Banned From Classroom."

Authorities at Stevens Creek Elementary School said the Declaration continued to be taught. They pointed out textbook references and said it hung on school walls. Williams, they said, chose materials so narrow that they were forced to act. Williams agreed to withdraw his suit in August 2005.

Outsiders questioned the ADF's motives and legal reasoning.

"They know that a teacher who has a pattern of proselytizing has crossed the line," said Charles C. Haynes, a senior scholar at the Freedom Forum's First Amendment Center, asserting that the ADF went too far. "When they do that, it may raise money, it may raise their profile, but it undermines their credibility."

"They seem to have an ACLU-envy problem. They distort the position of the ACLU to justify themselves," said Jeremy Gunn, director of the ACLU's Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. He said the ADF favors a "Walt Disney version of American history."

"There's no mugging of their free speech," Gunn said. "They talk about freedom and liberty. What they really want is the government to endorse their version."

Alliance executives say they are on solid ground when it comes to history and the law, and they insist that the pendulum is beginning to swing their way. Sears said the group, "by grace," expects to grow 20 percent a year.

"Over and over, there's a search-and-destroy mission for religious expression," Ventrella told the trainees in Chicago. "Do we want to forget our religious heritage? When we abandon God, we will forget man. So what's God got to do with it? Everything."

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


GrimJesta
GrimJesta's picture
Posts: 152
Joined: 2006-06-21
User is offlineOffline
For all the apathetic atheists out there who think....

I disagree.

Being intolerant to those who violate the US Constitution should be the order of the day, but being intolerant of a persons right to practice a religion? Then you're just as bad as these ultra-Christian Conservatives (who are not the majority, but the vocal minority with lots of money and the ear of carefully placed politicians). Are we no better than these NeoCons? We're also going to pick and choose which Constitutional Rights we embrace?

Fighting against people stampeding the Constitution is something I support whole-heartedly. Public debate and discussion of religion is as well. But saying a "tolerant view of religion is wrong" is just as bad as those you're railing against.

Quote:
Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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.

Bold mine.

Then again you seem to support the idea that the majority of Americans shouldn't be allowed to vote because of their religion... :roll:

-=Grim=-

No Nyarlathotep, Know Peace.
Know Nyarlathotep, No Peace.


Abandoned_Mind
atheist
Abandoned_Mind's picture
Posts: 56
Joined: 2006-02-15
User is offlineOffline
For all the apathetic atheists out there who think....

This monstrosity is on private church property paid for by private church dollars.

Maybe we should rethink tax-free status or zoning laws?

The Emptiness of Theology
-- Richard Dawkins


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
For all the apathetic atheists out there who think....

GrimJesta wrote:
I disagree.

haha..I figured you would

GrimJesta wrote:

Being intolerant to those who violate the US Constitution should be the order of the day, but being intolerant of a persons right to practice a religion? Then you're just as bad as these ultra-Christian Conservatives (who are not the majority, but the vocal minority with lots of money and the ear of carefully placed politicians). Are we no better than these NeoCons? We're also going to pick and choose which Constitutional Rights we embrace?

I'm talking about ending theism, it's for the better.

GrimJesta wrote:

Fighting against people stampeding the Constitution is something I support whole-heartedly. Public debate and discussion of religion is as well. But saying a "tolerant view of religion is wrong" is just as bad as those you're railing against.

Perhaps it is...and extremism, I guess begets extremism. but let me say this...I don't know if I have mentioned this before in the other thread (i've been busy and haven't been on here for a while), on of my paradoxes is the commitment to the constitution, while at the same time wanting to see theism end because, theism is just bad...period.

I agree with the constitutionality of the right to practice or not practice a religion. I think you and I agree here, however, if you look around you..who do you see controlling congress, the supreme court, the senate. It is religious zealots, neocons.. If you want to fight these people, you have to fight them at the core...otherwise...give up because they ain't leavin' and if you're cool with that..then hey..it's a free country right? If you think the fundamentalists are a minority...not to even acknowledge..why, then congress overwhelmingly xtian right neoconservative? I find it hard to believe that a minority 5% is able to keep fundamentalists in office.

GrimJesta wrote:

Quote:
Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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.

Bold mine.

And this constitutional right is exactly what your tolerant theists are trying to get rid of. I'm here to try to protect it, including MY RIGHT AS AN ATHEIST. They want congress to make laws respecting and establishment of religion. If you do not htink that is their goal..then my friend you not seeing reality..did you not read the article?

GrimJesta wrote:

Then again you seem to support the idea that the majority of Americans shouldn't be allowed to vote because of their religion... :roll:

-=Grim=-

Man that would make life so much easier...wouldn't it?
There are theists out there that understand the separation of church and state, the xtian left, whatever you want to call them. However, THEY are the minority here. the Xtian RIGHT is a HUGE money cash cow that feeds the military industrial complex, corporations, lobbying firms etc.. it is HUGE. They control the moderates because they dictate what the "church" wants...they control the voters...to attack it, i say attack it at its core, ending and discrediting theism.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


hungoverharry
Posts: 9
Joined: 2006-06-28
User is offlineOffline
For all the apathetic atheists out there who think....

i am with abandon_mind!


GrimJesta
GrimJesta's picture
Posts: 152
Joined: 2006-06-21
User is offlineOffline
For all the apathetic atheists out there who think....

LeftofLarry wrote:
GrimJesta wrote:
I disagree.

haha..I figured you would

LOL, debate is a foundation of free-thought. Eye-wink

LeftofLarry wrote:
GrimJesta wrote:

Being intolerant to those who violate the US Constitution should be the order of the day, but being intolerant of a persons right to practice a religion? Then you're just as bad as these ultra-Christian Conservatives (who are not the majority, but the vocal minority with lots of money and the ear of carefully placed politicians). Are we no better than these NeoCons? We're also going to pick and choose which Constitutional Rights we embrace?

I'm talking about ending theism, it's for the better.

That I have no problem with. But I'm not for under-representing the majority in a democracy. The problem also lies in the fact that those seeking to change the US government dodge theological debate.

LeftofLarry wrote:
GrimJesta wrote:

Fighting against people stampeding the Constitution is something I support whole-heartedly. Public debate and discussion of religion is as well. But saying a "tolerant view of religion is wrong" is just as bad as those you're railing against.

Perhaps it is...and extremism, I guess begets extremism. but let me say this...I don't know if I have mentioned this before in the other thread (i've been busy and haven't been on here for a while), on of my paradoxes is the commitment to the constitution, while at the same time wanting to see theism end because, theism is just bad...period.

My real beef isn't theism, it's unquestionable theism. Dogma is the death of change and the death of change kills evolution, which in turn stagnates the process, and stagnation means death. I think the world would be better off if theists and atheists alike acknowledged that mankind might be wrong about everything. So far atheism has tried to uphold their end of the bargain, while theism hasn't.

LeftofLarry wrote:
I agree with the constitutionality of the right to practice or not practice a religion. I think you and I agree here, however, if you look around you..who do you see controlling congress, the supreme court, the senate. It is religious zealots, neocons.. If you want to fight these people, you have to fight them at the core...otherwise...give up because they ain't leavin' and if you're cool with that..then hey..it's a free country right? If you think the fundamentalists are a minority...not to even acknowledge..why, then congress overwhelmingly xtian right neoconservative? I find it hard to believe that a minority 5% is able to keep fundamentalists in office.

What keeps them in office is the Fundamentalist NeoCons using scare tactics and false information to scare the shit out of the somewhat-theist majority, making them think that it's the End Times if things aren't run the "Jesus Way". Fundies are a monority, but they can scare the shit out of the majority easily thanks to guilt. Lots and lots of guilt with a healthy heaping of fear tactics.

LeftofLarry wrote:
GrimJesta wrote:

Quote:
Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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.

Bold mine.

And this constitutional right is exactly what your tolerant theists are trying to get rid of. I'm here to try to protect it, including MY RIGHT AS AN ATHEIST. They want congress to make laws respecting and establishment of religion. If you do not htink that is their goal..then my friend you not seeing reality..did you not read the article?

No, I read it. And I think it's fucked up. But I don't agree that you need to fight oppression of Constitutional rights with more oppression of Constitutional rights. Punishing the masses because the Opus Dei is calling the shots isn't how atheists can hope to win their case.

LeftofLarry wrote:
GrimJesta wrote:

Then again you seem to support the idea that the majority of Americans shouldn't be allowed to vote because of their religion... :roll:

-=Grim=-

Man that would make life so much easier...wouldn't it?
There are theists out there that understand the separation of church and state, the xtian left, whatever you want to call them. However, THEY are the minority here. the Xtian RIGHT is a HUGE money cash cow that feeds the military industrial complex, corporations, lobbying firms etc.. it is HUGE. They control the moderates because they dictate what the "church" wants...they control the voters...to attack it, i say attack it at its core, ending and discrediting theism.

You're 100% correct here. I do agree that the massively wealthy NeoCon Right is out of control, and the only way to effectively combat them is to eliminate their "Ave-Up-The-Sleeve": Religion. But what I'm talking about is making the average Jane and Joe American a casualty here. Moral "high ground" is everything in an argument, especially when it's public. Imagine what it'd look like if the atheists blatantly worked within the Constitution, protecting the Rights of all people while the NeoCons continued their charade of "democracy". Moral high ground... it's huge in public debates.

We do agree 95% of the way it seems. It's that last 5% that we disagree on. But get two Fundies in a room and you'll have the same numbers most likely.=, so this is nothing new.

Eye-wink

-=Grim=-

No Nyarlathotep, Know Peace.
Know Nyarlathotep, No Peace.


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
For all the apathetic atheists out there who think....

Grim,

I know we're on the same side here. I guess we do agree with most things..It's just that I'm so freakin' fed up with the fundies and their money..because they can do some serious damage here...and I just don't see the moderate xtians really doing anything about it. If anything, I see them for it. Keep in mind I am being sorrounded by fundamentalism..so my views are indeed shaped by MY sorroundings. I have met, rational, moral and extremely intellectuall theists..I had a friend request on myspace from this guy who read in full my site..asked for my friendship and gave me such praise I was actually taken aback. He was indeed a theist. an open minded, philosophist and a theist. him and I talk all the time and agree 99% of the time..of course we both know and we don't discuss the 1% the obvious belief in god. So I know there are good moderate, mind your own business, theists out there..perhaps. I just see too much of the fundamentalist view here in central Virginia. Remember, I live near Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson.

Also, there is something fishy going on at my universitie's biology dept. It is being slowly taken over by YOU GUESSED IT: creationists. A friend of mine, an adjunct professor got fired because he went to the press about the new Bio 101 book that does not mention evolution AT ALL except for in passing (via Darwin's life etc..). THe book does not discuss the origin of life, except for that it has a link to ICR (Institute for Creation REsearch). THe book was chosen by a committee (My friend was on it who had originally, before reading the book rubber stamped it's approval, then after he read it, he was appalled, he would've never thought). So go to find out, one of the members of this committee is a member of ICR. Another non-tenured professor had proposed a 300 level evolution class. He was approached by another tenured professor and was told that if he succeedd with this idea..he would never get tenured. It is getting ridiculous.

THe think tanks (Discovery Institute, ICR, etc..) have tried to attack the issue head on full force and were shut down..so now they are using another strategy.

Using money pressure in the form of political contribution to politicians whom in turn exert pressure (money) to universities deans for fundings and having ICR members, Discovery Institute members apply for biology positions at universities and having authors writing biology books are slowly trying to infiltrate biology depts. It is happenin' my friend, I have first hand account. It is getting ridiculous.

So, lately I've been increasingly seeing more and more theism being shoved in my face...all over...and it's the moderates that are allowing it to happen. That is why I'm fed up period. The constitutionality of practicing religion is something I cannot stop. But I also think that if we attack this from a social stand point and show that theism is wrong...then, hopefully there is hope for the future. It's rough...

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


qwak
Posts: 124
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
For all the apathetic atheists out there who think....

Quote:
The day McCaleb said this, lawyers were preparing to intervene in the dispute over the Mount Soledad cross, a war memorial erected in 1954 in La Jolla, Calif., and challenged by an atheist veteran. Federal judges ordered the cross to be removed from government land, but Justice Anthony M. Kennedy granted a temporary stay on July 3.

"For private citizens to be told they can't memorialize their dead is an outrage," said McCaleb, noting similar cases elsewhere. "It's not a matter of these crosses radiating secret Christian rays that will convert people."

Federal courts have said in the Mount Soledad case and other disputes that private land, including church property, is the appropriate place for such religious displays. They cite the Establishment Clause in the Constitution, which prohibits the government from sanctioning or favoring one religion over another.

From what I understand the land that the Mt. Soledad cross is on, is private land, purchased in order to keep the monument there. Personally, it doesn't really bother me since it's on private land. Granted, I did perform a couple flag presentation ceremonies there, but that was purely voluntary, and I have no problem paying respects to veterans regardless of their beliefs. I may not always agree with policy, but I will honor those who have served regardless of race, religion, etc. Unfortunately the Mt. Soledad issue keeps coming up, and while I haven't actually looked into ownership of the land, those of us that are protesting the cross just make the rest of us look bad/hypocritical. We don't want the church infringing on our rights, and we certainly can't infringe on their rights. Regardless of how we feel about theism (I personally despise religion), we can't take away a persons right to believe something or express it. The problem comes (as stated many times) when government is endorsing religion, and would also be a problem if government endorsed atheism. The best we can do is try an educate people, not tell them how it should be, and we should hold them to that same standard.

You want to believe the earth is only 6000 years old, fine, but don't try to teach it to my kid. You want your kid to pray in school, fine let him, he can pray before class or whatever if he wants, I just don't want the school forcing my kid to pray, or making him sit there while the other students pray. You want to go out and preach the word of god, fine, but don't be shocked when I tell you to fuck off, or get out my bible complete with highlighted quotations of bullshit. You want to post the ten commandments in your privately owned business fine, but keep them out of public schools and courthouses. When you wonder why we complain about the words 'under god' being in the pledge of allegience, remember that the pledge didn't originally contain those words. You want religion taught in public schools? fine, but I'm not going to teach that jesus is the son of god, I'm going to teach that christianity believes jesus is the son of god, among all the other crap, then i'm going to teach what islam believes, and judaism, and hinduism, etc etc etc. It's just cultural awareness. Is it really that difficult to not step on our shoes? We all have our rights clearly laid out. Our government can't tell me I need to go to church, and they can't tell you that you can't go to church. It's bad enough that this has been ignored in many places. But the more you push to inject religion into our daily lives, and into our public forums, the more we will push back.

music

http//www.myspace.com/antiqwak


GrimJesta
GrimJesta's picture
Posts: 152
Joined: 2006-06-21
User is offlineOffline
For all the apathetic atheists out there who think....

qwak wrote:
Regardless of how we feel about theism (I personally despise religion), we can't take away a persons right to believe something or express it. The problem comes (as stated many times) when government is endorsing religion, and would also be a problem if government endorsed atheism. The best we can do is try an educate people, not tell them how it should be, and we should hold them to that same standard.

That is the crux of the matter.

The reason why the more moderate majority doesn't do anything is because deep down in side they're terrified of the guilt, fiery wrath and punishment they've been hearing non-believers and bad Judeo-Christians get for opposing the Churches and Synagogues. And despite being moderate, they do believe in God, so this stuff isn't all hot air to them like it is to us. We see the machinations of a political machine that lost it's power in the 17th and 18th century, really lost it in the 20th century, and now it wants it's control back. They (the average Jane and Joe) see zealots and "intellectuals" telling them that we need God back in society to answer all of our problems (neglecting to tell people that the same problems were there as before, probably worse).

Who are they going to support?

This is why I'm against shoving them out or being a prick to them. PR and moral high ground is everything. If we shove them away we shove them to the other side faster than we can try to educate the masses. That's the crux of the matter here.

All we can do is do like everyone else: vote, try to educate people, support like-minded individuals, and "pray" someone else with a lot of cash gets behind our causes.

-=Grim=-

No Nyarlathotep, Know Peace.
Know Nyarlathotep, No Peace.


GrimJesta
GrimJesta's picture
Posts: 152
Joined: 2006-06-21
User is offlineOffline
For all the apathetic atheists out there who think....

On a quick footnote, I may be from New York City, but now I live in upstate NY, so I know what it's like living in a bastion of theism. NYC gives the impression that New York is a liberal, open-minded state, but it isn't. NYC is. Where I live is a bastion of Conservative Republicans, so I know what it's like dealing with this shit.

-=Grim=-

No Nyarlathotep, Know Peace.
Know Nyarlathotep, No Peace.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
For all the apathetic atheists out there who think....

Did anyone see where Bill Maher mentioned this statue? He said if they are attacked by a 5-story vampire, they are so ready! Laughing out loud

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


qwak
Posts: 124
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
For all the apathetic atheists out there who think....

GrimJesta wrote:
On a quick footnote, I may be from New York City, but now I live in upstate NY, so I know what it's like living in a bastion of theism. NYC gives the impression that New York is a liberal, open-minded state, but it isn't. NYC is. Where I live is a bastion of Conservative Republicans, so I know what it's like dealing with this shit.

-=Grim=-

offtopic: What part of upstate? I'm originally from buffalo myself.

music

http//www.myspace.com/antiqwak


Anonymous
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
For all the apathetic atheists out there who think....

:idea:

If you mean fight in the sense of violence, of course not. Fighting religious zealots only increases their will to fight back and produces intransigent beliefs. The war in Iraq, for example, gives an excellent example of this.

If you mean fight in the metaphorical sense, yes. Eradicating beliefs requires education debate and communication, and the ability to change the political environment but not violence.


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Re: For all the apathetic atheists out there who think....

QueefsR4Quitters wrote:

If you mean fight in the metaphorical sense, yes. Eradicating beliefs requires education debate and communication, and the ability to change the political environment but not violence.
[/color]

This is the one I mean. but not only the political environment but the social one as well. I truly do believe this country would be better off without religion. AT the very LEAST we should maintain a secular humanist government that does not impede the freedom granted by the constitution to practice religion. Unfortunately we are seeing that state/church wall eroding...which is what stemmed this whole debate in the first place.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Re: For all the apathetic atheists out there who think....

QueefsR4Quitters wrote:
:idea:

If you mean fight in the sense of violence, of course not. Fighting religious zealots only increases their will to fight back and produces intransigent beliefs. The war in Iraq, for example, gives an excellent example of this.

If you mean fight in the metaphorical sense, yes. Eradicating beliefs requires education debate and communication, and the ability to change the political environment but not violence.

BTW: I used to have that placard of the Reality Bites fish on my old car before someone smashsed into it..bought of course from>>>>EVOLVEFISH.COM

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


GrimJesta
GrimJesta's picture
Posts: 152
Joined: 2006-06-21
User is offlineOffline
For all the apathetic atheists out there who think....

qwak wrote:

offtopic: What part of upstate? I'm originally from buffalo myself.

(sm)Albany. Granted, every year this city gets slighty better than it was the previous year, but coming from NYC this place is almost a joke. Almost. But if it was I'd be laughing and I'm not.

Eye-wink

-=Grim=-

No Nyarlathotep, Know Peace.
Know Nyarlathotep, No Peace.


staks
atheist
staks's picture
Posts: 37
Joined: 2006-03-02
User is offlineOffline
For all the apathetic atheists out there who think....

Dangerous Talk's Response
Special thanx to DanHalen


-Staks


Atheist_Scathe
Posts: 69
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
For all the apathetic atheists out there who think....

Larry, thanks for bringing this to our attention. I agree with you about not having a tolerant view of religion- actually I generally despise it and this statue is a good example of why: what a waste of money and effort! Now, I ABSOLUTELY think that they have a right to spend THEIR money as they wish- hell, if they wanted to build a bordello in a new annex who the fuck am I to say they can't?! Sure it's sleazy and goes against tenets of Christianity but no fucking skin off my nose... anyway, for an institution that holds itself so high and mighty, this is nothing short of PATHETIC. What an attention-whoring expenditure! Christ, couldn't that have gone to a BETTER use JUST for that congregation?! Tell me NO ONE in there has MEDICAL BILLS or house payments or college tuition?! No, that doesn't matter, all that matters is that we suck up to an invisible being who craves it! What a mess!

But I also take this as some, possible sign of hope: if a church has to reach THIS far then well, they're REALLY reaching and this may be in response to a deeply-felt insecurity on their part. If THIS is what they feel they have to do to get people's attention, then to what have they been reduced?