U.S. politics isolation tank

Therein lies the rub. In my eyes, there is no difference between the aggressive, combative, in-your-face atheist (and I used to be one) and the aggressive in-your-face proselytizing christian/other person. There's no difference in net effect, just direction. It's like the communist and the fascist. One may be leftist and the other rightist, but both want to oppress.
Both want to oppress? Bullshit.

Christian Proselytizers want to force you to belive in god. they threaten you with hell. And they coerce money for the masses, and use that to lobby for laws that would force their religious dogma on the schools, people's marriages, they want their religous definitions of "sin" to be the standard for legal definitions of wrongdoing.

Atheist "oppression" tries to force these people to keep their religion to themselves.

What the actual fuck.

Homburg said:
And to add an interesting piece of info to this portion of the discussion, there was a study that showed that christians in America were outperformed on religious knowledge by atheists. Fun fact, eh? Atheists know more about religion than christians, heh.
yeah, it's self defence. I've been invited to Bible study classes in the past, on account of how the leader thought that an atheist viewpoint would be useful-- which it was not, it horrified the rest of the group and one mom wouldn't let me touch her kid afterwards:rolleyes:

That was in a suburb of Philadelphia, for 'heartland' reference. I found myself there as a result of a moms-and-kids play group, and the reason I was in that group with my kids was because someone who knew I was na atheist thought that it would be a decent fit for me-- there were more religions represented in it, it wasn't solely SDA or something.

And that was true-- there was a Catholic woman (who had gotten pregnant during a drunken bar crawl and hated the baby daddy), Methodists, all kinds of sects even a jewish Christian couple.

All of them, though, had one thing in common-- they all began from the premise that Gods exist. We just avoided talking about religion. They sure talked about church a lot!
 
Last edited:
There's no difference in net effect, just direction. It's like the communist and the fascist. One may be leftist and the other rightist, but both want to oppress.

I take some issue with this. Communism ideals do not promote or condone opression. Communist ideals aim for freedom from class and economic restrictions. Yeah, I admit the reality of communism rarely reaches this and ends up being opressive, but I blame fascism for that.

And to add an interesting piece of info to this portion of the discussion, there was a study that showed that christians in America were outperformed on religious knowledge by atheists. Fun fact, eh? Atheists know more about religion than christians, heh.

So what does that really say? Does that say solely that christians are uniformed? Yeah, it does, actually. They performed poorly compared to other religions. But when you make the same comparison between atheists and other religions, you find that the atheists performed well period.

So are atheists smarter? Better educated? Or are they maybe just a lil obsessed? I think I know what Shakespeare would say - "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." :D

http://www.pewforum.org/U-S-Religious-Knowledge-Survey-Who-Knows-What-About-Religion.aspx

Disclosure - I either took part in this survey, or took part in a very similar one around the same time. Not sure if it was this one, but it came out with the same sort of results. I do remember that much.

And there's a link to a 15 question quiz along the lines of the study. I got 15 out of 15, so, yeah, lil obsessed. Then again, my lil obsessed non-believer ass has a degree in philosophy and religious studies with a pretty solid amount of the latter in there insofar as electives are concerned. My lack of faith manifested very strongly in a desire to understand it as far back as I can recall. I spent much of the first half of my life reading about the topic in a vain attempt to understand why people were so wound up about it.

And I can't tell you how many times I've taken career tests and gotten "priest", "preacher", or "rabbi" as the response. Gotta love that, eh?

Heh, I got 13 out of 15 on that test. Think I mucked up the questions about what US teachers can do in the classroom. I agree with the studies findings; some of the most religiously unaware people are the the most devout.

I identify as agnostic. I was raised Catholic and still enjoy the ceremony of mass, but it holds no real religious meaning to me. I count myself very lucky to live in such a non-secular country. Traditional churches are closing their doors here because their congregations are dying off. Increasing ethnic diversity means that celebrations like Diwali attract tens of thousands of people each year. There is a very small Christian minority that tries to aggressively promote their agenda but no one takes them seriously and they are widely ridiculed. :D

I think I would really struggle to live in a country in which religion plays a part in policy making. I think it would make me feel stabby and intolerant. Kudos to you Americans staying sane amisdst the madness. God knows I wouldn't. ;)
 
<snip>
I think I would really struggle to live in a country in which religion plays a part in policy making. I think it would make me feel stabby and intolerant. Kudos to you Americans staying sane amisdst the madness. God knows I wouldn't. ;)

I'm so glad you have such a tolerant definition of "sane." Otherwise, I'm not sure I'd qualify.
 
Both want to oppress? Bullshit.

Christian Proselytizers want to force you to belive in god. they threaten you with hell. And they coerce money for the masses, and use that to lobby for laws that would force their religious dogma on the schools, people's marriages, they want their religous definitions of "sin" to be the standard for legal definitions of wrongdoing.

Atheist "oppression" tries to force these people to keep their religion to themselves.

What the actual fuck.

If I tell you that you cannot express your beliefs in a way that does not materially harm you or another, I am oppressing you. It is the same whether the motivation is a religious person trying to foist Christian ideals onto a non Christian populace as it is if an atheist tries to prevent expression of religion.

Either way it is oppression in my eyes.

All of them, though, had one thing in common-- they all began from the premise that Gods exist. We just avoided talking about religion. They sure talked about church a lot!

Premise A: God exists.
Premise B: God does not exist.

They possess the same veracity. I see no quantative difference between their starting point and yours, and thus do not understand why you find theirs so offensive.

---

I take some issue with this. Communism ideals do not promote or condone opression. Communist ideals aim for freedom from class and economic restrictions. Yeah, I admit the reality of communism rarely reaches this and ends up being opressive, but I blame fascism for.

Communism in the real world has always resulted in oppression. This is why I used it as an example.

And while I appreciate the compliment, I disagree that we stay sane. Religion is another issue that is slowly driving this country to madness.

And as much as I may be debating with Stella, I am fully in agreement that religion in politics is a recipe for oppression.
 
Last edited:
If I tell you that you cannot express your beliefs in a way that does not materially harm you or another, I am oppressing you. It is the same whether the motivation is a religious person trying to foist Christian ideals onto a non Christian populace as it is if an atheist tries to prevent expression of religion.
Which religious expressions do atheists try to prevent? And under what conditions? And what are the most often-cited reasons for the attempt?
Either way it is oppression in my eyes.
I think you and I define "oppress" a little bit differently. I can, and do express my viewpoint vehemently. But I cannot pass a law preventing heterosexual marriage because it's a sin. I mean, just for instance.
Premise A: God exists.
Premise B: God does not exist.

They possess the same veracity. I see no quantative difference between their starting point and yours, and thus do not understand why you find theirs so offensive.
well, that's pretty damned insulting. I never said that I found their starting point offensive. I did say that it was demonstrated to me how offensive my starting point was to them. Mostly, I find the difference in starting points to be alarming. As in, sometimes I feel myself to be in danger because of the hatred and bigotry that some Christians exhibit. (I'm sure, yes, of course, that some Christian somewhere has been deathly afraid of those horrible atheists.)

In Christian eyes, 1) God exists, has a corollary; MORAL PEOPLE BELIEVE IN GOD PEOPLE WHO DO NOT ARE IMMORAL AND GOING TO HELL

In atheist eyes, 2) Gods do not exist, has a corollary; I have no need to believe in any gods. You don't either. Oh, and by the way, you cannot kill me for my disbelief. That would be stupid.
Communism in the real world has always resulted in oppression. This is why I used it as an example.

And while I appreciate the compliment, I disagree that we stay sane. Religion is another issue that is slowly driving this country to madness.
yes, indeed.
 
Last edited:
Oddly enough-- debate about religion and politics is not fun for me. I do it, because I feel I had better speak up.

But it leaves me feeling sick and sad. If it were only a matter of differences of opinion, I could enjoy it more. But these differences of opinion have been visited on us in material ways.
 
If I tell you that you cannot express your beliefs in a way that does not materially harm you or another, I am oppressing you. It is the same whether the motivation is a religious person trying to foist Christian ideals onto a non Christian populace as it is if an atheist tries to prevent expression of religion.

Either way it is oppression in my eyes.

I disagree -- you need power to oppress. I suppose an atheist boss could oppress some religious workers, but atheists aren't a politically powerful group in this country (so-called hollywood elite aside, and they're motivated by dollars not an atheist agenda).

Oddly enough-- debate about religion and politics is not fun for me. I do it, because I feel I had better speak up.

But it leaves me feeling sick and sad. If it were only a matter of differences of opinion, I could enjoy it more. But these differences of opinion have been visited on us in material ways.

I hear you -- I've had similar experiences, and certainly jews can be big assholes to atheists too.
 
I'm sure I'll submerge again after a little bit, and that'll slow things down a touch.



Making people cringe is the point to the comparison. It is purposefully uncomfortable. I want that cringe because it has a better chance of causing the very sort of rational self-searching that atheism purports to engage in. I've argued before that atheism in this country has become a dogmatic religion sans godhead, and still mean it. I've been in discussions where people, myself included, have been told they were "not atheist enough".

No one expects the Atheist inquisition!

Submerge again -- do you live in a swamp? :eek:;)

I'm cool with introspection, and assholes abound in this world, but I don't feel it's the same.

LOL on the Atheist inquisition though.
 
I'm so glad you have such a tolerant definition of "sane." Otherwise, I'm not sure I'd qualify.

Anyone that manages to not act on their crazy is sane in my eyes. And I'm sure we've all been a bit insane at least some off the time. :eek:

Oddly enough-- debate about religion and politics is not fun for me. I do it, because I feel I had better speak up.

But it leaves me feeling sick and sad. If it were only a matter of differences of opinion, I could enjoy it more. But these differences of opinion have been visited on us in material ways.

:rose: I get this. Thank you for saying it so eloquently. I tried coming up with a better response than this but failed miserably. Maybe I'll come up with something coherent later.
 
Been following the discussions on my coffee (well, tea) breaks.

Interestingly, I had an acquaintance email me yesterday. She had read my blog and wanted to thank me for speaking up. She is gay, and an atheist, and even in this very hippie and ultra-liberal corner of the world, she feels afraid to state openly that she is an atheist.

That's what I think gets missed here. Most atheists, the vast majority I would wager, are afraid to speak up, to say, "I don't believe". Homburg, your arguments work well on a philosophical level but in the real day-to-day world, atheists are very much the minority and in your country I'm willing to bet they feel grossly underrepresented - just like the moderate pro-gun folks, of which you spoke. We don't have platforms from which to speak, and so we have to start creating our own. We have to let people know it's OK to not believe.

As well, the vast majority of atheists, like me, don't want to oppress believers. Have your churches, have your rituals, have your icons and symbols, be my guest. I have no interest whatsoever in dictating what a person does on their own time, in their own space. But when it comes to public space and public policy? No, absolutely not. That should be neutral ground. Particularly politics and law.

And there is a difference between shoving something down someone else's throat and deliberately provoking an argument, and saying, "Here is what I think and here is why I think it" and not being afraid to do so.
 
Which religious expressions do atheists try to prevent? And under what conditions? And what are the most often-cited reasons for the attempt?

Are you seriously asking me to support the idiotic "War on christmas" crowd by parroting their arguments? The bottom line here is that there is a not-insignificant portion of the atheist population that goes beyond "freedom of religion" into "freedom from religion". Therein lies the attempts at oppression.

It is one thing for a school that has school prayer and to force a child (atheist or not) to take part (a clear violation of 1st amendment proscription against establishment of religion), and another for the government to include non-denomenational mention of god in a graphic (Less clear of a violation of the 1st amendment). Sure, I'd like less god in my government by a long shot, but a lawsuit to stop the former is defensible and understandable, while a lawsuit to stop the latter all too often heads into pedantry and actively damages the cause and general appearance of atheists as a whole.

To me, there is no world in which the proper response to being the victim of oppression is to turn around and attempt oppress or marginalize those who transgressed against you. It may feel like justice, but all it does is further the cycle of alienation and anger.

I think you and I define "oppress" a little bit differently. I can, and do express my viewpoint vehemently. But I cannot pass a law preventing heterosexual marriage because it's a sin. I mean, just for instance.

If you produce a majority in congress, you can. And even without that majority, if you convince a sufficiently high level of judge of your case, you can get injunctions and such. Usually the judicial path is the common choice of the Michael Nudow's of the world.

Again, squelching the expression of another absent material harm is oppression in my eyes. And an attempt is an attempt.

well, that's pretty damned insulting. I never said that I found their starting point offensive. I did say that it was demonstrated to me how offensive my starting point was to them.

of·fen·sive (-fnsv)
adj.
1. Disagreeable to the senses: an offensive odor.
2. Causing anger, displeasure, resentment, or affront: an offensive gesture.

You are insulted because I called a spade a spade? It is pretty clear that this starting point causes you anger, displeasure, and leaves you feeling resentful. Or is that just a factor of the vehemence of your response?

And, honestly, and I mean no offense by stating this, but if you came off in those discussions as you do here, I wouldn't be surprised to hear that they found your viewpoint offensive.

I don't really care whether they found your views offensive or not in this particular context. The initial pretext of the discussion happened because of words exchanged between myself and Keroin on how I did not identify as atheist because of the attitude and negativity of too many atheists. As a result, I don't care if religious people are douches. I don't get lumped in with them. I care about atheists being aggressive and overly vehement because their actions do reflect on me by my own lack of belief.

In the end, all I am saying is that I don't want people being dicks to each other, atheist or not. As I'm not religious, calling on my fellow non-religious peeps to dedickify the discussion makes more sense than looking across the aisle and saying for shame at the opposing side.


Mostly, I find the difference in starting points to be alarming. As in, sometimes I feel myself to be in danger because of the hatred and bigotry that some Christians exhibit. (I'm sure, yes, of course, that some Christian somewhere has been deathly afraid of those horrible atheists.)

Of course they are. We challenge the validity of their beliefs, much like those evil gays call their saintly heterosexuality into question as well.

No, it makes no fucking sense. I know this, you know this. But the fact that it makes no fucking sense is immaterial in this context. Stupid people will believe stupid things and nothing you, or I, will do will ever change that. But we don't have to be dicks about the things we believe. We don't have to poke the badger with spoons and thus give them more reasons to despise us.

And, again this may be regional, but the general response that I've always received for being an atheist has been pity, offers of prayer, attempts to save, etc. At their core, each of these response is nothing more than that person trying to do something nice by me. I may not want it, but they aren't trying to steal my wallet. From their perspective, they have something that brings them joy and they want to share. It's like your cat bringing you half of a dead mouse. You may not want the mouse, but it is kitty trying to do you a solid in her world view.

And, no, this is not some sort of defense of delusion, but it is trying to understand that a difference in viewpoint and belief does not automatically connote evil. It's just different. Now if that difference causes them to attempt to foster evil upon me, the circumstances have changed.

In Christian eyes, 1) God exists, has a corollary; MORAL PEOPLE BELIEVE IN GOD PEOPLE WHO DO NOT ARE IMMORAL AND GOING TO HELL

As hell does not exist in my world view, it means exactly zero that they believe I'll go there. And I don't give a shit if they think I'm immoral. By their standards, I am immoral. I'm okay with that. I do things well beyond simply not believing in god that make me immoral, so I can't get all butthurt if I am immoral for that reason too.

In atheist eyes, 2) Gods do not exist, has a corollary; I have no need to believe in any gods. You don't either. Oh, and by the way, you cannot kill me for my disbelief. That would be stupid.

And there's also the secondary corollary that they see/hear of "And you're either crazy or stupid to believe in you magical sky fairy." In other words, much like their magical sky fairy book gives them reasons to cast aspersions on us, we have the same class of preconceived notions about them because of the things we believe.

Religious person looks at atheist and thinks, "You're blind or stupid for not believing in god."
Atheist looks at religious person and thinks, "You're stupid or crazy to believe in magical sky fairy."

In each case, this is what the other party is assuming, and, again, no quantitative difference at core.

Oddly enough-- debate about religion and politics is not fun for me. I do it, because I feel I had better speak up.

But it leaves me feeling sick and sad. If it were only a matter of differences of opinion, I could enjoy it more. But these differences of opinion have been visited on us in material ways.

I'm going to preface this by saying that I'm not trying to offend, but this probably will - If you are insulted as easily on this topic as you appear to be from above, and get as wound up as you appear to from the posts you're making, I am not surprised to hear that discussing politics and religion upsets your equilibrium. And I am honestly sorry that this happens to you because I think that you are 100% correct in that you, and I, and everyone else, has a material duty to speak up when we are being marginalized.

As I said before, we disagree by degrees in how we handle things, but, at core, I find religion intermixing with politics to be horrific and dangerous. As I said in another post, I think the dominionists are the single greatest threat to liberty in this country today. I just see no reason to be a dick about those beliefs.
 
There is atheism, and then there is anti-theism, a difference I'm pretty sure I learned from Homburg. You can probably guess how I feel about each one.
 
I was going to answer point-by-point, but basically all you are saying is that some people have such bad manners, my goodness!
As I said before, we disagree by degrees in how we handle things, but, at core, I find religion intermixing with politics to be horrific and dangerous. As I said in another post, I think the dominionists are the single greatest threat to liberty in this country today. I just see no reason to be a dick about those beliefs.
Well, tell you what. You keep right on clutching your pearls about my debate methods, and I will continue to fight for that thing we both hold dear. :kiss:
 
If you produce a majority in congress, you can. And even without that majority, if you convince a sufficiently high level of judge of your case, you can get injunctions and such. Usually the judicial path is the common choice of the Michael Nudow's of the world.

No -- heterosexual marriage is considered a "fundamental right." Any law imposing a burden on that right would be struck down unconstitutional. And no judge would mess with it either.
 
In atheist eyes, 2) Gods do not exist, has a corollary; I have no need to believe in any gods. You don't either. Oh, and by the way, you cannot kill me for my disbelief. That would be stupid.

Stella, it doesn't bother me in the least that you're an atheist. I also don't care (much) that your debate tactics are not the ones I would choose most of the time. I understand that you have been hurt and fucked over by religious people. Believe me, I know how that goes. I don't mind that you rant against people trying to push their religion off on you, either. Lord knows, I think everybody hates that. I get that it makes you emotional, and it should.

But what does bother me is stuff like I quoted above. You don't want religious people telling you what to believe, but on the other hand, you seem to have no problem telling them what they should believe.

It's cool that you have no need to believe in any sort of Divine. It's not cool for you to say that I have no need to do so. You have no idea what I--or anyone else--needs.

I don't want my beliefs to to affect anyone else in any way, and I do my best to make sure that they don't. My right to believe, to misquote the old Libertarian argument, ends where your right to disbelieve begins. I only ask that the reverse be true as well.
 
I disagree -- you need power to oppress. I suppose an atheist boss could oppress some religious workers, but atheists aren't a politically powerful group in this country (so-called hollywood elite aside, and they're motivated by dollars not an atheist agenda).

Uh, no. You need power to be successful at it. To attempt it, all you need is motivation.

And, oh, goodness, no. Atheists are quite powerful politically. If we weren't, we not be held up as such a boogeyman in christian/conservative parlance. Both political factions (whose venn diagrams are largely overlapping) show atheists to be a massive, lurking threat and spend copious amounts of time and resources to undercutting and opposing the atheist agenda. Hit conservapedia if you want to see an amusing (and infuriating) example.

Interestingly, by doing so, they do append a surprising amount of accidental power, but that is an entirely different discussion.

And hollywood doesn't count? If they are not a secret front for jews, they're a secret front for god-hating atheists. Read the real papers that'll tell you truth, and not the liberal controlled MSM!

Hollywood does count. But more importantly, and more powerfully, so does Science. Those science types with their glasses and sliderules are all arrayed against christian thought as well.

And lightly humourous intent aside, atheism is only seen as non-powerful because it hasn't organized in any meaningful way. Were it to do so, it would realize more power. Personally, I hope it does not, as it would provide a target for the religious right to target and hate on. I don't need the stress.



Submerge again -- do you live in a swamp? :eek:;)

I'm cool with introspection, and assholes abound in this world, but I don't feel it's the same.

LOL on the Atheist inquisition though.

I am the dialectical submarine.

Okay, you disagree. I'm cool with that, but are you just going to tease me, or are you going to support your disagreement with reason?

Oh, random aside, but I happened to click on this Cracked dot com piece from FB today:

http://www.cracked.com/article_20186_6-ridiculous-myths-about-middle-ages-everyone-believes.html

Check out #6. Not that I consider Cracked a super trusted historical source or anything, just thought it was timely.

Cracked, like the Onion and the Daily Show, has some surprising relevance buried in the snark.

--

Been following the discussions on my coffee (well, tea) breaks.

Interestingly, I had an acquaintance email me yesterday. She had read my blog and wanted to thank me for speaking up. She is gay, and an atheist, and even in this very hippie and ultra-liberal corner of the world, she feels afraid to state openly that she is an atheist.

That's what I think gets missed here. Most atheists, the vast majority I would wager, are afraid to speak up, to say, "I don't believe". Homburg, your arguments work well on a philosophical level but in the real day-to-day world, atheists are very much the minority and in your country I'm willing to bet they feel grossly underrepresented - just like the moderate pro-gun folks, of which you spoke. We don't have platforms from which to speak, and so we have to start creating our own. We have to let people know it's OK to not believe.

As well, the vast majority of atheists, like me, don't want to oppress believers. Have your churches, have your rituals, have your icons and symbols, be my guest. I have no interest whatsoever in dictating what a person does on their own time, in their own space. But when it comes to public space and public policy? No, absolutely not. That should be neutral ground. Particularly politics and law.

And there is a difference between shoving something down someone else's throat and deliberately provoking an argument, and saying, "Here is what I think and here is why I think it" and not being afraid to do so.

First, I'm going to say that there is, or at least should be, zero difference between philosophy and the "real world". If I am afraid to hold to my philosophy then I lack the courage of my convictions and should not claim to hold to them. And as I have no problem identifying myself as a non-believer when it comes up, I'd say that my philosophy sees a lot more real-world action than that of never mentioning it out of fear.

Second, the religious nuts in my country are well armed. that makes being in the minority more exciting. (Yes, that's a joke.)

I personally think my philosophy is quite real world, as being not-a-dick means I generally have very little problem expressing myself with zero dangerous repercussions. Either I live in a different universe from most folks, or my reasonableness (plus my imposing overall appearance probably) causes people to magically be nice to me. Either way, I was the same person physically back when I was a dick about my atheism, and I caught a lot of hell. So it's logical to presume that, size/appearance/mien staying basically constant, the change in attitude probably has something to do with people being less aggressive about the viewpoints I espouse.

*shrug* Maybe it's just me. As MIS has said more than one, I lack the fear gene. Maybe she's right.

And, I'm with you. The vast majority of atheists don't want to oppress believers. But, at least from my personal experience, the vast majority of believers don't want to oppress non-believers either. Where we see oppression, they often see the half-dead mouse.

Oppression is theoretically built into the system, sure, but so are ways to challenge said oppression. All I'm saying is that I have no desire to oppress others, I have no desire to hate on people as a faceless mob, and don't want to be seen as a dick because my innocuous* beliefs on a given issue align with some notorious dickheads. If my beliefs are dickish, well, hey, I'll fill my boots. If not, I don't want to be presumed that way because others are due to their more extreme version of similar beliefs.

And, fuck, it is difficult as shit to try to construct posts when I'm being interrupted every five minutes. So if I don't make sense from a structure or wording standpoint, at least a portion of that is due to interruption. If I don't make sense from a core reasoning standpoint, well, that's all on me.



* - "Innocuous" in this case, is just used as short-hand for "causing no material harm to others"
 
Last edited:
In most cases, it's compelling argument for a moral agreement amongst the "us" as opposed to the "them." Heathens pagans and unbelievers either must become usses as well, or be considered less than, and unprotected by the moral agreement.

Hominids were taking care of wounded tribe members before there was language. There are a number of finds where someone broke a major bone and lived long enough for it to heal-- meaning they had help surviving.

It's still true-- The San! Bushmen take care of their people and although they have a god concept, their gods doesn't punish anybody.

The idea that it's better to cull the weak rather than take care of them only happens when there are plenty of people around to make up for the lack, which is a state of affairs that exists in spades right now. Around then is when some asshole comes up with a hypothesis like "Man the Hunter" and promotes it as if it were proven theory, and people start talking as if genocide were the rule rather than the exception.

It's still a religion. There are plenty of them that don't evangelize or have punitive gods.

The Egyptians did medical care, the pyramid builders even went on strike for more sunblocking kohl eyeliner and got it and a raise. But the project they were working on was a religious one and on the whole they believed in it.
 
There is atheism, and then there is anti-theism, a difference I'm pretty sure I learned from Homburg. You can probably guess how I feel about each one.

Yeah, this is a point I've made before and consider pretty valid. The difference between the two is more than a bit important IMO.

--

I was going to answer point-by-point, but basically all you are saying is that some people have such bad manners, my goodness!

Well, tell you what. You keep right on clutching your pearls about my debate methods, and I will continue to fight for that thing we both hold dear. :kiss:

I laughed and felt slightly marginalized at the same time. Bravo :D

And I'm saying considerably more than that, but I understand if you don't feel like discussing it further.

--

No -- heterosexual marriage is considered a "fundamental right." Any law imposing a burden on that right would be struck down unconstitutional. And no judge would mess with it either.

Pfft, wouldn't be the first time laws have been passed that erode at various rights, and it wouldn't be the first time that the judiciary had to reign it in. Nowhere in there did I say it was right or proper, just that it was possible.

--

I don't want my beliefs to to affect anyone else in any way, and I do my best to make sure that they don't. My right to believe, to misquote the old Libertarian argument, ends where your right to disbelieve begins. I only ask that the reverse be true as well.

I rather like that misquote.
 
Atheists can absolutely oppress on a small scale, taking Communism out of the discussion. Example: banning the headscarf. Banning earlocks. Insisting that the Sikh guy doff his "hat." Making Quakers bow to the King. Pulling JW kids onto their feet for the Pledge.

Religious minorities get the crap from both sides. You're satanic to the majority and you're ridiculous to the secularists, who don't care if you're collateral damage in the struggle.
 
Last edited:
Atheists can absolutely oppress on a small scale, taking Communism out of the discussion. Example: banning the headscarf. Banning earlocks. Insisting that the Sikh guy doff his "hat." Making Quakers bow to the King. Pulling JW kids onto their feet for the Pledge.

Religious minorities get the crap from both sides. You're satanic to the majority and you're ridiculous to the secularists.

I actually don't recognize these as organized atheist efforts. Re: the headscarf and earlocks -- you mean, in France? Is that atheists or political groups motivated by nationalism/cultural purity?

ETA - I mean, I'm not suggesting atheists are above oppression, just that I don't see it existing in this country.
 
Last edited:
Stella, it doesn't bother me in the least that you're an atheist. I also don't care (much) that your debate tactics are not the ones I would choose most of the time. I understand that you have been hurt and fucked over by religious people. Believe me, I know how that goes. I don't mind that you rant against people trying to push their religion off on you, either. Lord knows, I think everybody hates that. I get that it makes you emotional, and it should.

But what does bother me is stuff like I quoted above. You don't want religious people telling you what to believe, but on the other hand, you seem to have no problem telling them what they should believe.

It's cool that you have no need to believe in any sort of Divine. It's not cool for you to say that I have no need to do so. You have no idea what I--or anyone else--needs.

I don't want my beliefs to to affect anyone else in any way, and I do my best to make sure that they don't. My right to believe, to misquote the old Libertarian argument, ends where your right to disbelieve begins. I only ask that the reverse be true as well.
You are right. I have no right to tell you what you need.

But I do get to say, once in a while, when goaded by debate, what I think. As it happens, I think that a lot of people who DO believe don't actually NEED to.

Me thinking, or even saying maybe you don't need a god? Is not in any way the same as you (not that you do) threatening me with the worst fate that exists in your world unless I follow you into those beliefs. Not to mention... lemme hit the horse once more... that there are laws in this land which I must honor that only exist because the Bible Told Them So.

And once more, that damned outcry of "oppression!" when we try to undo those laws.

This horse is never going to get up, is it? ;)
 
Pfft, wouldn't be the first time laws have been passed that erode at various rights, and it wouldn't be the first time that the judiciary had to reign it in. Nowhere in there did I say it was right or proper, just that it was possible.

It's possible to pass it if you managed to get a majority in Congress of anti-het marriage folks. Regardless, the subsequent legal challenge would be successful.
 
You are right. I have no right to tell you what you need.

But I do get to say, once in a while, when goaded by debate, what I think. As it happens, I think that a lot of people who DO believe don't actually NEED to.

Me thinking, or even saying maybe you don't need a god? Is not in any way the same as you (not that you do) threatening me with the worst fate that exists in your world unless I follow you into those beliefs. Not to mention... lemme hit the horse once more... that there are laws in this land which I must honor that only exist because the Bible Told Them So.

And once more, that damned outcry of "oppression!" when we try to undo those laws.

This horse is never going to get up, is it? ;)

I'm pretty sure the horse's corpse has rotted by now, and we're just flogging away at the skeleton.... :p
 
Back
Top