Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Nemesis6 on May 27, 2011, 10:30:37 am
-
May 25, 2011
Whatever you think about atheists -- good, bad, mixed, indifferent -- this story should seriously trouble you.
Damon Fowler, an atheist student at Bastrop High School in Louisiana, was about to graduate. His public school was planning to have a prayer as part of the graduation ceremony: as they traditionally did, as so many public schools around the country do every year. But Fowler -- knowing that government-sponsored prayer in the public schools is unconstitutional and legally forbidden -- contacted the school superintendent to let him know that he opposed the prayer, and would be contacting the ACLU if it happened. The school -- at first, anyway -- agreed, and canceled the prayer.
Then Fowler's name, and his role in this incident, was leaked. As a direct result:
1) Fowler has been hounded, pilloried, and ostracized by his community.
2) One of Fowler's teachers has publicly demeaned him.
3) Fowler has been physically threatened. Students have threatened to "jump him" at graduation practice, and he has received multiple threats of bodily harm, and even death threats.
4) Fowler's parents have cut off his financial support, kicked him out of the house, and thrown his belongings onto the front porch.
Oh, and by the way? They went ahead and had the graduation prayer anyway.
http://www.alternet.org/belief/151086/high_school_student_stands_up_against_prayer_at_public_school_and_is_ostracized,_demeaned_and_threatened/?page=entire
Basically, when people ask "what's the harm?" regarding Christianity, this is pretty much it. There's a lot more to this article: Links to the guy's initial post on reddit, links to videos of the event, etc. I wonder how much better it gets once you go north, out of the bible-belt I mean.
-
Today in stupid generalizations that help create the very problems they're condemning
-
Yeah, because this doesn't happen in a lot of schools, and this kind of incidents (which I've seen multiple reports from many parts of your country btw) isn't really important. What does it matter if someone is bullyied out of his own life by all the community and even his own parents, just by trying to get the school to stick to its constitutional rights?
No, what is important is not to demean religion. Because that's the real danger here, innit?
-
This is why I'm glad to be in Blighty.
-
I don't see a single problem here that can be blamed on Christianity. It's like blaming fevers for disease.
-
guess the problem is stupid people.
-
I'd not like to be mistaken for defending any particular religion here, I'm not so religious myself, but what did Fowler honestly expect to achieve with this? If he had beef with a prayer, then perhaps he could've done the smart thing and just kept his mouth shut whilst everyone who wished to pray, well, prayed.
I would have publicly called this bloke a right wanker if he went to my school and did that, it seems he's being a twat simply for the sake of being a twat to me. The prayer would not have physically harmed him in any way, shape, or form. The prayer would not have had any lasting psychological effects on him, and ultimately, it matters absolutely 0 as to whether the bloody prayer is read out or not to his health and wellbeing. I rarely advocate withholding a stand against something you believe in, but if he had a real problem with religion in a public institution, trying to make some kind of stand at your graduation where people seem to feel rather strongly about this sort of thing is not what I would call the smartest thing in the world to do.
EDIT: Because Dilmah is a grammatical legend ;)
-
My suspicion is that he got exactly what he was aiming for, and that the news report tries to make the persecution a response to his (lack of) religion, rather than to his making a scene. But only having the report to go on, I'm only speculating.
-
Yeah, and what's with Rosa Parks too? What an asshole she was.
I mean, wow. Reading all you guys it's like we are still living in the 13th century.
And of course blame it on stupid people. All the benefits of religion have everything to do with it, and all its negatives are humans' fault. And there's nothing wrong with that human reasoning too, since it's consistent with the thought that humans are stupid ;).
-
Mate, Rosa Parks was subject to discrimination that you couldn't dream of. Read what I posted again, I make the point that there is absolutely 0 threat to Fowler's wellbeing by allowing the prayer to be read. In Rosa Parks' case, there was indeed such an impact as a result of discrimination.
And man, I didn't say **** about any benefits of religion.
My suspicion is that he got exactly what he was aiming for, and that the news report tries to make the persecution a response to his (lack of) religion, rather than to his making a scene. But only having the report to go on, I'm only speculating.
Yeah, don't know for sure man.
-
It's awkward because many Christians see the 'seperation of Church and State' as being a discrimination against them, especially when it can be end-run by saying you are an Atheist, and therefore there is no Church to seperate. So an atheist can say "It is my moral, non-religion belief that X should be banned", and there's still seperation, but a Christian stating the same view as a Religious belief hits a brick wall. In that respect, it's makes a tricky road to walk.
When I go to Church for weddings etc, I don't make a scene, I just sit silent during the Lord's prayer, or occasionally mumble "We are the Borg, your technological and biological distinctiveness will be added to our own. From this point onwards you exist to service....us. Resistance is futile. Amen", but only if I had a bad day.
I also see the Atheists point of view, that it is a creeping situation, where prayers for a specific belief system are being slotted into multi-cultural systems and that is wrong. On balance, I think it's more the small-mindedness of the people involved, rather than religion itself that is to blame here.
-
Yeah, and what's with Rosa Parks too? What an asshole she was.
Well if you want me to make that comparison... I'd say it's as if Rosa Parks boarded a bus in Berkeley today while shouting at the bus driver for discriminating against her, and then a story appeared in the paper about how racism is such a huge problem.
-
Mate, Rosa Parks was subject to discrimination that you couldn't dream of. Read what I posted again, I make the point that there is absolutely 0 threat to Fowler's wellbeing by allowing the prayer to be read. In Rosa Parks' case, there was indeed such an impact as a result of discrimination.
I'm sure many people also thought that Rosa Parks was just being silly and trying to make an avoidable scene by trying to get a seat on a white bus. So you are just displaying that people never really change over the generations, "but that's totally different". Yeah, I'm sure many people said the same back then, perhaps even starting with "I like black people, I have black friends but that was totally innapropriate".
I just can't understand what is it so much innapropriate about having a belief that the society would be better off if religion wouldn't be so intertwined with the state, and acting in that regard. He didn't make a scene. He was discreet, until someone leaked him off.
The reaction of all the community and even his folks are exactly what proves the point that he was trying to make.
I'm sorry to say but all of your reaction stirs in me the exact feeling I have when I hear the phrase "but she was asking for it with that provocative dress", wrt a rape reporting.
Shame on you.
[quot€]And man, I didn't say **** about any benefits of religion. [/quote]
So don't reply to it.
-
To be fair, atheists are heavily ostracised in certain areas of the US. My brother went to a wedding in the US and was criticised for being Atheist. When he stated that he had as much right to an opinion as anyone else, he was told that 'Freedom of Speech' only applied to Americans. It's not like that all over, I'd like to stress, but that mentality does exist.
-
Yeah, and what's with Rosa Parks too? What an asshole she was.
Well if you want me to make that comparison... I'd say it's as if Rosa Parks boarded a bus in Berkeley today while shouting at the bus driver for discriminating against her, and then a story appeared in the paper about how racism is such a huge problem.
Except that the shouting was made by an anonymous passerby, who watched with delight to the ensuing beating. But that's just a detail, right?
-
Except that the shouting was made by an anonymous passerby, who watched with delight to the ensuing beating. But that's just a detail, right?
Huh?
No, as if Rosa were. :blah: How did I say that at all? :/
-
Read the report again. He was very discreet. Problems only arose when his name was leaked.
Why was it leaked? And for what? And now a young person has his own future destroyed, but that's okay because he was asking for it, for being such a baby cry, right?
-
What he did was 'meh'. He could have just ignored it and moved on, because a prayer wouldn't have hurt him in the slightest. Still seems to me that he was doing it just to be (as previously stated) a twat.
What the people/town did was bad. There is no Biblical basis for that kind of behavior.
Your generalization downright pisses me off. YOU are the problem. YOU are the reason there is still discrimination on both sides. Stop labeling me a 'Christian' and actually learn what I believe (if you could be arsed to care enough). Isn't that the beating heart of all battles against racisim and sexism too? I do missions work on local campuses. I get discriminated against all the time by atheists. But I do not apply their actions to 'American Atheism'. If I did? Well, I certainly wouldn't be able to have friendly conversations with half of HLP, now would I?
Lastly, I'll pay more attention to 'separation of church and state' when it is no longer just a rule to shut people up. (AKA, when references to God are removed from all governmental documents and tender.) Because like it or not, the entire world's worth of cultures are pretty much all based heavily on one religion or another.
-
Yeah, a young student was just thrown out of his life for trying to get his school to obey the constitution, but I am the problem here.
No, sorry, you are suffering heavily from the Dunning–Kruger effect, it's the only way I can even square it.
I do missions work on local campuses. I get discriminated against all the time by atheists.
Exactly how? Please enlighten the audience how your situation is comparable.
But I do not apply their actions to 'American Atheism'. If I did? Well, I certainly wouldn't be able to have friendly conversations with half of HLP, now would I?
Why not? Are you unable to differentiate between "american atheism" and "atheists"? One is a sociological phenomena, the other is actual people. You can speak to people.
Lastly, I'll pay more attention to 'separation of church and state' when it is no longer just a rule to shut people up
It's your prerrogative, you are free to care zero. You should understand that others have their own prerrogatives, and their own reasons.
-
Why not? Are you unable to differentiate between "american atheism" and "atheists"?
ahahahahahahahahahhaha
-
Read the report again. He was very discreet. Problems only arose when his name was leaked.
Why was it leaked? And for what? And now a young person has his own future destroyed, but that's okay because he was asking for it, for being such a baby cry, right?
The article is obviously sympathetic to him. Even supposing that it reported all the facts truthfully, it would paint his actions in the best possible light and his school's in the worst, which I glossed over in my first post. In fact I hadn't read the article carefully, but after reading descriptions of exactly what happened to him in retaliation, I am even more convinced that much more is being hidden here.
He might even have leaked his own name to create just this situation.
-
Man, all the **** going on here is just human nature. You can change the labels on the groups all you like. Straights, gays, Christians, atheists, majority, minority, Captain Hammer, Dr. Horrible, doesn't matter. Treat the disease, not the symptoms.
-
Yeah, a young student was just thrown out of his life for trying to get his school to obey the constitution, but I am the problem here.
No, sorry, you are suffering heavily from the Dunning–Kruger effect, it's the only way I can even square it.
Yup. You want to be respected? Then stop disrespecting me. That's how the world works, regardless of how right or wrong that is. Anyone who blindly generalizes and discriminates based on that is the problem.
Exactly how? Please enlighten the audience how your situation is comparable.
Dude, I get yelled at, poked fun at, all that good stuff. I even got 'tossed' off a campus (AKA the admins asked me to leave because my presence was causing the students to make a scene... note, that day I was simply having a Bible study with some students.)
Why not? Are you unable to differentiate between "american atheism" and "atheists"? One is a sociological phenomena, the other is actual people. You can speak to people.
No idea what you are trying to say here.. seems like you are contradicting yourself. Do you want me to just consider you a jerk like the some of the atheists I've met on campus? I can do that if you wish... However I prefer not to generalize all atheists under the same category.
It's your prerrogative, you are free to care zero. You should understand that others have their own prerrogatives, and their own reasons.
Heh, of course would like a rule that allows you to hypocritically shut me up. If you are a 'real' atheist then the 'In God we trust.' on your money should bother you...
Man, all the **** going on here is just human nature. You can change the labels on the groups all you like. Straights, gays, Christians, atheists, majority, minority, Captain Hammer, Dr. Horrible, doesn't matter. Treat the disease, not the symptoms.
Also this ^. 'Christianity' or 'Atheism' are not the disease, blind hatred is. Blind hatred is fueled by generalizations.
-
Man, all the **** going on here is just human nature. You can change the labels on the groups all you like. Straights, gays, Christians, atheists, majority, minority, Captain Hammer, Dr. Horrible, doesn't matter. Treat the disease, not the symptoms.
Quote me an example of this kind of situation happening in a non-religious context and I'll agree with you that the solution involves nuking the entire planet.
-
Man, all the **** going on here is just human nature. You can change the labels on the groups all you like. Straights, gays, Christians, atheists, majority, minority, Captain Hammer, Dr. Horrible, doesn't matter. Treat the disease, not the symptoms.
Quote me an example of this kind of situation happening in a non-religious context and I'll agree with you that the solution involves nuking the entire planet.
Try being gay and going to prom
-
Yeah, a young student was just thrown out of his life for trying to get his school to obey the constitution, but I am the problem here.
No, sorry, you are suffering heavily from the Dunning–Kruger effect, it's the only way I can even square it.
Yup. You want to be respected? Then stop disrespecting me. That's how the world works, regardless of how right or wrong that is. Anyone who blindly generalizes and discriminates based on that is the problem.
See? This is the problem right here. If I criticize religion, you take it offensively.
If I criticized your political position, would you take it offensively? If I criticized one of your works for its inherent flaws, would you take it personally?
No. But religion is different. People can't criticize religion, because it's offensive. The hell with that silly idea.
Exactly how? Please enlighten the audience how your situation is comparable.
Dude, I get yelled at, poked fun at, all that good stuff. I even got 'tossed' off a campus (AKA the admins asked me to leave because my presence was causing the students to make a scene... note, that day I was simply having a Bible study with some students.)
Were you thrown out of your own house because your parents found out about it? I know a good number of similar cases to this one.
I am poked fun by many silly things I happen to believe or think. Even in this forum. I take it as part of the game. Were you ever called unamercan because of your beliefs? Should I quote you Bush senior's thought about atheists and their unamerican stance? Do you even have the gall to still compare the situations?
It's your prerrogative, you are free to care zero. You should understand that others have their own prerrogatives, and their own reasons.
Heh, of course would like a rule that allows you to hypocritically shut me up. If you are a 'real' atheist then the 'In God we trust.' on your money should bother you...
Except that it is not "you" that I'm shutting up. You are not christianity, you are a person. Am I shutting you up if I say that "In God we Trust" is a silly proclamation that has no right of being printed in money, constitutionally? Am I even lying?
What's so hipocritical about being so clear on this subject? I say, preach as you will and as much as you want, it's your prerrogative. Just accept that the state has and shouldn't have anything to say about religion, and we'll be just fine. If you don't, you are clearly saying that the country is "made" only for believers, and the schools are actually for christians only (and the atheists should just pretend they are christians too and shut up, just like the stupid minority they are).
Also this ^. 'Christianity' or 'Atheism' are not the disease, blind hatred is. Blind hatred is fueled by generalizations.
What a cop out.
-
Man, all the **** going on here is just human nature. You can change the labels on the groups all you like. Straights, gays, Christians, atheists, majority, minority, Captain Hammer, Dr. Horrible, doesn't matter. Treat the disease, not the symptoms.
Quote me an example of this kind of situation happening in a non-religious context and I'll agree with you that the solution involves nuking the entire planet.
Try being gay and going to prom
As if there isn't a correlation there.
-
Man, all the **** going on here is just human nature. You can change the labels on the groups all you like. Straights, gays, Christians, atheists, majority, minority, Captain Hammer, Dr. Horrible, doesn't matter. Treat the disease, not the symptoms.
Quote me an example of this kind of situation happening in a non-religious context and I'll agree with you that the solution involves nuking the entire planet.
Try being gay and going to prom
As if there isn't a correlation there.
ding ding ding, starting to get it
take the next step
-
Yeah, ok, I'll be direct: christianity is homophobic too! :lol:
EDIT: In a more serious note, and taking your example, shouldn't we also agree then that "homophobia" isn't a problem as well?
Or should we just toss it into the garbage of "human traits" and do nothing about it too?
-
:lol:
Luis Dias... you prove my points. Thank you.
-
:lol:
Luis Dias... you prove my points. Thank you.
Read my edit. What Battuta is suggesting is that we shouldn't do anything about this discrimination because homossexuals are also discriminated, thus it's something that just happens 'coz we're humans.
We should stick to modelling ships in freespace and belittle anyone who dares doing something about what they believe.
-
Honestly I don't think discussions with imaginary friends belong anywhere near academic graduation ceremonies.
I really have trouble respecting religious people because their beliefs are so damn silly.
-
Read my edit. What Battuta is suggesting is that we shouldn't do anything about this discrimination because homossexuals are also discriminated, thus it's something that just happens 'coz we're humans.
You are smart enough to know this isn't what I'm saying. Put the effort in.
-
I think the point trying to be made is that if it these people weren't using their own version of 'Christianity' to persecute that which they fear, they'd use something else.
In fairness, Christianity does preach homophobic beliefs in many cases, but then, so do most religions. The problem is that people fear what is different, and religion is simply a way to institutionalize it.
-
i don't think hes suggesting any such thing. What i gather is this guy was trying to be an attention whore and it backfired on him.
I'm an atheist, I don't care what other people believe... if they wanna say a prayer for me, go ahead, its their time they're wasting. Do I care if i hear it? newp. Sure its not fun, exciting, whatever... but it sure as hell doesn't cause me any harm.
Now... I could be an ass and start a scene and demanding the people stop their bible hurdling and stfu. but nope, not gonna do it... Know why? Cuz i'm tolerant of what other people believe. My opinion doesn't have to be the same opinion everyone else has and I'm not gonna be an ass just cuz i think differently.
-
But when those beliefs impinge on someone else's right to believe something different, it becomes an issue. I agree that complaining about the prayer was a contentious issue, but there's no point jumping to conclusions about what this guy 'might' or 'might not' have done, we seem to be doing a lot of judging on what we think his intentions were. How does that make us any different?
-
You are smart enough to know this isn't what I'm saying. Put the effort in.
You are saying that Xtianity should have a free pass that other systems of ideas never had.
Would this have happened in a communistic context, everyone would blame communism and say "1984". And rightly so.
But because the context is christian, people build up a blind spot and say "no, not xtianity, humans are the problem". Which is "true", in the most vague, meaningless and useless sense.
Yeah, I can envision a world where people are not treated like this because they dare have a political voice and try to do the right thing. Even a mostly christian one. But I also think that religious people should look into themselves and wonder if it isn't their own tribalism regarding their own religion which is creating so much pain here. Because it is.
-
fair enough. I meant to add as well, that what the community did to this guy was wrong, weither he intended for a reaction or not. Here again, another example of the "holy" christian's persicuting someone for believing differently. I think they may have missed a few of those lessons they were sposed to learn in sunday school.
-
Dammit, so glad I don't live there.
-
I'm an atheist, but i am not as much tolerant, i rather don't give a damn to what deity whoever believes in :P To paraphrase Firefly - You are welcome in my house, God ain't - As long as you do not force anyone to believe the same as YOU do, it's fine.
-
Have to say I agree with the kid. While I didn't get all huffy and puffy when I had to sit through prayers in a public school, I wondered how it could possibly represent separation of church and state every time. It's not specifically Christianity that could be the transgressor in this sense, it could be any religious belief, but the mentality behind it is far from proper. Imagine how almost all of the folks involved in this would be screaming at the top of their lungs if they were being forced to sit through Muslim salah.
He tried to be discreet, his name was leaked. He was harassed by his peers because he thought differently than they did. He was kicked out by his family because they are close-minded dopes. (Unfortunately from what I understand of modern Christian fundamentalist social structure, this sort of behavior towards those who throw off the belief is practically expected.) I saw plenty of the exact same thing when I was in High School at home; gotta love pack mentality. The only anti-religious sensationalism here appears to be the news article.
-
One word of advice. Let's play nice here.
There's one thing I would not say of Battuta, it's that he's suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect:
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled people make poor decisions and reach erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to appreciate their mistakes.
If people cannot discuss this issue without insinuations or personal attacks, it will get locked. If I am unprepared to accept Cavuto marks as an acceptable form of debate then I cannot accept this either.
-
What happened to the kid is terrible and stupid and clearly wrong.
It just doesn't have much if anything to do with American Christianity. Did you know that most black people live in Africa in underdeveloped nations? Black people cause underdevelopment!
-
I know it's going back a few pages and is tangential, but I'd like to point out that the account of Rosa Parks on the bus is a huge piece of revisionist history. Parks was involved in an rights group for some time which was planning an action in a public place to make the point for quite some time. Rosa did NOT perform her act of civil disobedience spontaneously, or as some humble folk hero. While she served as a media catalyst for the civil rights movement, it was a very intentional action and not the spontaneous bit of folklore that history likes to portray it as. (It's surprising how little of this is known, despite a very public record of her actual participation. I only discovered it myself when writing a paper for a sociology class on power dynamics, which led me to revise my key argument :P)
Sorry for the digression, just figured I should point out that Parks should not really be the focus of any discussion of non-activist participation in a rights group.
-
One word of advice. Let's play nice here.
There's one thing I would not say of Battuta, it's that he's suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect:
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled people make poor decisions and reach erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to appreciate their mistakes.
If people cannot discuss this issue without insinuations or personal attacks, it will get locked. If I am unprepared to accept Cavuto marks as an acceptable form of debate then I cannot accept this either.
Clarification:
1. The Dunning–Kruger effect is something that happens to *all humans*. It's part of the human condition. It was just easier to spot in less intelligent people, because there were smarter people to compare them to, but that does not mean that this is a condition of "stupid" people. Thus it is not an insult, but an accusation that the person speaking was probably even unaware of why the fuss is all about, which is clearly evident;
2. The person in question is not Battuta, but MJN;
Saying that someone is suffering from DKS is saying that they are having a blind spot in their reasoning. Again, it was not intended as an insult, but if it was perceived as such, I'm sorry.
-
What happened to the kid is terrible and stupid and clearly wrong.
It just doesn't have much if anything to do with American Christianity. Did you know that most black people live in Africa in underdeveloped nations? Black people cause underdevelopment!
It is astonishing how frequently that correlation/causation paradigm needs to be rehashed around here.
The actions of the community, in this case, are much more attributable to human psychology than they are to religious belief.
-
The actions of the community, in this case, are much more attributable to human psychology than they are to religious belief.
Word up, social science.
-
The actions of the community, in this case, are much more attributable to human psychology than they are to religious belief.
Word up, social science.
Join my groupthinking fistbump, or else.
-
What happened to the kid is terrible and stupid and clearly wrong.
It just doesn't have much if anything to do with American Christianity. Did you know that most black people live in Africa in underdeveloped nations? Black people cause underdevelopment!
It is astonishing how frequently that correlation/causation paradigm needs to be rehashed around here.
The actions of the community, in this case, are much more attributable to human psychology than they are to religious belief.
To be fair though, follow the rabbit hole deep enough and everything can eventually be blamed on human psychology. If an institution has bred a mindset where its followers are going to rabidly turn on an outsider, then there is a flaw in the institution. The fact that the flaw is a product of our limited monkey brains doesn't mean the issue can't be addressed.
-
Again, that's the easy cop out. Every bad action can be "more" attributable to human psychology than anything else.
This does not excuse the existence of social paradigms (like religion) that constantly harrass free thinkers for their heresies.
The only way to "change" the psychology in action that is so "attributable" is to tame religion to the point where people get to understand the difference between their metaphysical beliefs and the nature of the state. The only way to do so is to confront religious people with these problems and confront them with what appears to be the usual "She's raped because she's a slut" mentality (which was ****ing obvious in this thread, let alone in the mentioned town).
Until they acknowledge there's even a problem, there's no getting around it. MJN apparently thinks that the proposal to get God out of the US dollar is an offense at his own freedom of speech! And we're talking about someone who is, to all my considerations, an intelligent man. So *out there*, it can get only worse.
-
To be fair though, follow the rabbit hole deep enough and everything can eventually be blamed on human psychology. If an institution has bred a mindset where its followers are going to rabidly turn on an outsider, then there is a flaw in the institution. The fact that the flaw is a product of our limited monkey brains doesn't mean the issue can't be addressed.
Sure, I don't disagree with that at all. I think it almost certain that this whole affair was triggered by these people's religious beliefs.
Unfortunately, it takes a lot of training to clamp that statement down to what it actually means and place it in the context of a socioeconomic system. Go the other way and you end up like the religious-atheist loons that pop up around here.
-
To be fair though, follow the rabbit hole deep enough and everything can eventually be blamed on human psychology. If an institution has bred a mindset where its followers are going to rabidly turn on an outsider, then there is a flaw in the institution. The fact that the flaw is a product of our limited monkey brains doesn't mean the issue can't be addressed.
No one is saying the problem shouldn't be addressed - it's just silly to blame a huge, diverse institution for the perversion of its belief set by a fairly small number of individuals operating under essentially human conditions. Seeing as most religious have tolerance and respect for other humans as their core tenets, it's foolish to blame the religion when the cause is human psychological wiring.
We are hard-wired to create outgroups. It's how we've survived as a social species. This behaviour isn't a product of religious teaching, it's a product of social psychology. Treating the religion isn't going to correct the problem - it exacerbates it.
-
The actions of the community, in this case, are much more attributable to human psychology than they are to religious belief.
Word up, social science.
Join my groupthinking fistbump, or else.
That was pretty much the point of my posts, I guess I just wasn't clear enough.
Also,i said many posts ago, that those people had no Biblical basis for their actions. So blaming all of Christianity doesn't make much sense.
-
Again, that's the easy cop out. Every bad action can be "more" attributable to human psychology than anything else.
All human actions are fundamentally derived from human psychology. Makes a lot more sense to address the problem at its root than take the easy route and blame <insert social institution here>. Blaming religion is the facile recourse of those who fail to recognize the same social reflexes in themselves as those they attempt to critique.
-
It may "exarcebate it" just like the civil rights movement "exarcebated" violence between ethnics. But you are missing the bigger picture.
You are saying that this isn't the product of "religious teaching", but it is connected to. "Religious teaching" tells you that the only way to envision the universe is with christian lenses, that the US is a "nation under god", and we frequently hear (even presidents!) that only god believers are "true americans".
Of course we can blame our mammal brain for this stuff! But until someone gets to replace everyone's brain with something more civilized, we are stuck with dealing with these tribal brains and inform them that their own vision of the country and the universe does not give them unconstitutional rights, that there is something called a "wall of separation between state and religion", that we should all cherish it, for the alternative is to descent into real deep unfree darkness.
But to me to underline this issue, to say to religious people, "look your religion has a problem here", is the real problem now, dontchaknow? The problem is these "religious-atheists loons" who dare speak their minds, unlike those quiet and well-behaved atheists who don't care about their rights being tossed out the window. Those are behaving correctly and should be applauded I guess.
-
You still don't get it. This situation has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the individual was an atheist and the community rallied around purportedly-religious principles. That's an aside, easily corrected. The legal correction in this case would be legal action in accordance with constitutional law. That's easy.
What's problematic in this case is commentators clamoring to blame the religious institution [Christianity] rather than the actual problem - people. To repeat myself from two posts up, blaming religion is the facile recourse of those who fail to recognize the same social reflexes in themselves as those they attempt to critique.
-
To be fair though, follow the rabbit hole deep enough and everything can eventually be blamed on human psychology. If an institution has bred a mindset where its followers are going to rabidly turn on an outsider, then there is a flaw in the institution. The fact that the flaw is a product of our limited monkey brains doesn't mean the issue can't be addressed.
No one is saying the problem shouldn't be addressed - it's just silly to blame a huge, diverse institution for the perversion of its belief set by a fairly small number of individuals operating under essentially human conditions. Seeing as most religious have tolerance and respect for other humans as their core tenets, it's foolish to blame the religion when the cause is human psychological wiring.
We are hard-wired to create outgroups. It's how we've survived as a social species. This behaviour isn't a product of religious teaching, it's a product of social psychology. Treating the religion isn't going to correct the problem - it exacerbates it.
I suppose it matters where you define the difference between core tenets and practice. I generally find pretty much every religion can be distilled down to a similar benign core rule set. Its my opinion that providing law before laws and judiciary existed to be one of religions' core purposes.
That doesn't change the fact that it has a long storied history of suppressing/ostracizing outsiders. An edict by the Pope to go retake the holy land from the heathen Muslims, while motivated by greed and politics is still an act of the church. Certainly the zealots on the pointy end of the Crusade certainly thought they where doing God's will.
-
The problem is these "religious-atheists loons" who dare speak their minds, unlike those quiet and well-behaved atheists who don't care about their rights being tossed out the window. Those are behaving correctly and should be applauded I guess.
Haven't seen any of those yet.
-
That doesn't change the fact that it has a long storied history of suppressing/ostracizing outsiders. An edict by the Pope to go retake the holy land from the heathen Muslims, while motivated by greed and politics is still an act of the church. Certainly the zealots on the pointy end of the Crusade certainly thought they where doing God's will.
Again, none of this is a quality unique to religious institutions. They're represented best in the written historical record because they have a long written history (actually, until very recently, the sole source of written history), but it doesn't make any particular religion the worst offenders. People have been doing this sort of thing since well before people actually existed in our current species.
All social species do this sort of thing. Though I still think bonobo's have the best resolution mechanism of any of us :P
-
What's problematic in this case is commentators clamoring to blame the religious institution rather than the actual problem - people.
Why is it problematic for people to appear and try to propose that there is something rotten in religion itself that creates these issues?
You don't agree, that's fine, but why the **** is it so problematic?
Mind you, you said that "what is problematic here" is us, basically. Which is bull****, since I never deprived anyone of living their lives as they wished, nor did I expelled anyone from school for their beliefs, nor did I ban anyone from their rooftop because they dared make a courageous political point.
It's always the same bull****. When the cartoons appeared, which enfuriated a large part of the muslim community and a small part of it burned embassies and people over it, the problem wasn't the vandals and the barbarians, it wasn't the dogmatic idiocy of the religion, no, the problem were the cartoonists, something that most european politicians agreed to, just like the pope, etc. The problem wasn't the bullying, the killing, the inquisition that was formed against the heresies, the problem was those pesky free people and their cartoons.
-
The problem is these "religious-atheists loons" who dare speak their minds, unlike those quiet and well-behaved atheists who don't care about their rights being tossed out the window. Those are behaving correctly and should be applauded I guess.
Haven't seen any of those yet.
If they are quiet, how could you see them? DOH
-
Luis, stop. None of us are saying that what the people did in this circumstance wasn't wrong. However, that doesn't make what you're doing any less wrong. The same goes for my opinion on the Mohammed cartoon fiasco.
The second you blame the institution you remove personal culpability for one's own behaviours. You're just as blinded by groupthink as the people in that Louisiana town claiming to be Christians - both parties are clinging to their social belief set to the exclusion of all else, despite rational positions to the contrary of their own.
It is impossible for a human being to be a rational observer, but it is possible to approximate one by acknowleding one's own beliefs and biases and accounting (rather than excluding) for them when making a judgement. You have not done so.
-
That doesn't change the fact that it has a long storied history of suppressing/ostracizing outsiders. An edict by the Pope to go retake the holy land from the heathen Muslims, while motivated by greed and politics is still an act of the church. Certainly the zealots on the pointy end of the Crusade certainly thought they where doing God's will.
Again, none of this is a quality unique to religious institutions. They're represented best in the written historical record because they have a long written history (actually, until very recently, the sole source of written history), but it doesn't make any particular religion the worst offenders. People have been doing this sort of thing since well before people actually existed in our current species.
Certainly I agree, but religion is one of the more efficient vehicles for focusing and exacerbating the sort of group think/outsider mentality that plagues us. Most religious institutions do promote the idea that its followers are "on the path" and those who aren't are well not. If you could exorcise (haha) that part out of those institutions they would be quite a bit less contentious.
-
doesn't the bible say something to the effect of "Let he who is with out sin to cast the first stone"? I highly highly doubt the teachings of the church said go get your torches and pitch forks and teach this non believer a lesson. The people in this circumstance made a conscious decision to make this guy pay for his heathen ways.
Exactly HOW is that the fault of the religion? Every instance of this sort of thing through out history can be attributed to the people involved making the decision to actively and aggressively force their beliefs on another people. This is not the teachings off the bible, this is the act of people.
-
Certainly I agree, but religion is one of the more efficient vehicles for focusing and exacerbating the sort of group think/outsider mentality that plagues us. Most religious institutions do promote the idea that its followers are "on the path" and those who aren't are well not. If you could exorcise (haha) that part out of those institutions they would be quite a bit less contentious.
Institutional reform isn't going to address the groupthink/collective consciousness issues of it's followers. Take Christianity as an example. While the Church (and several of its Protestant brethren) have officially thrown support behind evolutionary theory, can any of us take a guess at how many segmented collectives of Christians there are that are still staunch Creationists? Another example - look at the decentralized nature of Islam. Some Muslim groups are staunch advocates of human rights; others routinely condone the stoning of women for being raped. These are not official, central teachings - they are beliefs that are constricted to and define core groups of individuals that socially operate as a whole.
Blaming the religion fails to address the issue. So you magically reform religious institution - how do you propose to reform the social groups that previously identified with it and cling to their isolating social belief set? Better yet, what are you going to do when governments do the same sorts of things (*coughGermanycirca1933-45Serbiacirca1990sIraqcirca2004Rwandacirca1990setcadnauseumcough*)?
-
Luis, stop. None of us are saying that what the people did in this circumstance wasn't wrong. However, that doesn't make what you're doing any less wrong.
So I am equally at fault as the people who tossed their own son out of their house now?
Ok, now that you've stated the most insanely silly thing yet, why should I take you seriously now?
The same goes for my opinion on the Mohammed cartoon fiasco.
Again, the cartoons are as faulty as the people who actually burned embassies now? Or the forces that acted on such purpose?
The second you blame the institution you remove personal culpability for one's own behaviours.
It's exactly backwards. It's because of the groupthink of these people that they think they did the right thing and even if they know they didn't, they do not consider it as part of the personal responsibility.
The problem is the existence of said groupthink. Which is its religious identity.
You're just as blinded by groupthink as the people in that Louisiana town claiming to be Christians - both parties are clinging to their social belief set to the exclusion of all else, despite rational positions to the contrary of their own.
If you can't see any difference between an army of bullies who harrass an young man who merely fought for his constitutional rights and someone who proposes verbally that religion might have something to do with it, then really I don't know what to say. The astronomical lack of grasp of the morally inequivalent is so huge that I am at a loss of words.
It is impossible for a human being to be a rational observer, but it is possible to approximate one by acknowleding one's own beliefs and biases and accounting (rather than excluding) for them when making a judgement. You have not done so.
Yes I have. You just don't like the conclusions I still arrive with that accounting in mind.
-
This is not the teachings off the bible
Which is irrelevant. Religion does not follow its own tenets, nor could it, for it is filled with inconsistencies. This does not render it unexcusable nor inexistent.
-
This is not the teachings off the bible
Which is irrelevant. Religion does not follow its own tenets, nor could it, for it is filled with inconsistencies. This does not render it unexcusable nor inexistent.
I actually think its very relevant, whether the doctrines of the religion are constant or not doesn't make a difference here. No where in the bible does it say to act in the fashion these people did. I can't see a priest, preacher, or what have you telling his congregation to do the things or act the way these people have. So they got this skewed idea in their head they were doing gods work by acting this way? psh... they're delusional at best, malicious at worst. The people that performed the acts are the ones to blame.
-
I can't be bothered to argue with someone who willfully misreads and engages in strawman debate tactics, then fails to acknowledge the points raised. Someone else take a crack at Luis, I've got better things to do with my time today.
-
I can't be bothered to argue with someone who willfully misreads and engages in strawman debate tactics, then fails to acknowledge the points raised. Someone else take a crack at Luis, I've got better things to do with my time today.
Don't worry about it, he's already had a few threads to shape up and hasn't managed it yet.
-
This is not the teachings off the bible
Which is irrelevant. Religion does not follow its own tenets, nor could it, for it is filled with inconsistencies. This does not render it unexcusable nor inexistent.
I actually think its very relevant, whether or doctrines of the religion are constant or not doesn't make a difference here. No where in the bible does it say to act in the fashion these people did.
Your ignorance of the bible is not an argument. Go read Leviticus and cry. And then cry again.
I can't see a priest, preacher, or what have you telling his congregation to do the things or act the way these people have. So they got this skewed idea in their head they were doing gods work by acting this way? psh... they're delusional at best, malicious at worst. The people that performed the acts are the ones to blame.
You really think these people didn't see this devil creature "atheist" as a threat to their delicate religious society, attacking them in their "rights"?
So a person tries to undo an unconstitutional offense by his school, which is entirely related to a religious rite, the whole community bullies the guy, but this is unrelated to the aforementioned religion?
Sorry, I don't buy it.
I can't be bothered to argue with someone who willfully misreads and engages in strawman debate tactics, then fails to acknowledge the points raised.
Ridiculous, you were directly asked if my criticism and the acts made were morally equivalent and you agreed they were. Now you are running away because I pointed out the obvious.
-
So I am equally at fault as the people who tossed their own son out of their house now?
You made the thread about "Christianity in America," not "a bunch of bigots in northern Louisiana."
You've distracted from the incident by baiting people into discussing Christianity versus Atheism. This isn't a topic about the oppression of a youth who stood up for his Constitutional rights, because you framed the topic as one of Christians at large oppressing Atheists in the United States. (And you've done so by citing a single anecdote, which is inadequate to justify the generalization.) You've set up a scenario where Christians on the forum will be more strongly tempted into a knee-jerk reaction of defending the violation of the Constitution because you've made Christianity the issue, an us-versus-them debate, instead of the Constitutional violation.
In short, you're reinforcing the kind of groupthink that caused the problem in the first place.
-
ok see now you're just flaming so, go ahead continue to be a douche bag. I tell you what, to take on your mentality, I will rally all the non douche bag people in the world to smite you and castrate you because you are an affront to our ways. Begone with you I say! Trouble us no longer.
-
This really isn't going to go anywhere is it?
-
Right, now everyone has had a chance to calm down a bit, I'm unlocking it.
Let's try to discuss the issue at hand and not make disparaging remarks about the people themselves? Remember, debate the views, not the person.
-
Right, now everyone has had a chance to calm down a bit, I'm unlocking it.
Let's try to discuss the issue at hand and not make disparaging remarks about the people themselves? Remember, debate the views, not the person.
You probably could merge StarSlayer's thread into this one. It expands on what Battuta and I have been getting at.
-
I think it might be better, on this occasion, to keep it seperate, since this deals with the specific (i.e the enforcement of values under the label 'Christian') compared to the general (the tendency of 'herd mentality' amongst humans), but I'll see how things progress :)
-
This is just like when someone tries to mess with tradition anywhere; I doubt half of the people angry at the guy were angry because they're die-hard Christians, but mostly because prayers and such are traditional at large gatherings like these. Try to keep Florence Henderson from singing God Bless America at the Indy 500 and lots of racing fans would be up in arms.
There are a lot of things that can be blamed for how this played out; Christianity as a whole is not one of them. The school system promised to accommodate and then backed out, and a lot of people who are at best angry traditionalists, at worst petty, retaliated for something that would have made no difference in the long run.
This isn't about atheism versus Christianity (as the article points out, lots of Christians should be upset about how this played out); it's about a change in tradition that made a lot of people angry and put some poor kid in the middle of it because he simply asked to be accommodated at an important moment in his life.
-
NOTE: I do not condone the use of violence towards the subjects in question.
#1. The sources for this are utter refuse. I can't help but feel that there is much more to this than we are hearing about.
#2. The author of the linked article is far beyond biased, exceeding the mark of sensationalism (I gather this both from the article and numerous article titles under her belt).
#3. I can find no credible source (see: #1) attributing whether or not the subject was actually kicked out of his house by his parents.
#4. The subject was obviously (less than seventy-two hours notice, started with threats, etc.) acting outside of his best interests in the interest of causing a scandal.
----------
This is just like when someone tries to mess with tradition anywhere; I doubt half of the people angry at the guy were angry because they're die-hard Christians, but mostly because prayers and such are traditional at large gatherings like these. Try to keep Florence Henderson from singing God Bless America at the Indy 500 and lots of racing fans would be up in arms.
There are a lot of things that can be blamed for how this played out; Christianity as a whole is not one of them. The school system promised to accommodate and then backed out, and a lot of people who are at best angry traditionalists, at worst petty, retaliated for something that would have made no difference in the long run.
This isn't about atheism versus Christianity (as the article points out, lots of Christians should be upset about how this played out); it's about a change in tradition that made a lot of people angry and put some poor kid in the middle of it because he simply asked to be accommodated at an important moment in his life.
+4, insightful. :yes:
-
Some apparently haven't read about all the death threats that came from Auburn fans against an Alabama fan who killed a couple of trees. Christianity isn't to blame here, just people. Have someone suggest to have their football programs dismantled to use the funds on a better thing and all of a sudden that person is public enemy one in the town.
This isn't about atheism versus Christianity (as the article points out, lots of Christians should be upset about how this played out); it's about a change in tradition that made a lot of people angry and put some poor kid in the middle of it because he simply asked to be accommodated at an important moment in his life.
Dis-agree. If he simply asked to be accommodated, he wouldn't have threatened them with contacting the ACLU. If he simply asked nicely and all this transpired, I would clear him of all wrong. However, he didn't just ask. If you threaten someone, it's a big deal. When you threaten a bunch of people over an issue that they deam important and you are lighting a piece of dynamite under your butt. No matter what the issue is.
As has been said, what they did is un-exuseable, however he was being a jerk as well.
-
Dis-agree. If he simply asked to be accommodated, he wouldn't have threatened them with contacting the ACLU. If he simply asked nicely and all this transpired, I would clear him of all wrong. However, he didn't just ask. If you threaten someone, it's a big deal. When you threaten a bunch of people over an issue that they deam important and you are lighting a piece of dynamite under your butt. No matter what the issue is.
So if someone intends to do what you consider to be a crime (which is what this student believed, regardless of what you think about it), and you tell them you'll call the police/lawyers if they do, you are threatening them? And it's wrong?
-
I don't get you people who are saying he was only doing it for attention. Attention to what? A broken system that defies the constitution? Himself?
No matter his intentions, he clearly demonstrated the problem in his area. I don't give a damn why he did it; he was well within his legal and ethical rights to do it. And it is the obligation of the law AND sane ethics to take his side on this issue.
-
Sure, I don't disagree. Just take his side the smart way.
-
Try to keep Florence Henderson from singing God Bless America at the Indy 500 and lots of racing fans would be up in arms.
The key difference, of course, is that the Indy 500 is a private event, so they can have someone sing whatever the hell they choose to. What's sanctioned by a government body is a whole other story.
-
This is not the teachings off the bible
Which is irrelevant. Religion does not follow its own tenets, nor could it, for it is filled with inconsistencies. This does not render it unexcusable nor inexistent.
I actually think its very relevant, whether or doctrines of the religion are constant or not doesn't make a difference here. No where in the bible does it say to act in the fashion these people did.
Your ignorance of the bible is not an argument. Go read Leviticus and cry. And then cry again.
If you could show me exactly where in Leviticus the Bible advocates belittling non-believers, I'd be very interested to see it.
-
"Thou shalt not have any gods before me"
A capital offense.
We've wandered very far afeild here, could someone please tell me how anything this guy did was bad, or attention whoring?
-
Try to keep Florence Henderson from singing God Bless America at the Indy 500 and lots of racing fans would be up in arms.
The key difference, of course, is that the Indy 500 is a private event, so they can have someone sing whatever the hell they choose to. What's sanctioned by a government body is a whole other story.
Part of the problem is that some people see public schools as primarily a community thing that happens to be supported by the government. In that light, it's not surprising that they want school functions to reflect what they see as their community traditions and ideals, and not surprising that they're upset about a minority party spoiling it for them.
-
Dis-agree. If he simply asked to be accommodated, he wouldn't have threatened them with contacting the ACLU. If he simply asked nicely and all this transpired, I would clear him of all wrong. However, he didn't just ask. If you threaten someone, it's a big deal. When you threaten a bunch of people over an issue that they deam important and you are lighting a piece of dynamite under your butt. No matter what the issue is.
So if someone intends to do what you consider to be a crime (which is what this student believed, regardless of what you think about it), and you tell them you'll call the police/lawyers if they do, you are threatening them? And it's wrong?
I think he wrong because I believe he was being a jerk about the way he went about doing it. That is my opinion on it. Now you can generalize the issue if you wish, however my point wasn't about whether he was right or wrong or what he believed. He may have believed what he said, but he was not this innocent boy who sent a polite letter and was totally blasted for it. Once again he threatened them, and threatening a group over a sensitive issue will cause a backlash. Just the way things are.
-
Try to keep Florence Henderson from singing God Bless America at the Indy 500 and lots of racing fans would be up in arms.
The key difference, of course, is that the Indy 500 is a private event, so they can have someone sing whatever the hell they choose to. What's sanctioned by a government body is a whole other story.
Part of the problem is that some people see public schools as primarily a community thing that happens to be supported by the government. In that light, it's not surprising that they want school functions to reflect what they see as their community traditions and ideals, and not surprising that they're upset about a minority party spoiling it for them.
This is exactly what I meant.
-
Yeah, that jerk. Expecting them to obey the law...
-
What did he do that made him a 'jerk'?
-
Yeah, that jerk. Expecting them to obey the law...
I give, you win.
-
You weren't the only one who made that point though. I'm not trying to prove you guys idiots, I'm trying to understand the reasoning.
What did he do in his actions that was wrong or against good graces?
-
Apparently instead of just asking nicely to not have the prayer, he told the superintendent that he opposed the prayer and threatened ACLU involvement if it took place.
Since we don't know exactly what he said, it could have been "you guys better not have the prayer or I'm bringing in the ACLU" or it could have been "sir, I'm an atheist and I would like there not to be a prayer at the graduation as per the law; if it occurs, I will ask the ACLU to take my case"
People seem to be assuming the former.
-
What did he do that made him a 'jerk'?
Whatever it was was not reported in that article. There are hints that we're not hearing the whole story. No details on the physical threats. The account of his teacher publicly "demeaning" him. My favorite:
[His parents'] initial response was to hold him in their house against his will, take his cell phone and cut off his contact with the outside world, and even cut him off from contact with his older brother, Jerrett.
I.e. he got grounded. But said in such a way that it sounds like a bigger deal than that.
And after getting grounded he got thrown out of the house why? Someone must have done something to escalate, which we heard nothing about either.
-
Not letting him talk to his own brother seems like going a bit further than "grounding" him.
-
What did he do that made him a 'jerk'?
Whatever it was was not reported in that article.
In other words, your proof that he's acting like a jerk is that you've assumed he's acting like a jerk. Well done.
-
What did he do that made him a 'jerk'?
Whatever it was was not reported in that article.
In other words, your proof that he's acting like a jerk is that you've assumed he's acting like a jerk. Well done.
Or, you know.
#4. The subject was obviously (less than seventy-two hours notice, started with threats, etc.) acting outside of his best interests in the interest of causing a scandal.
Like I said, without knowing more than what's currently available, I don't think anyone can say anything for certain about this.
That being said, the signs certainly point to him simply "acting like a jerk," rather than him merely exercising his rights.
He gave the school less than seventy-two hours notice to change something non-trivial.* And he (reportedly (http://www.bastropenterprise.com/features/x2132687894/Student-challenges-prayer-at-Bastrop-graduation)) started this off with a threat, rather than a request or notification.
*I cannot express how absolutely dick-ish this is. If you've never had to coordinate a project of significant scale, you can't imagine how difficult it is to make even minor modifications.
-
It was something that should never have been going on to begin with.
You shouldn't have to give notice. Think about it this way, in the reverse direction: you don't have to give notice to people giving them a certain date and time when they must stop posting porn on the walls of a high school either: it's simply against the law to begin with. Telling a government run school to stop preaching is not a dickish thing to do in the least.
-
The reason I titled this "Today in American Christianity" is because this occurred in America, in a Christian town, as far as I can tell. I am not blaming Christianity wholesale. As was pointed out, this kind of shunning and harassment could occur if you opposed any deeply entrenched tradition. At the same time, pretending that Christianity is just the excuse to further otherwise human behavior; discrimination, shunning, etc, is kind just shutting your eyes, really. The bible commands that homosexuals be killed, stoned and so on. Likewise it mocks disbelievers, encourages morally bankrupt concepts like Jesus forgiving your sins(I'll explain if need will really be). Fear of what's different, like homosexuals, is to be expected in any culture, religious or not, but the concept of guys liking guys being an evil abomination worthy of eternal torment in a burning inferno is something that Christianity chisels into its believers heads, both scripturally, but also societally. I have a hunch that that these people aren't fundamentalists. It's not fundamentalists ganging up on him, it's cultural Christianity. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that if these people were not Christian, their knowledge of atheists would not be poisoned by the bible as their culture has been.
All I can say is, thank God(derp) that the law is clear on this subject, and that, in light of that, "he was a dick!" is absolutely irrelevant. Even then, the lawsuit is the best option, because it's obviously the view of these backward hicks that he's trying to destroy 'murica, so might as well come out swinging... heh.
-
Likewise [the Bible] mocks disbelievers, encourages morally bankrupt concepts like Jesus forgiving your sins(I'll explain if need will really be).
Please do explain what is morally bankrupt about Jesus forgiving one's sins.
-
Atheists with religious beliefs
what is the world
-
In other words, your proof that he's acting like a jerk is that you've assumed he's acting like a jerk. Well done.
I gave no proof that he's a jerk, but merely that we don't know what really happened.
-
Likewise it mocks disbelievers,
In the same way nearly every other belief system on the planet does. Capitalists do it to Communists, liberals to conservatives, GM owners to Chrysler owners, Christians to atheists and vice versa, traditionalists to those trying to change their tradition. And that's what this whole issue seems to be about: not because he's an atheist, but because the community perceived that he was a threat to their traditions.
Even then, the lawsuit is the best option, because it's obviously the view of these backward hicks that he's trying to destroy 'murica, so might as well come out swinging... heh.
Not really helping...
-
Even then, the lawsuit is the best option, because it's obviously the view of these backward hicks that he's trying to destroy 'murica, so might as well come out swinging... heh.
(http://www.nukelol.com/images/forumimages/oh_boy.jpg)
-
Likewise [the Bible] mocks disbelievers, encourages morally bankrupt concepts like Jesus forgiving your sins(I'll explain if need will really be).
Please do explain what is morally bankrupt about Jesus forgiving one's sins.
If you rely on Jesus to forgive you wronging people, you are reduced to the level of the child who kicks someone and then hides behind its parents who have to take the heat for its misconduct. To get a bit closer, the way it works is that you beat up someone, you run home, you tell your parents, and your parents ALWAYS forgive you. Oddly enough, your parents have no concept of morality themselves. But this doesn't matter to you, because you've idolized them so much that their say is final, and once forgiven you can be on your way. If you happen to run into that person again and apologize, that's just extra.
So, when Jesus forgives you, it means NOTHING. Jesus was the son of God, and if he can forgive -- which he always can -- you have no reason to make amends with the people that you wronged. If the highest authority in the universe can forgive you, of course bearing in mind that you've already bought into the idea that human-kind is fundamentally evil, what is the point of you apologizing to the person themself? This particular doctrine of Christianity corrupts -- mostly, it doesn't destroy it -- a basic part of being human; being able to take responsibility and make amends.
Now add in the mix that the person who claims to forgive the sins of others is the son of an ethnically-cleaning, mass-murdering, sadistic, racist megalomaniac. Imagine someone like that walking around like that, taking on the responsibility for people's wrongdoings. Not only is it wrong for the reasons above, it's also hurtful that, somehow, this person takes precedence. I don't wanna delve too much into speculation here, but I figure that religious people are more likely to go to Jesus than... you get where I'm going with this, so there.
-
Atheists with religious beliefs
what is the world
Wait, what? When did I demonstrate any level of faith here? Or were you refering to Nemisis?
-
No one claims that Jesus forgives the debts owed to other people, only the debts to God. That would be silly, we'd be overrun with criminal "converts" claiming they've repented and resisting arrest because of freedom of religion.
-
Likewise it mocks disbelievers,
In the same way nearly every other belief system on the planet does. Capitalists do it to Communists, liberals to conservatives, GM owners to Chrysler owners, Christians to atheists and vice versa, traditionalists to those trying to change their tradition. And that's what this whole issue seems to be about: not because he's an atheist, but because the community perceived that he was a threat to their traditions.
I guess my point is that Christianity not only enables, it encourages discrimination against Atheists. Atheism is nothing, so an Atheist mocking Christianity is just that -- An Atheist mocking Christianity, whereas a Christian mocking whatever stuff they've "dark-sided", is a Christian being a Christian because intolerance is a fundamental pillar of Christianity. You know, "no gods before me", "non-Christians are liars and antichrists", and God will destroy them, etc.
Don't quote me on this, but I remember a study that found that the more impoverished they are, the more religious they tend to be. And, of course, the more impoverished, the less educated, and the less educated, the less they're able to discard the vile nonsense that the various faiths teach... with the exception of Jainism. The more extreme a Jain you are, the more peaceful you become! :)
-
If you rely on Jes
WORDS
y to go to Jesus than... you get where I'm going with this, so there.
It's always kind of disgusting to watch people who pretend to adhere to a creed of rationality fabricate and prevaricate to justify their beliefs, instead of coming to understand the beliefs of others.
Good Christians must be as driven to vomit by the Christians we so often scorn (like that doomsday nut) as I'm repelled by these spiritual mummers laying claim to atheism.
It's like watching a junkie try to get clean and then relapse hard.
Don't quote me on this, but I remember a study that found that the more impoverished they are, the more religious they tend to be. And, of course, the more impoverished, the less educated, and the less educated, the less they're able to discard the vile nonsense that the various faiths teach..
Hahahahah listen to this ****. It's like watching a creationist claim that radiocarbon dating proves a literal interpretation of Genesis. Stumbling around three inches from the light and still hopelessly lost.
A good scientist and rationalist would look at that paragraph you typed and come to a conclusion. You just feed it back into your faith.
This thread's really brought out the religious fundamentalists on HLP, and they don't even have the honesty to run out their own colors. They're here to **** up secular humanism instead.
-
If you've hit the point where you've blinkered yourself to all the aspects of a problem except those that favor you, you're running on faith. When you're an atheist interpreting scripture you've lost. It's all over. You've completely lost sight of what religion is, and you're trying to make it into what you need it to be.
You've become a purveyor of faith.
It just goes to show there are extremists on both sides of the spectrum. We'd be better off without both ends of the bell curve - the middle ground is what drives progress.
-
You like to brow-beat, don't you?
-
It's also kind of deliciously ironic that the very same sort of crazy militant atheism that Nemesis preaches (in the literal sense of that term) is one of the main contributing factors to the reaction that the teen in this story received from his town.
-
You like to brow-beat, don't you?
The great need of our society is for thinkers who can understand and disentangle complex systems.
Those who would simplify, obfuscate, and derail this process with heuristic pitfalls and belief-driven fallacies are the biggest obstacle to human progress. Until we can start rewiring our neural structures there's nothing to do but try to keep them down and keep science and empirical thought moving forward.
-
"non-Christians are liars and antichrists",
There's a parable from Jesus of freaking Nazareth, about this very subject. It's not favorable to you.
Also anytime you start throwing around the word antichrist you are opening a very big can of worms re: your actual failure to understand any mainstream Christian religion. The terms is used Biblically exactly once, as "the spirit of the antichrist" and you are currently, in your self-congratulatory smug haze of hate, actually doing a pretty good impression of it.
and God will destroy them, etc.
Doctrine of the virtuous pagan. Works before faith being the largest dividing line between Catholic and Protestant. Half of Christianity, possibly more, doesn't believe this.
If you would mock something, if you would hate it, you should at least try to understand it. You do not demonstrate such understanding or familarity with your subjects, and are thus in turn reduced to parodic status.
-
It's also kind of deliciously ironic that the very same sort of crazy militant atheism that Nemesis preaches (in the literal sense of that term) is one of the main contributing factors to the reaction that the teen in this story received from his town.
I would hardly consider upholding the law to be "militant atheism", would you rather he just step back and allow others to trample his rights?
-
I would hardly consider upholding the law to be "militant atheism", would you rather he just step back and allow others to trample his rights?
Allow me.
1. Conservative community looks out and sees "militant atheists" removing God from schools, Ten Commandments statues et al. Community is disgusted and appalled by the "militant atheists"
2. Atheist in their very town tries to do what they think the MAs are doing to the rest of America.
3. Community goes on the attack against that kid.
What NGTM1-R Mongoose is saying is that the community had gotten its ideas about atheists from the militant branch that Nemesis6 appears to be a part of. Ergo, he's implying Nemesis6 is part of the problem.
-
I would hardly consider upholding the law to be "militant atheism", would you rather he just step back and allow others to trample his rights?
Allow me.
1. Conservative community looks out and sees "militant atheists" removing God from schools, Ten Commandments statues et al. Community is disgusted and appalled by the "militant atheists"
2. Atheist in their very town tries to do what they think the MAs are doing to the rest of America.
3. Community goes on the attack against that kid.
What NGTM1-R is saying is that the community had gotten its ideas about atheists from the militant branch that Nemesis6 appears to be a part of. Ergo, he's implying Nemesis6 is part of the problem.
I was quoting Mongoose. :P But in this situation it's clearly a case of the community not liking being told it can't shove its religious dogma down everyone's throats. Kudos to the kid for standing up for himself.
-
Leaning more toward the "he's a dick" side at this point. Mostly because I can't help but wonder why he didn't say something about this, oh, a few MONTHS before graduation instead of a few days. And also why he threatened legal action BEFORE even getting a response.
Yeah, rights are sweet and all that, but if the problem exists and is able to be fixed the entire time, fix it at some point that doesn't make you look like a colossal douchebag. I mean, seriously.
-
Leaning more toward the "he's a dick" side at this point. Mostly because I can't help but wonder why he didn't say something about this, oh, a few MONTHS before graduation instead of a few days. And also why he threatened legal action BEFORE even getting a response.
Yeah, rights are sweet and all that, but if the problem exists and is able to be fixed the entire time, fix it at some point that doesn't make you look like a colossal douchebag. I mean, seriously.
Did you know what your graduation was going to be like a few months ahead of time?
-
Yes. It didn't change from year to year.
Which is exactly what I meant. This prayer was apparently part of the graduation tradition. Unless he was entirely and utterly uninvested in his community and school, at which point I don't think he has a right to complain, I fail to see how he missed it. Therefore, I'm leaning toward the "he's a dick" side.
-
Yes. It didn't change from year to year.
Which is exactly what I meant. This prayer was apparently part of the graduation tradition. Unless he was entirely and utterly uninvested in his community and school, at which point I don't think he has a right to complain, I fail to see how he missed it. Therefore, I'm leaning toward the "he's a dick" side.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure there were other atheists in the class who did not take pointless umbrage at something founded in tradition. Showing respect for something like that does not equate to participating - He should've bowed his head and used the moment to reflect on an education well done or something, rather than acting like (ironically) a spoiled kid.
-
Did you know what your graduation was going to be like a few months ahead of time?
:nervous: I did.
Also, I was going to go through and quote nemesis6 and pick through all of the many misunderstandings he clearly has about the Christian faith, doctrine, and what the Bible teaches... but meh. It's not worth it.
I'll just instead thank him that he (whether the study is true or not) has this notion in his mind that people who are religious obviously are uneducated enough to know better. (At least this is the impression I get from his post(s)). So my private school education + college & 16 years of being an atheist myself means nothing now that I've become a Christian. I don't know what I'm trying to say in this paragraph.. perhaps just that it's nice that Nemesis, you've made it abundantly clear the prejudice you have against me and my kind and thus, I don't need to bother spending time discussion this with you.
-
Did you know what your graduation was going to be like a few months ahead of time?
:nervous: I did.
Also, I was going to go through and quote nemesis6 and pick through all of the many misunderstandings he clearly has about the Christian faith, doctrine, and what the Bible teaches... but meh. It's not worth it.
I'll just instead thank him that he (whether the study is true or not) has this notion in his mind that people who are religious obviously are uneducated enough to know better. (At least this is the impression I get from his post(s)). So my private school education + college & 16 years of being an atheist myself means nothing now that I've become a Christian. I don't know what I'm trying to say in this paragraph.. perhaps just that it's nice that Nemesis, you've made it abundantly clear the prejudice you have against me and my kind and thus, I don't need to bother spending time discussion this with you.
Rather ironic when an atheist falls into the same irrational prejudice and lack of respect for other viewpoints that they espouse hatred for in Christians. Excellent way to support their *obviously* superior intellectual stand point. If that's the way that Nemesis has been behaving (and I've yet to read back through the entirety of this thread), then he's espousing the main thing I dislike in both theists and atheists, which is the strong element of hypocrisy that surfaces in their arguments with one another. I find it particularly repugnant in Atheists, however, as it's often one of their key reasons for disliking theism (especially organised theism), yet they happily go on to commit the same 'crime'. Strikes me as HIGHLY ironic.
-
I don't get you people who are saying he was only doing it for attention. Attention to what? A broken system that defies the constitution? Himself?
Everyone of that age should know it isn't a perfect world, being right doesn't mean you don't need to pay. This guy pays hugely for very little, though he probably knows the money could be spent better ways to push the same cause.
-
It's also kind of deliciously ironic that the very same sort of crazy militant atheism that Nemesis preaches (in the literal sense of that term) is one of the main contributing factors to the reaction that the teen in this story received from his town.
I would hardly consider upholding the law to be "militant atheism", would you rather he just step back and allow others to trample his rights?
Which law? The First Amendment, which guarantees that government not sponsor any religion? Or the First Amendment, which guarantees the free exercise of religion?
Just trying to point out that there is a lot of gray area to work with in here.
-
Did you know what your graduation was going to be like a few months ahead of time?
:nervous: I did.
Also, I was going to go through and quote nemesis6 and pick through all of the many misunderstandings he clearly has about the Christian faith, doctrine, and what the Bible teaches... but meh. It's not worth it.
I'll just instead thank him that he (whether the study is true or not) has this notion in his mind that people who are religious obviously are uneducated enough to know better. (At least this is the impression I get from his post(s)). So my private school education + college & 16 years of being an atheist myself means nothing now that I've become a Christian. I don't know what I'm trying to say in this paragraph.. perhaps just that it's nice that Nemesis, you've made it abundantly clear the prejudice you have against me and my kind and thus, I don't need to bother spending time discussion this with you.
For what it's worth, I have nothing against you personally. I might come off sounding like that, but I don't. I'm a crazy militant atheist preacher, obviously, but I like to think that I'm still capable of differentiating between the belief and the person, as much as I like to generalize Christianity.
-
It's also kind of deliciously ironic that the very same sort of crazy militant atheism that Nemesis preaches (in the literal sense of that term) is one of the main contributing factors to the reaction that the teen in this story received from his town.
I would hardly consider upholding the law to be "militant atheism", would you rather he just step back and allow others to trample his rights?
Um...where did I say that I considered the kid to be part of the "militant" concept? I was talking about Nemesis. :p
-
I was quoting Mongoose. :P
This is what happens when I try to post at 5am. :nervous:
-
You like to brow-beat, don't you?
The great need of our society is for thinkers who can understand and disentangle complex systems.
Those who would simplify, obfuscate, and derail this process with heuristic pitfalls and belief-driven fallacies are the biggest obstacle to human progress. Until we can start rewiring our neural structures there's nothing to do but try to keep them down and keep science and empirical thought moving forward.
Bull****. you've done nothing but troll the entire thread with your shenaniganistic idea that militant atheists are religious pricks that shouldn't be listened to, instead of actually contributing to the thread.
-
Likewise [the Bible] mocks disbelievers, encourages morally bankrupt concepts like Jesus forgiving your sins(I'll explain if need will really be).
Please do explain what is morally bankrupt about Jesus forgiving one's sins.
It's a CS Lewis idea. It basically boils down to the idea that it is completely abhorrent for a third person to forgive you for the troubles you caused to a second one. Unless you think that this third person is the only one *really* offended by your actions against anyone else. It follows that if you really believe that, then you are being completely solipsistic, and think that the universe is just about you and your god.
-
a good scientist and rationalist would look at that paragraph you typed and come to a conclusion. You just feed it back into your faith.
There is probably some of that, but he's not really saying something amazing, if you really doubt that the higher up the ladder of society, the less religiosity you will find, then you are not paying attention.
This thread's really brought out the religious fundamentalists on HLP, and they don't even have the honesty to run out their own colors. They're here to **** up secular humanism instead.
Not only I don't understand how am I ****ing up secular humanism by defending someone who was actually trying to defend secularism from your shenanigans, I am also doubtful if the proper response to the lining up of your abuses is to report you or not. Because clearly you don't respect people that differ from your opinions.
-
triple post oh yeah GET DOWN
-
And I was thinking about creating a thread about solely the things that I *like* and I think are to be esteemed in Christianity, but you just don't let me behave!! :lol:
-
Not only I don't understand how am I ****ing up secular humanism by defending someone who was actually trying to defend secularism from your shenanigans,
You're not defending secularism, you're defending someone who has rejected the first principles of secularism, i.e. considered research and reason. Nemesis has amply demonstrated his inability to fathom even basic nuances of Christian doctrine like faith vs. works, and in a secular humanistic tradition therefore has neither responsibility nor right to participate in this discussion. He is literally white noise.
And you would defend him for injecting nothing of value!
-
Bull****. you've done nothing but troll the entire thread with your shenaniganistic idea that militant atheists are religious pricks that shouldn't be listened to, instead of actually contributing to the thread.
You realize you're totally making Battuta's point right?
-
You're not defending secularism, you're defending someone who has rejected the first principles of secularism, i.e. considered research and reason.
And you completely misunderstood me and added another insult to a fellow commentator. Figures...
You realize you're totally making Battuta's point right?
Yeah, I know I shouldn't feed him.
-
Yeah, I know I shouldn't feed him.
:lol:
I think what we are saying is that we shouldn't feed you...
-
And you completely misunderstood me and added another insult to a fellow commentator. Figures...
Then who are you defending? Yourself? You claim you're defending someone else after all. There's no one else here for you to defend who's a militant atheist.
Your defense is uninspiring and unconvincing, as after all, to defend something you'd have to actually demonstrate something about it. You don't do that. You don't demonstrate anything on the offense either, though, so it's par for the course.
I don't think you know what you're fighting for. I don't think you know what you're fighting against. Nothing you've done has proved me wrong. Can you or will you make such an effort, or are you also white noise?
-
Not only I don't understand how am I ****ing up secular humanism by defending someone who was actually trying to defend secularism from your shenanigans
Whose shenanigans?
People who want to prevent these conflicts instead of perpetuating them? Those are some pretty benign shenanigans.
-
Yes. It didn't change from year to year.
Which is exactly what I meant. This prayer was apparently part of the graduation tradition. Unless he was entirely and utterly uninvested in his community and school, at which point I don't think he has a right to complain, I fail to see how he missed it. Therefore, I'm leaning toward the "he's a dick" side.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure there were other atheists in the class who did not take pointless umbrage at something founded in tradition. Showing respect for something like that does not equate to participating - He should've bowed his head and used the moment to reflect on an education well done or something, rather than acting like (ironically) a spoiled kid.
It used to be "founded in tradition" to burn witches, lynch black people and do a lot of other unsavory things. The point being just because something is tradition doesn't mean that it is a good thing to do. As for participating, if the school is leading it at the event and if you are attending, you are participating in it simply by being there, hence why it is unconstitutional and illegal with many court cases as precedent. Do you really want to live in a society where you have to believe what the majority believes?
Which law? The First Amendment, which guarantees that government not sponsor any religion? Or the First Amendment, which guarantees the free exercise of religion?
Just trying to point out that there is a lot of gray area to work with in here.
It's the Establishment Clause, stating seperation between church and state. There's no gray area with this as there have been multiple court cases stating that the establishment clause is violated when a public school to leads a prayer.
-
I don't think it was in any way legal for this school to force its students to participate in prayer. I just think the attitudes that popped up early in this thread are equally idiotic.
-
Not only I don't understand how am I ****ing up secular humanism by defending someone who was actually trying to defend secularism from your shenanigans
Whose shenanigans?
People who want to prevent these conflicts instead of perpetuating them? Those are some pretty benign shenanigans.
i swear to god (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6VFtqJCRhk)
-
It's the Establishment Clause, stating seperation between church and state. There's no gray area with this as there have been multiple court cases stating that the establishment clause is violated when a public school to leads a prayer.
I agree with this.
However you cannot use bad arguments to reach a sound conclusion, and the people who have tried deserve to be called on it.
-
I totally agree with the above.
I am surprised at the number of people who said that the student should have to participate in the prayer however.
-
I am surprised at the number of people who said that the student should have to participate in the prayer however.
Me too.
-
I totally agree with the above.
I am surprised at the number of people who said that the student should have to participate in the prayer however.
I didn't say he had to participate, I said he should've bowed his head and not been an ass about it. Last I checked, performing a simple motor function was not equivalent to joining in a prayer.
-
Well it's not like a state-sponsored religion was being forced upon him...As said earlier, he can sit there silently and bow his head in respect or do absolutely nothing at all if he likes during the prayer, it's not like they were going to withhold his graduation certificate if he didn't pray.
I don't believe it was legal, but if you don't show some tact about the way you go about trying to uphold your rights you're going to piss people off.
-
Dude. He didn't make an ass of himself. He kept it quiet and just applied against it. The only reason people knew about it is because someone leaked his details.
-
Mate, he threatened them with legal action. No matter what words you decide to put that in, you're going to provoke a storm. And besides, it was a prayer at his graduation, he could've stood easy and waited to act when there was some actual injustice going on rather than threatening someone with legal action over 30 seconds of time on the microphone.
-
Yeah. I dunno. Sometimes I actually fail to understand how people can give so much of a **** about stuff like this.
-
I mean, it is kind of a stupid thing to get riled up about, but that goes for both sides. I mean, were the Christians in the audience really going to feel uncomfortable if there wasn't a prayer? All the prayer seems to be doing now is making atheist students uncomfortable. It's the same kind of stuff that happened while I was in the service; at mandatory formations and gatherings, no less. I can understand where this kid's coming from.
And yeah, the kid was a bit aggressive in the way he handled it, but just about everybody botched this whole thing. It's something that should have been small and taken care of between a few people, but it pointlessly escalated. Nobody's hands are clean in this.
-
Yeah, I'll agree with you there. A prayer getting cancelled for a school graduation shouldn't even make the local paper.
-
Aren't we assuming an awful lot about the lad from one paper report that is obviously biased in the first place?
-
Which law? The First Amendment, which guarantees that government not sponsor any religion? Or the First Amendment, which guarantees the free exercise of religion?
Just trying to point out that there is a lot of gray area to work with in here.
It's the Establishment Clause, stating seperation between church and state. There's no gray area with this as there have been multiple court cases stating that the establishment clause is violated when a public school to leads a prayer.
My point was that there is the Establishment Clause, but that there is also the Free Exercise clause. These two are somewhat in tension with each other, and always have been.
I'm not overly familiar with the history, but it does seem to me that you are correct in noting that the Supreme Court has tended to come down more often on the side of the Establishment Clause.
EDIT: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/schoolprayer.html is a good read here. Most relevant:
Lee v Weisman (1992) considered school prayer in the special context of a graduation ceremony for a middle school. The principal of the school had invited a clergyman to offer an invocation and benediction at the ceremony, and that decision was challenged by Weisman, who contended that the practice violated Establishment Clause precedents. Again voting 5 to 4, with Justice Kennedy providing the key vote, the Court found the invocation and benediction to violate the First Amendment. Kennedy found an unacceptable degree of coercion, given the fact that the ceremony was an important milestone that students would be extremely reluctant to avoid because of religious scruples. The options of remaining seated during prayers or leaving right before the benediction did not seem realistic under the circumstances. Justice Scalia, in a passionate dissent, ridiculed Kennedy's opinion as a "psycho journey" and wrote that he would not find a problem with prayer at graduation ceremonies unless the state attached a penalty to non-participation.
-
EDIT: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/schoolprayer.html is a good read here. Most relevant:
Yeah, this is exactly what I mean. It's one thing for people to tell atheists to "aww, just suck it up, it isn't that bad" or "if you don't like it, just get out". It's their important day too, and not having the prayer shouldn't make the others feel bad.
-
EDIT: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/schoolprayer.html is a good read here. Most relevant:
Yeah, this is exactly what I mean. It's one thing for people to tell atheists to "aww, just suck it up, it isn't that bad" or "if you don't like it, just get out". It's their important day too, and not having the prayer shouldn't make the others feel bad.
I think the problem here is that Christianity has gotten comfortable in an area that it really shouldn't have entered in the first place, so for me, the desire of the majority doesn't really matter. Even if you're allowed to leave, or just be silent if you don't believe, either doesn't really matter because you're being put in a situation where you have to label yourself without even having the chance to explain -- "That guy's not praying? He probably hates Christians. Let's not talk to him." Cliché as that sounds, that's the kind of sentiment you expose yourself to if you're in a situation where you actually need to consider these options. Dealing with this passively or militantly as some would like to portray it, I can't see a way for him to come out of this as a winner. Whatever he does, he loses in one way or another.
-
1) "for me, the desire of the majority doesn't really matter." What the ****?
2) Personal prayer is typically silent. It's not like everyone chanting along with the words. No one would be able to tell he wasn't.
You continue to display a startling ignorance for something you argue so strongly against. You should fix that.
-
1) "for me, the desire of the majority doesn't really matter." What the ****?
2) Personal prayer is typically silent. It's not like everyone chanting along with the words. No one would be able to tell he wasn't.
You continue to display a startling ignorance for something you argue so strongly against. You should fix that.
And, he's ascribing that christians are going to see him not praying (as if that were possible, unless we all developed true telepathy whilst I wasn't looking) and then also have a 'SHUN THE HERETIC NON BELIEVER' reaction, which is possibly the most stupid thing I've heard all day. Oh yeah, sure, maybe the one crazy fundie in the class will have that reaction, the rest of the class wouldn't have given a **** if all the christians I know are any yardstick. Well, until he decided to be a crazy fundemantilist atheist and sue the school for it.
-
1) "for me, the desire of the majority doesn't really matter." What the ****?
2) Personal prayer is typically silent. It's not like everyone chanting along with the words. No one would be able to tell he wasn't.
You continue to display a startling ignorance for something you argue so strongly against. You should fix that.
I think we're talking past one another here. What I meant with the majority thing was simply to say that even if the majority want an officially sanctioned prayer, it's still wrong. That's where I'm coming from with that. I'm not against it if the majority decide to pray on their own volition. As far as whether anybody would be able to tell whether or not someone's not praying, well, that's a moot point. Still one I think is relevant, though.
-
Read the article again. The guy was already known (and by that I mean people knew he was, not as a moniker) as an atheist. Cue shocked and appalled reactions when he doesn't pray.
-
In other news, it was recently pointed out that people on the internet are very closed-minded on the subject of religion, and when challenged for it, forum violence went up by 30%.
-
Make it easy. You have the prayer. Then something from every single other religion present. By the time they're reading from the litany of those claiming to follow the Jedi religion they'll realise the whole thing was a bad idea. :p
-
1) "for me, the desire of the majority doesn't really matter." What the ****?
This is actually a reasonable statement. The rule of law is the rule of law, and cannot, must not, be held accountable to the whims of the majority.
-
EDIT: Post Removed, It was a dumb thing to say.
-
1) "for me, the desire of the majority doesn't really matter." What the ****?
This is actually a reasonable statement. The rule of law is the rule of law, and cannot, must not, be held accountable to the whims of the majority.
You're right. Taken as simply as that, it's a very reasonable statement. However, the context he used it in referenced Christianity had "gotten comfortable" in places he doesn't think it should be, and it came off as if he thought his opinion mattered more than anyone else's.
It's since been clarified.
-
Then who are you defending? Yourself? You claim you're defending someone else after all. There's no one else here for you to defend who's a militant atheist.
Your defense is uninspiring and unconvincing, as after all, to defend something you'd have to actually demonstrate something about it. You don't do that. You don't demonstrate anything on the offense either, though, so it's par for the course.
I don't think you know what you're fighting for. I don't think you know what you're fighting against. Nothing you've done has proved me wrong. Can you or will you make such an effort, or are you also white noise?
Good luck, NGTM, good luck. You might want to skim pages 2-4 again.
-
At the very least, he shouldn't need to bow his head, that suggests that he is 'playing along'. He should have just looked straight ahead, and then if people asked him why he was 'disrespecting' their religion, he could say he's not stopping them from praying, and why are they 'disrespecting' his atheism?
-
Make it easy. You have the prayer. Then something from every single other religion present. By the time they're reading from the litany of those claiming to follow the Jedi religion they'll realise the whole thing was a bad idea. :p
This may be the most reasonable suggestion yet.
-
Make it easy. You have the prayer. Then something from every single other religion present. By the time they're reading from the litany of those claiming to follow the Jedi religion they'll realise the whole thing was a bad idea. :p
I can vouch for this.
-
At the very least, he shouldn't need to bow his head, that suggests that he is 'playing along'. He should have just looked straight ahead, and then if people asked him why he was 'disrespecting' their religion, he could say he's not stopping them from praying, and why are they 'disrespecting' his atheism?
As a religious person, I think this is probably the best thing the kid could have done. He was more or less dealing with mismatched attitudes of people consumed by borderline extremism, not the religion as a whole.
-
I'm sure this will get fireballs too but i'd like to point out that although Luis has been more than a little aggressive in his opinions in other posts, (I've had to wade through the Germany nuclear power thread and stuff), as of the first couple pages when i was throughly reading, most of the points he made were completely fair to make, particularly that a lot of people were suffering from a blindspot in their reasoning.
It's not just what was being said, the actual quality of several of the people's arguments in this thread on the other side, people who are usually extremely organized and rational in non-religious debates, has been a lot less than I'm used to reading in their posts here.
Religion has multiple meanings, it's both what's on paper and what's actually practiced. Now you still need some more specific wording, but if you want to use this and other incidents to say something like "Christianity in the southern US is fracked up", you're not exactly wrong to bring that objection, which is more what i think several people in this thread were fumbling at trying to say. Events like these do seem to be more indicative of the norm (in that area), even if they're not indicative of normal Christianity.
There are objections that could be brought up ('we've discussed this before' , 'you're rambling' , 'we're not getting anywhere, let's cut this off' , 'this is the umpteenth post you've made on this topic, we get it already' ) , focus on those. The other ones aren't as particularly valid as people seem to think they are.
At the very least, he shouldn't need to bow his head, that suggests that he is 'playing along'. He should have just looked straight ahead, and then if people asked him why he was 'disrespecting' their religion, he could say he's not stopping them from praying, and why are they 'disrespecting' his atheism?
As a religious person, I think this is probably the best thing the kid could have done. He was more or less dealing with mismatched attitudes of people consumed by borderline extremism, not the religion as a whole.
Speculating isn't as productive, because then you get into an argument with someone else that posts an anecdotal story where that kind of thing caused just as much trouble, and then the two groups of you end up derailing the post arguing about which anecdotal story is less fair to bring up.
-
Considering how much had already been assumed about this lads motives, reasons and reactions based on a single news story, one more anecdote wouldn't hurt.
-
Thanks Dark. What really gets up my ass is when people like Battuta decide to voice Blake's law, in the most cliché (and insulting) way possible.
-
Sad... I thought we were going to let this ridiculous thread die...
-
Thanks Dark. What really gets up my ass is when people like Battuta decide to voice Blake's law, in the most cliché (and insulting) way possible.
What a stupid, blind misconstrual of an entire argument based on science and evidence.
Guess it's easier to fall back on blithe quotations than to reason.
-
Thanks Dark. What really gets up my ass is when people like Battuta decide to voice Blake's law, in the most cliché (and insulting) way possible.
What a stupid, blind misconstrual of an entire argument based on science and evidence.
Guess it's easier to fall back on blithe quotations than to reason.
It's the perfect summation of all your rants against the atheists in the house, and given your irritation, I'm pretty sure I'm right on target.
EDIT: To call your insults as "arguments based on science and evidence" is hilarious. Keep it up.
-
Need Zombie Popcorn for Zombie Thread.
-
Would someone just lock this trainwreck of a thread and be done with it? The snarkiness is getting elevated already, and it's only going downhill from here.