[Luis Dias]

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

[MP-Ryan]

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.

[StarSlayer]

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.

[Vertigo 7]

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.

[MP-Ryan]

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 Dias]

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.

[Luis Dias]

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.

[Vertigo 7]

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.

[MP-Ryan]

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.

[General Battuta]

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.

[Luis Dias]

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.

[BlueFlames]

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.

[Vertigo 7]

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.

[Flipside]

This really isn't going to go anywhere is it?

[Flipside]

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.

[MP-Ryan]

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.

[Flipside]

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

[Nuclear1]

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.

[BloodEagle]

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. 

[WeatherOp]

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.