Thread: Purgatory: Are atheists a persecuted group? Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000646
Posted by bc_anglican (# 12349) on
:
With the publication of Christopher Hitchens' book "God is not great", Sam Harris's "The End of Religion", there is a claim by some that atheists are being persecuted in the United States. Usually the evidence is that according to polls, a majority of American citizens will not vote for a proclaimed atheist as President.
Now I can accept that some people are still prejudiced against atheists and agnostics. I can even accept that some Christians aren't exactly keen on defending the rights of atheists. On the other hand, I don't know if we can say that atheists are being persecuted. I don't know of any modern history where atheists were violently attacked as a group by religious people.
[ 23. October 2007, 12:05: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on
:
I don't see any persecution. Disagreement, surely. Even loud disagreement. But the shouting is coming from both sides. Nobody is going to compel voters to side with an atheist if they are determined not to.
But I think that if a hypothetical case of two equally admired politicians came down to religious differences, and the atheist was balanced and rational, where the religious opponent was vitriolic and unreasonable, that the atheist would win. That's just he way the world is going, imho.
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on
:
I think very few atheists would dare to be "out" if they were running for public office in the USA. In some parts of the country (southeastern Idaho being one), I think that they might hesitate to state their beliefs publically for fear that it might result in discrimination in employment or, if they are self-employed, in loss of business. Whether this constitutes persecution probably depends on your definition.
Posted by multipara (# 2918) on
:
Not around here they're not.
I'd have thought that short of living in a theocracy, it's a pretty safe run (but it begs the question as to whether that makes the State of Idaho theocratic).
Militant atheists (like God-botherers) in the Antipodes are generally either ignored or mocked, since fortunately in this country one's beliefs (or lack thereof) are considered to be a private matter. Those who publicly and noisily spout either their belief or their unbelief tendto be dismissed as mere flashers.
m
Posted by Makepiece (# 10454) on
:
I think there's an interesting dynamic between British and American culture going on. The two cultures have grown alot closer in many ways but the differences have become exacerbated in the process. Many British people are so angry with the Christian right and George W Bush in the USA that atheism has become more popular and Christians feel persecuted by some of the anger being aimed at them over the Iraq war. In the USA it wouldn't surprise me if the opposite where the case. Ever since USA dominated world politics the British have had an inferiority complex. I think alot of people see atheism as an example of British intellectual superiority and point the finger at those ignorant, religious Americans. Nigeria similarly gets labelled as an anti-feminist, christian country.
[ 22. July 2007, 08:15: Message edited by: Makepiece ]
Posted by davelarge (# 186) on
:
Which just goes to show how dangerous it can be to stereotype an entire country the size of America.
I am British and currently live in Britain, but to this outsider it seems attitudes in, say, Boston are rather different from those described in Idaho.
As for Blighty, I think it's assumed that you are agnostic unless you make a particular statement otherwise. In terms of politics, there is deep skepticism around anyone who professes faith. Take Ruth Kelly and the Catholic adoption agencies 'scandal' for one case in point.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
For what it's worth, one of the relatively few really shocking cultural differences I found between the US and the UK when I actually started living in England was the apparent casualness with which some reasonably mature, serious people volunteered their atheism here. In the US, IME, the only people who readily say they are atheists are teenagers, university students, and a few more adult "free thinkers", many of whom are really quite obnoxious. I always perceived that in America it was perhaps somewhat ok to proclaim oneself agnostic, but that contrariwise atheism is a very radical label there. I view this as a deep divide between contemporary British and American culture. ISTM that my dismay at the casuaul and seemingly widespread British attitude of atheism - given that I'm a fairly typical social liberal Anglican - underscores the profundity of this cultural diffence. So are atheists persecuted in America? Well, probably at least culturally suppressed.
Posted by Beautiful_Dreamer (# 10880) on
:
Persecution is being fed to a lion, being arrested or forced to convert at the point of a sword. It is not being disagreed with on an internet message board. It is being denied a job because of your faith (or lack thereof), not having to be around people who are different from you. I think 'persecution' is waaaay too strong a word to use here.
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
Some of the defintions being tossed around here would render things like sexual harrassment and racial profiling "Nonpersecution". I suggest you might want to rethink your bad definitions. Many slaves were not fed to lions, yet were clearly "persecuted".
In addition, I doubt whether most people on this thread are qualified to define the level of persecution that is persecution. You are probably Christians or whatever, and not atheists, so you may have no idea what is happening to them. Not all but most.
In America, I would wager that if it were found out that one was an atheist, one could lose one's job, one could lose one's friends, one could especially lose one's family (be thrwon out). Persecution, persecution, persecution.
A recent poll here found 52% of Americans have an unfavorable attitude or worse towards atheists. They are lower than jews, and muslims. That pretty much says it all. Only overweight people and athiests are the last acceptable minority to despise in America. Both very wrongfully so.
If we define persecution down to fit the worst examples, we miss the opportunity to evaluate our own attitudes of exclusion and divisiveness, at minimum. Attitudes that I think we can all agree should not be extended to anyone that isn't an axe murderer or child molestor.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
Mad Geo, I wish it were just atheists and fatties who were fair game in America, but to let you in on a little secret, outside of certain right-thinking enclaves, it's gay people too! But I do think you're being a bit histrionic about the level of discrimination faced in America by unbelievers overall. It's just that the Godless are such a negligible minority in America, most people probably don't run across any really serious atheists (maybe Southern Cally's different, of course).
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
In America, I would wager that if it were found out that one was an atheist, one could lose one's job, one could lose one's friends, one could especially lose one's family (be thrwon out). Persecution, persecution, persecution.
That's ridiculous. I'd say about half the population around here is nonreligious, and a good percentage of those are atheists. Many of them work in high tech and are well-paid people who live in big houses and have generous medical benefits and excellent 401(k) plans.
Please, really. Let's try to keep a lid on the outrageous rhetoric.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
I dunno TubaM. -- whilst agreeing that MG's rhetoric is absurd, IME many Americans are religiously nonobservant/"irreligious", but not actually atheistic. They either "think there's something" or else they "really don't know" (i.e. they're agnostic -- which is in a sense the plight we're all in anyway, even those of us who practice religion and profess belief). Many are sort of virtuous pagans, I'd say. I think very few frankly profess flat unbelief.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I dunno TubaM. -- whilst agreeing that MG's rhetoric is absurd, IME many Americans are religiously nonobservant/"irreligious", but not actually atheistic. They either "think there's something" or else they "really don't know" (i.e. they're agnostic -- which is in a sense the plight we're all in anyway, even those of us who practice religion and profess belief). Many are sort of virtuous pagans, I'd say. I think very few frankly profess flat unbelief.
I know quite a few people who call themselves atheists; I work in high tech, too, so I know these people. Lots of scientists are like this; it's just not that big a deal around here. And most young people go through an atheistic stage; I did, and loudly proclaimed it, too. I never saw anybody get the vapors over it.
In fact, it's considered to be a bit odd to be religiously devout in my area and among the people I know.
You are right, though, that it's less common to be explicitly atheist than to be nonreligious; perhaps if people react badly to someone declaring their atheism, they're just reacting against others who are so sure of something that nobody can actually know? Perhaps it's a reaction against militant atheism, IOW, and seen as sort of pompous and aggressive?
Posted by Matins (# 11644) on
:
If you had friends and family who were devout fundamentalists, they might disown you if you were atheist. Then, those people might disown you for joining a liberal church. My relatives are fundamentalists. They wouldn't disown me for being an atheist. They might if I were gay and told them about it.
I've never heard of an atheist loosing their job for being atheist. Most places have policies forbidding discrimination on the basis of religious belief. You might have anectdotal evidence this happens but its not common.
Americans rarely vote for atheists. So what? They rarely vote for libertarians, socialists, or greens either.
Posted by dogwonderer (# 12169) on
:
I can offer you my experience as an atheist, for what it’s worth. It probably isn’t worth much, since I can only offer a study sample of one, but it is my genuine experience.
I do certainly feel that my public ‘coming out’ as an atheist would cause disadvantage to me- professionally and socially. The reasons for this are unimportant for the purposes of this thread, if you are willing to accept this at face value. Whether this disadvantage amounts to ‘persecution’ is uncertain (it depends on your definitions), and whether the disadvantage is only perceived rather than real is also debatable. But I suspect my reluctance to be openly atheistic would not be shared by the majority of Christians in America or the UK. Perhaps I shall be persuaded otherwise forthwith…
It strikes me that many theists are prejudiced about how atheists ought to feel, in this respect (as indeed it is vice versa). TM is clearly a long way from understanding how I feel about the disadvantages of being ‘out’, and this perhaps reveals something important. Reading her post, and those of other non-atheists who insist atheists are not discriminated against, makes me feel a bit like an ethnic minority group presumably does- whose own sense of discrimination is denied as legitimate by a majority white group. What would they know about it? To put it another way, offenders are in no position to dictate the terms by which the offended feel so. I’ve read comments by others on this Ship, who seem very quick to deny that atheists could possibly feel disadvantaged for their beliefs in any way at all. And yet this one does.
You should understand that I’m a very robust sort of character (if you hadn’t worked that out already). Insensitive, even! And yet, even I’m aware of the sense of discrimination, which atheists might feel, even in theistically-liberal Britain.
One of the things that makes me glad about the new wave of popular atheist literature (Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, et al), is that it seems to be paving the way for people like me to be more comfortable about being openly atheist. I feel atheism is approaching a coming-of-age, and this should be welcomed by theists (if they can be honest enough).
Posted by Quercus (# 12761) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
I do certainly feel that my public ‘coming out’ as an atheist would cause disadvantage to me- professionally and socially. The reasons for this are unimportant for the purposes of this thread, if you are willing to accept this at face value. Whether this disadvantage amounts to ‘persecution’ is uncertain (it depends on your definitions), and whether the disadvantage is only perceived rather than real is also debatable. But I suspect my reluctance to be openly atheistic would not be shared by the majority of Christians in America or the UK. Perhaps I shall be persuaded otherwise forthwith…
I'm intrigued, mostly because friends and colleagues who are atheists seem to have no problem being open about the fact. Maybe because I worked first in science and then in law, I've just been in workplaces where being argumentative and individualistic are job skills. Conversely, I was very cautious about revealing my theist tendency at my current office.
As to the "persecution" side of things, I'm in a position of some responsibility, including for recruitment, and I can honestly say that a person's faith or otherwise has had no bearing on any decision I've made. (Admittedly, not just because to do otherwise would be discrimination at least. It's also because I don't want to explain to my partners why we've now got a day-trip to Industrial Tribunal Land)
Posted by dogwonderer (# 12169) on
:
I suppose the problem we face, atheists and theists alike, is that, by being 'out', we are labelled in a particular way.
I suppose my situation may be atypical, but I honestly feel it's to my advantage to remain closeted. The reason for this is more that I don't wish to be labelled as an atheist, and associated with what people perceive atheists, as a group, to be like. Of course, there is irony in this reflecting my own prejudice about what atheists are perceived to be like by others!
Atheists have an image problem. Dawkins, for one thing. Likewise, I doubt the many decent Catholic priests enjoy the association with paedopohilia.
The funny thing is that I feel perfectly comfortable to admit my atheism on a personal level, face to face, with anyone (and I use the term 'admit' carefully). If I could be certain of being able to discuss my beliefs with every third party to hold an opinion of me, I reckon it would be okay for me to be 'out'. But you cannot prevent people from making assumptions about you, if you admit to being part of a labelled group.
If you doubt this, examine your own assumed opinion of what is a 'typical atheist'.
Posted by Beautiful_Dreamer (# 10880) on
:
I actually used to be an atheist. I went from that to agnostic to deist and then Christian. I grew up in the South US among a lot of religious people. No one really labeled me, but then I did not talk about religion. I wasn't trying to hide my lack fo belief, I just didn't think it was important. I was seen as something a little strange and I had people try to proseltyze, but nothing I would call persecution. But then, I was a teenager at the time so I hadn't been around as long as some of you have.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
It strikes me that many theists are prejudiced about how atheists ought to feel, in this respect (as indeed it is vice versa). TM is clearly a long way from understanding how I feel about the disadvantages of being ‘out’, and this perhaps reveals something important. Reading her post, and those of other non-atheists who insist atheists are not discriminated against, makes me feel a bit like an ethnic minority group presumably does- whose own sense of discrimination is denied as legitimate by a majority white group. What would they know about it? To put it another way, offenders are in no position to dictate the terms by which the offended feel so. I’ve read comments by others on this Ship, who seem very quick to deny that atheists could possibly feel disadvantaged for their beliefs in any way at all. And yet this one does.
As I said, dogwonderer, I used to be atheist myself, so I do have experience with this. Your argument fails on that account.
Anyway, the claim the poster made is directly refutable in my own experience; I know quite a number of quite open atheists, and I know they haven't lost their jobs or been rejected by their families. Are you now telling me I'm wrong?
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
(And BTW, how am I an "offender"? I don't remember ever firing an atheist for being one.)
Posted by dogwonderer (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I know quite a number of quite open atheists, and I know they haven't lost their jobs or been rejected by their families. Are you now telling me I'm wrong?
I'm sorry, TM. Reading it again, I see my post made it sound very like I was criticising you personally for discrimination against atheists, which was extremely clumsy of me. I can understand why you might be cross about this, and sincerely apologise for not making clear the distinction between the specific and the general. As I said, I may be atypical, but I'm certainly insensitive!
I hope you'll forgive me.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
I'm sorry, TM. Reading it again, I see my post made it sound very like I was criticising you personally for discrimination against atheists, which was extremely clumsy of me. I can understand why you might be cross about this, and sincerely apologise for not making clear the distinction between the specific and the general. As I said, I may be atypical, but I'm certainly insensitive!
I hope you'll forgive me.
There's nothing to forgive.
My point, however, still stands: the original poster made some claims that I know from my own experience are not generally true. IOW, my argument was meant to refute the broad-brush statement that we see so frequently about "what's true in America." I can say, without any doubt, that what he said is simply not true in my experience. Atheists and religionists co-exist fairly well in my area - in fact lately, you hear a far more hostile tone in the argument against religion. This is due, I'm sure, to 9/11 and to the ascendency of the "religious" Right in politics, and I can understand it.
I certainly recognize that in some parts of the country atheism would be viewed with extreme suspicion; my only point was to refute the wild rhetoric that gives an impression that this is true in all places and at all times.
I certainly can also understand the closet, as I've been there. The only solution, I found, was to come out, and to face whatever losses occur.
[ 23. July 2007, 12:22: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posted by dogwonderer (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I certainly can also understand the closet, as I've been there. The only solution, I found, was to come out, and to face whatever losses occur.
I'm glad you found the solution, but I guess its universality depends largely on what one has to lose. For me, the closet is the lesser evil at present, but perhaps there's hope for a New Enlightenment (as per Hitchens). In the mean time, I shall have to remain unforgiven in more ways than one.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
Persecuated for being an atheist? In a modern "western" countr? I don't think I believe it. You're being precious. Poor diddums. Get over it.
[ 23. July 2007, 12:40: Message edited by: ken ]
Posted by dogwonderer (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
You're being precious. Poor diddums. Get over it.
Please see my PM.
Posted by Quercus (# 12761) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
I suppose the problem we face, atheists and theists alike, is that, by being 'out', we are labelled in a particular way.
I suppose my situation may be atypical, but I honestly feel it's to my advantage to remain closeted. The reason for this is more that I don't wish to be labelled as an atheist, and associated with what people perceive atheists, as a group, to be like. Of course, there is irony in this reflecting my own prejudice about what atheists are perceived to be like by others!
Atheists have an image problem. Dawkins, for one thing.
<...>
If you doubt this, examine your own assumed opinion of what is a 'typical atheist'.
I thought about this over lunch. I may go and ask an atheist friend about it in due course.
Most of the people I know who are atheists are not hostile, just not interested. One who was reading The God Delusion thought that Dawkins is right but is a bit OTT. FWIW, as a sample of one (but aren't we all) I think most people don't mind what your religion or lack of it is, so long as it isn't waved in their faces. (Which is why I'm intrigued as to what your circumstances are - not asking, incidentally - I'm happy to take your position on trust).
As to 'coming out' at work, in a rather cowardly fashion I arranged things so that my vicar rang me at work one day, knowing that our receptionist would drop the fact into office gossip. So everyone knows without me telling them. Spineless, moi? ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
You're being precious. Poor diddums. Get over it.
Please see my PM.
Please see my reply in the Hell thread. (Which could as easily have been posted here I suppose)
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Mad Geo, I wish it were just atheists and fatties who were fair game in America, but to let you in on a little secret, outside of certain right-thinking enclaves, it's gay people too! But I do think you're being a bit histrionic about the level of discrimination faced in America by unbelievers overall. It's just that the Godless are such a negligible minority in America, most people probably don't run across any really serious atheists (maybe Southern Cally's different, of course).
Ah Ah. You missed the caveat. I said last "acceptable" minority to persecute. Gays, blacks, latinos, etc. etc. not only have protections via the law, they have various other entities that make it unacceptable such as the media, and so on. Believe me, I find any persecution of gays, blacks, etc intolerable. I just don't stop looking/fighting intolerance there.
TM,
I didn't say "Nonreligious". I said "ATHEIST". Not at all the same thing. Nonreligious can be agnostics (mostly acceptable to religious folks) or just the "unchurched" to use the nasty Christian term. Not the same at all.
I think DW's account is accurate for some. I have seen it myself. Just because some atheists are not persecuted, just like some blacks/gays/etc. are not persecuted, doesn't mean that it isn't aweful for those that are. I have personally heard threats of firings at atheists by fundie bosses. Makes one real quiet about ones beliefs either way, I can assure you.
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by bc_anglican:
Now I can accept that some people are still prejudiced against atheists and agnostics. I can even accept that some Christians aren't exactly keen on defending the rights of atheists. On the other hand, I don't know if we can say that atheists are being persecuted. ...
Well, given the generally-used definition of "persecution", I'd have to be honest and say no. So we need another word to describe being told over and over, both directly and in public discourse, that you can't possibly have morals or ethics (though you might have absorbed Christian ethics by osmosis), that your promises can't be trusted (saw that one pretty recently, didn't we?), that you get to selfishly do whatever you want or whatever feels good, and that you're an ax murder waiting to happen because you don't believe in God. And then you're gonna burn in Hell! It's not persecution, but here's some other options from the thesaurus: aggravation, annoyance, bedevilment, bother, exasperation, hassle, irking, irritation, molestation, nuisance, perturbation, pestering, provocation, provoking, torment, trouble, vexation, vexing.
A friend of mine went home for the Christmas holidays and told her family she wasn't a Christian any more. Her sister's response? She said "I just feel like I don't know who you are any more" and didn't say a word to her for the rest of the visit. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
OliviaG
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
I find "bedevilment" humorously ironic.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
I'll put my hand up and say I don't see any persecution (right-side of Pond) - up to and including Christians can't own and operate a TV station but atheists can, Catholics can't marry an heir to the throne of the UK but atheists can. Atheists can affirm in court rather then swear on any holy book, become members of the police, the judiciary, the armed services, members of Parliament, upper and lower houses, own their own home and withdraw their children from RE lessons.
So no, not really.
To be fair, what Brits really object to is someone holding strong opinions and then insisting on talking about them. Thus Steven Green and Richard Dawkins are equally reviled.
Data point: I had to 'come out' at Greenbelt as going to a ConEvo church. Which amused a gay friend enormously.
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 256) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
You're being precious. Poor diddums. Get over it.
Please see my PM.
Please see my reply in the Hell thread. (Which could as easily have been posted here I suppose)
Kindly keep it there. Don't drag in issues from a Hell thread here. For the record, ken, your remark was personal attack as well as getting over personal.
Duo Seraphim, Purgatory Host
Posted by Birdseye (# 5280) on
:
I think that anyone who affiliates themselves quite evidently and visibly with a particular group is liable to violent opposition by members of groups with opposing views.
Eg: Liverpool supporters at a football match may be attacked by violent supporters of opposing teams.
Anti-hunt demonstrators at hunts may be attacked by pro-hunting supporters.
Rainbow-clad gay-rights campaigners may be attacked by homophobic thugs.
Smokers lighting up in public may be attacked by anti-smoking campaigners.
People visibly from ethnic minorities may be attacked by racist thugs.
Even pretty or apparently wealthy girls will draw attacks from groups of less pretty or at least less secure girls.
The thing is, in all of these situations, people belong obviously to a group -the only people to escape persecution are people possessing no apparent views or discernably belonging to any group, but in most situations, it's enough to conform to a mainstream appearance and viewpoint and to hide any obvious differences, in order to avoid most persecution.
So the question is - are 'atheists' a group? Do they subscribe to a particular set of practices or hold a uniformed set of beliefs?
Can you spot an atheist by their behaviour? Sadly you can't even spot a Christian by their behaviour nine times out of ten -so I sincerely doubt whether an atheist individual is easier to spot!
So an atheist is an individual -and aside from institutionalised atheism in communist countries (where religion is persecuted) should be as hard to spot on sight as someone with a peanut allergy or a fondness for black and white movies.
However, hard as it is to identify one,it is STILL possible to persecute an atheist because of their views if you place an individual under aggressive scrutiny, draw out their opposing views and attack them -not in the spirit of lively discussion but in the spirit of fascist bullying... you can find SOMETHING in everyone to persecute if you are unkind enough.
there is another side to this though -in that part of being a Christian calls us all to share the Christian message with everybody, indiscriminately -but not thoughtlessly or heavy-handedly. So people who don't believe in God may become tired or irritated by the number of conversations that they end up having with Christians about God... but though they might end up weary or grumpy, and should feel challenged -as Christians feel constantly challenged by the values of the world, they certainly shouldn't feel
'persecuted'...
Better to have views that you care about and get heated about than to avoid persecution.
Posted by dogwonderer (# 12169) on
:
Yep. I agree fully with what Birdseye said.
FWIW.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Birdseye:
I think that anyone who affiliates themselves quite evidently and visibly with a particular group is liable to violent opposition by members of groups with opposing views.
Eg: Liverpool supporters at a football match may be attacked by violent supporters of opposing teams.
Anti-hunt demonstrators at hunts may be attacked by pro-hunting supporters.
Rainbow-clad gay-rights campaigners may be attacked by homophobic thugs.
Smokers lighting up in public may be attacked by anti-smoking campaigners.
People visibly from ethnic minorities may be attacked by racist thugs.
Even pretty or apparently wealthy girls will draw attacks from groups of less pretty or at least less secure girls.
The thing is, in all of these situations, people belong obviously to a group -the only people to escape persecution are people possessing no apparent views or discernably belonging to any group, but in most situations, it's enough to conform to a mainstream appearance and viewpoint and to hide any obvious differences, in order to avoid most persecution.
So the question is - are 'atheists' a group? Do they subscribe to a particular set of practices or hold a uniformed set of beliefs?
Can you spot an atheist by their behaviour? Sadly you can't even spot a Christian by their behaviour nine times out of ten -so I sincerely doubt whether an atheist individual is easier to spot!
So an atheist is an individual -and aside from institutionalised atheism in communist countries (where religion is persecuted) should be as hard to spot on sight as someone with a peanut allergy or a fondness for black and white movies.
However, hard as it is to identify one,it is STILL possible to persecute an atheist because of their views if you place an individual under aggressive scrutiny, draw out their opposing views and attack them -not in the spirit of lively discussion but in the spirit of fascist bullying... you can find SOMETHING in everyone to persecute if you are unkind enough.
there is another side to this though -in that part of being a Christian calls us all to share the Christian message with everybody, indiscriminately -but not thoughtlessly or heavy-handedly. So people who don't believe in God may become tired or irritated by the number of conversations that they end up having with Christians about God... but though they might end up weary or grumpy, and should feel challenged -as Christians feel constantly challenged by the values of the world, they certainly shouldn't feel
'persecuted'...
Better to have views that you care about and get heated about than to avoid persecution.
I don't agree entirely. It is probably true that every time a member of a "group" draws fire from anyone outside the "group" they feel persecuted. It is just possible that they could be acting the fool and more than that, doing so to a greater extent than they would if they did not identify themselves with a group, perhaps mistakenly, thinking that membership of some group entitles them to a better hearing or even protection.
It doesn't. You are still You. If you do something stupid and/or evil, it will be recognised as such. Far from membership of the group protecting you, it will reflect badly on the group.
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
So, if a person has the potential to be persecuted for beliefs (or anti-beliefs) under birdseye's post, and has reason to stay "in the closet" about it, isn't that "persecuted"?
I guarantee I know of one place where the equation is as follows:
Admit your an atheist = Lose your job.
And it's a geologic consulting firm, not a church-related job.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I guarantee I know of one place where the equation is as follows:
Admit your an atheist = Lose your job.
And it's a geologic consulting firm, not a church-related job.
So why is that firm not bust through all the legal fees it has to spend defending its antedeluvian employment practices?
Or is not illegal in the US to discriminate on these grounds? - because it certainly is in the UK, and I'm rather assuming it is anywhere in the EU.
(Geez, we don't even get to sack vicars who become atheists...)
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on
:
It's most definitely illegal in the US too (Civil Rights Act of 1964). Not that that means it never happens.
And if (as is the case with several consulting firms I know of) the staff are not technically employees but "independent contractors," they might have less protection.
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on
:
<tangent>
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So why is that firm not bust through all the legal fees it has to spend defending its antedeluvian employment practices?
Because you can't afford a lawyer when you're unemployed. Because suing a former employer interferes with finding a new job. Because "reason for leaving: religious discrimination, lawsuit pending" looks bad on a resume. All sorts of reasons, unfortunately. OliviaG
</tangent>
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
MadGeo wrote quote:
I guarantee I know of one place where the equation is as follows:
Admit your an atheist = Lose your job.
And it's a geologic consulting firm, not a church-related job.
That's disgraceful of them.
Which is this firm? This is the same line of business that I spent many years in and alongside. I reckon my stock is still sufficient to carry some clout (though I left it a couple of years ago). Please let me know, either here or by PM if you feel that a public forum is inappropriate. I may well be able to do more than those currently still employed in the business - but in any event if an injustice has been done and there is something - anything - I can do to help towards rectifying it, let me know.
Thanks
Ian
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
]Because you can't afford a lawyer when you're unemployed.
That's what trade unions are for.
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
]Because you can't afford a lawyer when you're unemployed.
That's what trade unions are for.
The situation is much different in the United States, ken. These are stats from the last century, but the overall picture is accurate: http://www.demographia.com/lm-unn99.htm
Furthermore, anyone who is a consultant or contract employee is highly unlikely to be covered by a collective agreement. If a business has less than a certain number of employees, equal employment laws don't even apply: http://www.eeoc.gov/abouteeo/overview_coverage.html
OliviaG
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
A friend of mine was just fucked over by her place of work (hospital). They actually reduced her rate of pay, retro-fucking-actively. Took it from her check. I said "won't the Union help you? I mean WTF are they there for, right?"
The union she had been in said that they didn't deal in "individual" issues like that, in spite of the fact that she had to pay dues to the motherfuckers. She gave notice and now works at a non-governmental hospital. She says she will never work for the government again much less a Union. But we digress.
I appreciate the offer Honest Ron, really. I no longer work there. Suffice it to say it was enlightening at the time (although my faith in humans doesn't leave much room for surprise). The owner was a real swinging dick and he was much more subtle and devious about how he got rid of people. But I heard what I heard straight from the horses mouth. He had a whole list of people he would terminate, gays and atheists to name two. Of course he would never likely be caught, or at least all he would pay would be unemployment.
The point is not that he and his type get away with it. They always will, more or less. It is that there are people out there that think this way (at least in America). They are not the minority in America, I suspect, and that prejudicial behaviour by employers, and (some) obnoxious Christians, keeps many atheists in the closet.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
OK, MadGeo, but the offer stands.
People who swing their dicks sometimes find electric fences in the most unexpected places - if you see what I mean.
Ian
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
I do. The Big Swingin Dick got his a while ago through a number of lawsuits over other issues. BSDs sometimes get theirs. I learned a lot from him, ironically. But part of that learning was in how not to be an asshole as a manager.
I think it is very relevent that religious people the world over exercise all kinds of persecution, most notably but not limited to family members that change religion but also that drop religion. I think that atheism is fortunate that it does have fighters in it that will stand up and say "Screw you and your silly ideas" and do it well enough to make the NY Times bestseller lists. But that doesn't make it less unpleasant to the athiests that do get fired, or ostracized, or preached at, etc. etc.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I think it is very relevent that religious people the world over exercise all kinds of persecution, most notably but not limited to family members that change religion but also that drop religion.
I still think you could insert "X" for "religion", where X = any strongly-held belief. So whilst I'm not disagreeing with you, I've really not found that atheists are, as the OP asks, subject to any systematic persecution.
And I do think there is a considerable Pond difference here - I'm simply boggled not only that a secular employer would discriminate in such a crude way, but that he gets away with it.
(Of course, I'd cut my kids off without a penny if either of them became Tories...)
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
Oh, I imagine that he will have to pay out someday on something he says or does stupid. His "Cowboy" era is drawing to somewhat of a close.
It is a significant difference that I perceive that we are truly business-friendly over here. The American Dream empowers a lot of good and bad behaviour to try to get ahead. I have worked for the full specturm of bosses over the years. Ragin yelling assholes, and New Age Zen Layed Back types (current employer). Both ends are interesting to work for and have their lessons to be learned.
As we are an "At will" state, it is possible for employers to fire you, or for you to quit, for almsot any reason. Sure they can't fire you based on race, religion, blah blah blah, but who's to say if they don't say? If I wanted to fire someone for being an atheist, I would set them up, or try to get them to leave, or simply wait a while, and then fire them. It's not hard.
Not that I would do that to anyone, personally. But I know how to do it, having been a manager. No one is perfect.
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
FWIW, the EEO folks recently found that a medical clinic in our area was, in all likelihood, guilty of discrimination against a couple of employees who were not sufficiently religious. Here's the story. (The story from our local paper, which had more details, is no longer in the free archive.)
I don't know whether the employees were atheists, agnostics, or simply "unchurched," but I found the story disturbing.
Particularly since one of Littlest One's specialists is a physician with them. He's not one we see often, but nor is he one we can do without. I'm afraid this news could end up tainting our relationship, though. I'm not comfortable doing business with people who discriminate.
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
Well, ironically, God Bless You.
Posted by dogwonderer (# 12169) on
:
Doubts have been raised (by people who are not atheists) that atheists are, in fact, persecuted. I have said in all honesty on this thread that it's truly my belief that it would be a disadvantage for me to be open about my atheism. This has, astonishingly, been disputed by people who know nothing whatsoever of my situation. My genuine disinclination to be ‘out’ as an atheist has been prejudicially dismissed as ‘precious’, ‘histrionic’, ‘ridiculous’, ‘particularly stupid’, ‘extremely silly’, and ‘absurd’. By my posts on this thread, I have been accused of ‘playing victim’ and, repeatedly, of ‘whining’.
To answer the OP, I don't know if atheists are persecuted as a group, but I feel at least one certainly has been, individually.
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
Well said.
That was certainly not lost on me as I read here. The irony is intense.
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on
:
One more point re: perception of atheism in the USA. Remember the Cold War? The godless communists? That probably didn't help. (And I suspect it also has a lot to do with why Americans aren't so keen on unions, either.)OliviaG
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
Americans aren't so keen on Unions, as they suck. Mafia connections. Treat members like shit. Etc. What's to like?
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Americans aren't so keen on Unions, as they suck. Mafia connections. Treat members like shit. Etc. What's to like?
If supporting a union means all your neighbours and co-workers will think you're a godless communist, that really puts a damper on grassroots involvement and leaves the way clear for the weeds. The mafia/union thing doesn't really happen in Canada. (IIRC, the Teamsters elected a Canadian woman to try to get their union back.) OliviaG
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
Doubts have been raised (by people who are not atheists) that atheists are, in fact, persecuted. I have said in all honesty on this thread that it's truly my belief that it would be a disadvantage for me to be open about my atheism. This has, astonishingly, been disputed by people who know nothing whatsoever of my situation. My genuine disinclination to be ‘out’ as an atheist has been prejudicially dismissed as ‘precious’, ‘histrionic’, ‘ridiculous’, ‘particularly stupid’, ‘extremely silly’, and ‘absurd’. By my posts on this thread, I have been accused of ‘playing victim’ and, repeatedly, of ‘whining’.
To answer the OP, I don't know if atheists are persecuted as a group, but I feel at least one certainly has been, individually.
I would like to point out that I'm the only one who used the word "ridiculous," and it wasn't directed at you.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
(And you guys do realize that a lot of us weren't always religious, don't you? It's not genetic, you know.
As I said before, many of us once identified as atheists; we're not just talking through our hats. Anyway, I never addressed any sort of remark to your own situation, dogwonderer, except that I understood the closet quite well.)
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
One more point re: perception of atheism in the USA. Remember the Cold War? The godless communists? That probably didn't help. (And I suspect it also has a lot to do with why Americans aren't so keen on unions, either.)OliviaG
Tangent: What do labour unions have to do with communism or atheism?
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Tangent: What do labour unions have to do with communism or atheism?
They're all un-American. Didn't you get the memo?
OliviaG
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
....It's not genetic, you know....
That, is highly debatable. Or at least quite potentially likely to have a genetic component.
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Tangent: What do labour unions have to do with communism or atheism?
Socialists in the diapered decades of the 20th century were among the most vocal advocates of safe working conditions, 8-hour day, those other evils that the labor movement has saddled our societies with.
After the Great War (in the USA, at least), the megabusinesses (particularly steel) worked very hard to crush unions and other quality-of-employee-life threats to profits, and one of the most useful (and most insidious) weapons they used was painting the unions, unionists, and worker-rights advocates as Bolsheviks. It worked a charm, and the association of the two in the public mind has never quite been erased.
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on
:
quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Geo:
That, is highly debatable. Or at least quite potentially likely to have a genetic component.
Is there anything about people anymore that does not have a genetic component?
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
Mirrizin.
Very little. Very little indeed.
MT:
Somehow I don't think Commie is the term that it used to be. I don't think the boomers, Gen x, or whatever the current arrogant batch of younguns are called are concerned in America about the Communist threat in any way shape or form. I'm quite sure the young adults could find a commie if it was tied to their ass. They were wearing Che shirts until like five minutes ago with literally no idea who Che was.
More seriously, the reason Unions don't work around here is that we are doing fine, whining from hankysqueezers notwithstanding.
It's hard to work the workers up into a nice Bolshie froth when they can get a Starbucks job that pays $10-$12 an hour, kids are no longer employed as slave labor, and OSHA fines bad employers practically out of existence.
The American Dream works for most of us, and appeals to the rest. They don't want to be burdened by union assholes either, when they get to be owner/boss.
But we SERIOUSLY digress.
[ 25. July 2007, 23:45: Message edited by: Mad Geo ]
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on
:
Huh? Wha? Lietuvos asked, "What do labour unions have to do with communism or atheism?" Is my answer wrong?
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
I was responding to this:
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
....the megabusinesses (particularly steel) worked very hard to crush unions and other quality-of-employee-life threats to profits, and one of the most useful (and most insidious) weapons they used was painting the unions, unionists, and worker-rights advocates as Bolsheviks. It worked a charm, and the association of the two in the public mind has never quite been erased.
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on
:
Right, which answered L's question. That's the connection between the two.
Am I missing something?
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
I was digressing. Not important. Back to those bastard Commies, I mean atheists.
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on
:
Back to those horrid, evil, baby-eating atheists: Does having people say derogatory things about one on a website constitute "persecution"? I'm having a hard time seeing that.
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
Of course you are. Your not the one being persecuted. I mean atheists aren't being called nigger or bitch, right?
More seriously, it is a small symptom of the bigger issue. Not the problem itself IMO. As long as the potential for termination in the workplace exists for outing oneself (either way), one can claim the word "persecuted" in my opinion. I think women are persecuted. Of course the Lion-in-the-Arena-standard crowd would disagree.
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on
:
If I were in a situation dominated by atheists (and I have been) and was regularly being heckled for being a Christian (as I was), I wouldn't cry persecution (and I didn't). But maybe I have a thicker skin than most atheists.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
Huh? Wha? Lietuvos asked, "What do labour unions have to do with communism or atheism?" Is my answer wrong?
That's crap. I was born in America in 1954 and lived most of my life there. The AFL-CIO were still quite strong and pervasive when I was growing up. They had a strongly anti-communist, blue collar American ethos. Indeed, although they were supporters of the Democrats, they were rather reactionary, if anything. It's true that prior to the merger of the AFL and the CIO, which took place before I was ever born, the CIO had a true communist element (during the Great Depression), but that had pretty much died off or been internally rooted out even by the post-War era. It may be the case that there were a few extreme right-wing Americans or ultra-capitalist oligarchs who engaged in red-baiting toward the unions in the post-war era, but if so, it was really quite a fringe thing -- rather like the John Birch Society (remember them?). The unions were mostly slagged off in terms of organised crime connexions (Teamsters, Jimmy Hoffa) or simple management-labour power politics.The equation between athiest and labour unionist is an absurd quantum leap, as indeed the idea that trade unionism was generally besmirched with allegations of communism. The one equation that is correct is that international/soviet communism was seen as "godless" and that atheism was equated with communism, adding to the intrinsic evils of Marxism-Leninism.
Posted by Wulfstan (# 558) on
:
Mad Geo said:
quote:
More seriously, it is a small symptom of the bigger issue. Not the problem itself IMO. As long as the potential for termination in the workplace exists for outing oneself (either way), one can claim the word "persecuted" in my opinion.
No I don't think so. I think you're conflating workplace bullying with persecution. A boss could sack someone for being and atheist, but also for having the wrong religion, politics, sporting affiliations, birthplace etc. And I have no doubt they do so, often. The problem here is that they are able with very little effort to put their personal prejudices into action because they hold a position of power. Your definition allows pretty much everyone in the world to claim persecution so long as they can give one example of when someone in a position of authority was a jerk about whatever it was. Persecution suggests something more widespread that people are attempting to justify with some kind of ideology, like with McCarthyism.
So in the UK I can confidently say there is no persecution of atheists, although there may be the odd boss who lets his prejudices run free, and acts like a jerk.
I'd be surprised if persecution of atheists was countrywide in the US, though there may be regional pockets. But I think you'd have to be specific with your evidence.
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
As long as the potential for termination in the workplace exists for outing oneself (either way), one can claim the word "persecuted" in my opinion. I think women are persecuted. Of course the Lion-in-the-Arena-standard crowd would disagree.
I guess I'm in the Lion-in-the-Arena-standard crowd, then. I am quite certain that women, blacks, atheists, homosexuals, and many other groups are discriminated against in the workplace, and are sometimes subjected to harrassment at work and in the family, but I don't think harrassment and discrimination are the same thing as persecution.
I dislike word inflation. If you use persecution to describe being preached at at work, or disowned by family, then you're left without a way to differentiate between that and being barred from working entirely, jailed, assaulted, or killed.
FWIW, I know Christians who use the word persecution in the same way you're using it, and I tell them they're wrong to do so as well.
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
That's crap.
I shall never again answer a request from you for historical information. My bad for doing so this time.
Posted by Otter (# 12020) on
:
I asked Mr. Otter if atheists are persecuted, he looked at me like I had two heads, and asked what in the world I was talking about. I gave him the ultra-condensed non-partisan version of the thread, and asked if he would ever hesitate to identify himself as an atheist. He said nope, he wouldn't, and he doesn't think atheists are persecuted.
I'm making a guess here, that *maybe* it depends to some extent on what professional field you're in? Mr. Otter is a software test engineer, a very techie job, and I think there's a tendancy for techies and to be more skeptical, "show me the numbers"-ish than some groups. Much as we accuse them otherwise, computers are unthinking machines - garbage in, garbage out, etc.
On the other hand, Dogwonderer as a doctor is in a field where the human mind and spirit have a lot more influence - patient attitude, placebo effect, or whatever. Perhaps there's it's not coincidental that DW feels more anti-athiest sentiment in his field.
On the third hand, you'd think Mad Geo's field would fall more on the techie-skeptical end of the spectrum. Maybe MG ran into a bad apple? Different parts of the country have something to do with it? Maybe I'm guessing wildly? Who knows?
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Wulfstan:
Mad Geo said:
I think you're conflating workplace bullying with persecution. A boss could sack someone for being and atheist, but also for having the wrong religion, politics, sporting affiliations, birthplace etc. And I have no doubt they do so, often.
Yes they do so, and in the US, if you can prove it, you can sue their asses off the map for relgion, political affialiation, and birthplace as well as race, color, sex (whether or not of a sexual nature and including same-gender harassment and gender identity harassment), age (40 and over), disability (mental or physical), sexual orientation, or retaliation. Welcome to America.
We have a name for "workplace bullying" in America, it's called Workplace Harrassment, and it's illegal. We take it very seriously.
Frankly, I have thought a couple of times that if someone were fired for being an atheist whether the law would cover it under religious harrassment.... I doubt it under this Christo-fascist administration and its court, but maybe....
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
I dislike word inflation. If you use persecution to describe being preached at at work, or disowned by family, then you're left without a way to differentiate between that and being barred from working entirely, jailed, assaulted, or killed.
That is certainly your perogative to try to correct me. Good luck with that.
More seriously, it has often been my observation that word inflation and other hyperbole-laden things are the only things that get peoples attention in this Jerry Springer Era. One has to "burn bras" in order to get crap corrected. Maybe that's not "right" but then neither is workplace harrassment, the glass ceiling, etc. etc.
Posted by Wulfstan (# 558) on
:
Mad Geo, I'm aware of workplace harrassment, but I agree with Josephine. Even you seem to admit it's word inflation. And you have yet to point to any evidence of widespread, or regionally specific ideologically based antagonism, of a practical and aggressive kind, towards atheism in the US. If you were setting up a Young Atheists Club in Montgomery, Alabama circa 1920, you might have a point, but we're not. In the UK I'm sure that what you describe is covered by unfair dismissal/harrassment(non-specific)/unprofessional conduct-type legislation. It sounds like you have a not dissimilar set-up, but need a proper system of legal aid, like the one the UK recently abandoned. So the problem would not be one of specifically atheist persecution, or of any other type, but an inability to get justice even if the law is on your side. Which is another issue entirely.
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
If almost everyone is afraid to come out of the closet as an atheist, how would we know if they are being peresecuted? It's a chicken and egg. Dawkins actually was calling for people to come out of the athiest closet in his latest book. I have a feeling that very soon we will start to see some of the backlash. Of course with the religious conservative courts we are currently running, the law may not be of much use....
Posted by Wulfstan (# 558) on
:
MG said:
quote:
If almost everyone is afraid to come out of the closet as an atheist, how would we know if they are being peresecuted?
But you're still not giving evidence that this is the case. So if there's no evidence of persecution, I don't think you can reasonably claim it. You're using circular logic. Is the reason no-one I knew at work came out of the closet as a Morris Dancer because they were terrified of persecution?
quote:
Dawkins actually was calling for people to come out of the athiest closet in his latest book. I have a feeling that very soon we will start to see some of the backlash.
Against what???
quote:
Of course with the religious conservative courts we are currently running, the law may not be of much use....
Are you suggesting that the US has some Conservative-Protestant version of Sharia Law in operation? Or is it really that you live in a country that is predominantly religious, with atheists as a pretty insignificant minority as yet?
I'd suggest you move to Europe but I think you'd find it disturbingly socialist...
Posted by dogwonderer (# 12169) on
:
The trouble with non-persectuted, non-persecuting people saying there's no such thing as persecution is that they may be associated, by the persecuted, with the persecutors- since the persecutors also say there is no such thing as persecution.
It's like the non-Nazi Germans who denied the holocaust. (Apologies to Godwin's Law aficionados).
Posted by benjdm (# 11779) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
If I were in a situation dominated by atheists (and I have been) and was regularly being heckled for being a Christian (as I was), I wouldn't cry persecution (and I didn't). But maybe I have a thicker skin than most atheists.
Could be. I haven't even been heckled, directly. I would not consider myself persecuted nor would I consider atheists as a group persecuted in the U.S. Culturally ostracized, probably, but we have plenty of company there.
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
I dislike word inflation. If you use persecution to describe being preached at at work, or disowned by family, then you're left without a way to differentiate between that and being barred from working entirely, jailed, assaulted, or killed.
That is certainly your perogative to try to correct me. Good luck with that.
If you are on a picnic at a park, and someone's dog starts annoying you, maybe drooling on your belongings, or grabbing your frisbee, or even snatching your food, if you start calling for help, shouting that you're being attacked by a vicious killer dog, when people run to your defense, they're going to look at the situation, roll their eyes, and walk away.
If, on the other hand, you called out that someone's ill-mannered dog was being a major pest, and it needs to be kept under better control by its owner, you'd have had a fair number of supporters -- including nearly every dog owner at the park. But by claiming a risk to life and limb, when there was no such, you put off the people who would have otherwise been on your side, and you make yourself look ridiculous.
And if you were to make a habit of making such claims -- you know the story of the boy who cried wolf. Instead of running to your defense, or even to coming to find out what's going on, people will say, "It's that old MadGeo again. You'd think he'd learn to tell the difference between a slobbery old Labrador that's making a nuisance of itself and an attack dog on the loose." And they'll ignore you.
There is no excuse for religous harrassment in the workplace. None at all. If you have been the victim of such, you were wronged, and the people who wronged you should be held accountable for it. I'll stand with you on that one, in any way I can.
But please don't undermine your position by ratcheting up the rhetoric to the point where it's absurd. You do yourself a disservice that way, and make it harder for your sympathizers to provide support.
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
Wulfstan,
IIRC atheists, that will declare it, are ~7% of Americans.
Studies Show that atheists are more despised than homosexuals and muslims in America. Tell me that doesn't manifest itself in other ways. People won't let their daughters marry an atheist, for example.
All I am saying is that atheists get shit done to them, even if it is only social stigma. That's why they hide it. Being thrown out of families, not being able to marry someone, firings, whatever. That is all persecution to me.
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on
:
quote:
Originally Posted by dogwonderer:
[It's like the non-Nazi Germans who denied the holocaust. (Apologies to Godwin's Law aficionados).
Apology accepted. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
If it comes down to that, I'll to the wall with you.
I don't think it's gone that far, and I doubt it ever will, but I will keep my eyes open.
At the same time, I'm also reminded that even the Nazi movement started out as a revolution by an oppressed people. You have to be really careful when you start accusing particular groups of people of being the natural source of all evil. That's exactly what the Nazis did to the Jews, and it disturbs me to hear atheists start blaming this "religion" bogeyman for every atrocity people ever committed against each other. People scare me when they claim to have ideological "solutions" to the problem of the human capacity for evil, and when those solutions include a scapegoat, especially when that scapegoated group includes me.
Feel free to invoke Godwin's Law.
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
Wait, according to the poll I just cited, Atheists are the source of all evil in America. Does that mean that they get to worry about being scapegoated? Here, they are the moinority and the Christians are the ones at risk of being the oppressor.
[ 27. July 2007, 17:39: Message edited by: Mad Geo ]
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on
:
So the problem is not particular ideologies but the existence of oppression and "scapegoating" at all. I can agree with you completely on that front, as a Christian.
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
Hmmm. Just as a point of debate/thought:
If Christianity or some other religion for that matter, claims to certain things that result in harm to others, mental or physical, and people legitimately criticise it on those points, is that scapegoating, or is that merely constructive criticism?
Christianity is the clear and overwhelming majority here. They have absolutely no real fear of persecution and in fact under the current administration are trying to codify their belief systems at the expense of others, and at the expense of Constitutional liberties, including other religions and atheists. It has not been my observation that the Majority gets to cry "Scapegoat" when they are packing the courts with their advocates. I am willing to be corrected.
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on
:
quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Geo:
Hmmm. Just as a point of debate/thought:
If Christianity or some other religion for that matter, claims to certain things that result in harm to others, mental or physical, and people legitimately criticise it on those points, is that scapegoating, or is that merely constructive criticism?
Saying "Christians really need to work on this" is constructive criticism. Saying "Christians are all oppressing us" is exaggeration. Also, what makes particular styles of criticism constructive versus destructive? I get in arguments all the time on my other board with atheists, and they seem to go absolutely nowhere except atheists saying (in so many words) "See! You're a deluded freak who makes no sense!" because I don't buy into their logical scheme. Sometimes my frustration with that attitude transfers to this board, for which I apologize. And not to say all atheists are tossers, but I think you can get a model for oppression in any ideology. All you need is a scapegoat, and for many atheists, religion does appear to be a scapegoat. I've been told to my online handle that the world would be peaceful if only we could magically remove all the religious ideas (except for the ones we like, of course ). quote:
Christianity is the clear and overwhelming majority here. They have absolutely no real fear of persecution and in fact under the current administration are trying to codify their belief systems at the expense of others, and at the expense of Constitutional liberties, including other religions and atheists. It has not been my observation that the Majority gets to cry "Scapegoat" when they are packing the courts with their advocates. I am willing to be corrected.
But Christianity is not a united front, as this board illustrates. And I don't see the evidence of the administration literally "codifying" their "belief system" into law and succeeding. For the most part, Creationism is the national laughingstock, and with good reason. So far, the free marketplace of ideas seems to be succeeding.
The war on Iraq was also about money and power and oil, and I sincerely think that religion is just a veneer, a mask they wear to hide their actual interests. To me, that's a mockery of religion and it's showing in the fruits this war has produced.
Also, I don't like being lumped in with the Bush administration. I was active on the Gore campaign, and I voted against Bush both times. Most churches I've been to (granted, we're liberal heathen by Southern baptist Convention standards) tend to be opposed to Bush & Co. Our church here is putting up a sign on the wall saying it rejects war. It's not much, but what do you expect of a small urban congregation? A manifesto? Headline news articles? Do you really expect us to police the entire Christian world for you?
To police every religious institution in the world would require the sort of hierarchical authority that produces a lot of the problems of the Catholic Church. I think when you ask us to police the "freaks," you're asking the sociopolitically and institutionally impossible. We're not Thought Police.
FWIW, I see what you're afraid of, I think, and it scares me to, even if I think you are exaggerating the claim (perhaps for emphasis, as per Hitchens' style), but I don't think saying "Christians are all oppressive dictators" is going to help that movement along. You're just cutting out potential allies by drawing your circle so that atheists are the innies and the rest of us are either outies enablers, even against our will.
Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
If almost everyone is afraid to come out of the closet as an atheist, how would we know if they are being peresecuted?
MG, are you serious about atheists being in the closet in the States or is that a speckling of hyperbole? It's just that I struggle to grasp the idea that atheists feel the need to be in a closet. Things aren't like that over this side of the pond (hence why I struggle to grasp the idea).
Posted by benjdm (# 11779) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
If almost everyone is afraid to come out of the closet as an atheist, how would we know if they are being peresecuted?
MG, are you serious about atheists being in the closet in the States or is that a speckling of hyperbole? It's just that I struggle to grasp the idea that atheists feel the need to be in a closet. Things aren't like that over this side of the pond (hence why I struggle to grasp the idea).
About half of atheists / agnostics will lie to a human pollster, and probably another half of the non-liars will lie to their friends and relatives.
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=707
quote:
Important difference between online surveys and surveys conducted by telephone interviewers
Over the last few years, several different surveys have found that more people admit to potentially embarrassing beliefs or behaviors when answering online surveys (without interviewers) than admit to these behaviors when talking to interviewers in telephone surveys. They are also three times more likely to say that their sexual orientation is gay, lesbian or bi-sexual. Researchers call this unwillingness to give honest answers to some questions in telephone surveys a "social desirability bias."
It is therefore no surprise that in this online survey, more people say they are not absolutely certain there is a God than have given similar replies in other surveys conducted by telephone...
This survey found roughly 1/4 of the U.S. were atheist or agnostic, roughly double - triple what most other surveys find (like http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2006-09-11-religion-survey_x.htm):
Current coming out / not coming out threads over at iidb:
I should come out, but i keep digging myself in deeper
Another Day in Fundieville
I only outed myself in the last year or two. Atheist carries a serious social stigma here. Perhaps the best example was a CNN special on the topic. CNN's Paula Zahn show was doing a weeklong special on discrimination. They would show some prerecorded segment of people experiencing discrimination and then come back to a three person panel in the studio. For this episode, the three person panel consisted of a black female journalism professor who was pro-affirmative action, a black male sports commentator, and a Jewish female conservative lawyer. During the pre-recorded segment they showed two families who had basically been run out of their homes when their atheism became publicly known. When they came back to the studio, the background graphic read: "Why do atheists inspire such hatred ?" The three panelists then began to debate whether atheists need to shut up or whether a whole bunch of groups including atheists need to shut up - that was the range of opinions. Worth watching.
Prerecorded segment
Panel discussion
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'll put my hand up and say I don't see any persecution (right-side of Pond) - up to and including Christians can't own and operate a TV station but atheists can, Catholics can't marry an heir to the throne of the UK but atheists can. Atheists can affirm in court rather then swear on any holy book, become members of the police, the judiciary, the armed services, members of Parliament, upper and lower houses, own their own home and withdraw their children from RE lessons.
So no, not really.
To be fair, what Brits really object to is someone holding strong opinions and then insisting on talking about them. Thus Steven Green and Richard Dawkins are equally reviled.
The heir to the throne and their spouse must, by law, receive communion in the Church of England, so I am not sure that it is fair to say that an atheist could marry the heir to the throne.
I do agree wholeheartedly with your last point however.
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by benjdm:
About half of atheists / agnostics will lie to a human pollster, and probably another half of the non-liars will lie to their friends and relatives.
That kind of puts a kink in arguments citing poll results to show how tiny the atheist population is and how numerous (and therefore monolithic and overbearing) the Christian population is.
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
Mirrizin,
If you can find anywhere where I said ALL Christians were oppressive dictators or that they ALL were oppressing atheists, I will take it back immediately and buy you lunch when given an opportunity to meet. Because of course that is absurd. If I said the people in power definitely are starting to resemble oppressive dictators and are not afraid to use it to advance Christian opinions at the expense of others opinions, well that would be true.
I would say that there are some, if not, many Christians that would oppress atheists if given the opportunity. That oppression might be as subtle as not allowing their marriage into the family, or as complicated as firing them, or worse. I know these people. This is not theory, I have heard it at (Conservative) round table discussions. Sometimes it's good to be a Libertarian that can cross lines and hide in the midst of the freaks.
Of course Christianity is not a united front. But there are generalizations that can be made from observations from the bigger denoms. Those denoms have great power in certain areas such as the Baptists in the South. George Bush has been called the most openly religious president ever. Bush stated that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools since "religion has been around a lot longer than Darwinism." We have already started to see the results of his religious opinoins on abortion via SCOTUS, they upheld that the Federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act does not violate the constitutional right to abortion (avoid the dead horse folks). And so on.
In less than two months the Creationism Museum has drawn 100,000 visiters (avoid the D.H folks). That's pathetic. For those in England, please consider that, do you think a creationism would make it over there? I think not.
Can you imagine this debate happening over the PM in Britain? I would be surprised if you have a religious right, as such, in Britain? (Maybe the RC in Ireland?) Here they are literally a force to be reckoned with. A Republican without a religious right base is a guaranteed loser.
When I tell people that business should police it's own ranks instead of having heavy ham-handed legislation such as the Sarbanes Oxley Act, I get told by them that it will never work. They say government has to enact rules to protect us from business. I am basically giving you the same option. Police your own freaks. Because I believe in (Religious) Freedom even if it makes me gag personally sometimes. Full stop. Since I won't tell you the government should shut down the televangelists that say stupid shit like "Homosexuals are to blame for Katrina", or that "the ministry will close if we don't receive $1 million in donations by Tuesday", or whatever.
I won't take your freedom from you. I need you to get off your (collective) asses and tell James Dobsen that he is a patronizing masoginistic Christian asshole that needs to shut the fuck up. That your gods don't smite entire cities with Hurricanes because they do X. That not all of you think a living woman should have her rights taken away from her to decide what happens to her body. And so on. Police your damn freaks. Please. Lest someone(s) in Washington eventually does it for you. I'd hate to have to defend your rights from the government, mostly because I disagree with many of your bretheren, becaise I support your right to have wacky religious ideas.
Little Lady.
I swear to you not a hint of hyperbole. I personally know quite a few closeted atheists. I go to a book club that I happen to know has around 10 atheists in it, two out in the open. I have three other friends that don't broadcast it. I am a non-theist zen buddhist. I rarely tell anyone, and if I do, I only mention the Zen Buddhist part.
Would you talk about a belief you held if you knew that you could never hold public office if it got out? If Christians (which is a huge portion of the population) practically couldn't resist arguing and or being condescending to you? If it got to your boss you might be fired? If people might actually keep their children from being around you?
I think not....
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by benjdm:
I only outed myself in the last year or two. Atheist carries a serious social stigma here.
Again, this is just not true where I live. Atheist is normal around here.
We keep having this same discussion over and over here. First it was the "gun culture" thing; then it was creationism; now it's atheism. People are extrapolating from their own local experience and are making broad claims that don't hold on that basis.
Perhaps it's due to the fact that Americans generally have a very difficult time seeing things from another's point of view? (It's an interesting study, BTW.)
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Would you talk about a belief you held if you knew that you could never hold public office if it got out?
Not commenting on the other questions, but this one doesn't move me at personally, since I'm not the least bit interested in holding public office.
Maybe you should move up here, MG -- when you tell people you go to church every Sunday they look at you like you said you believe in a flat earth and wear a tinfoil hat. In general it's not something I say out loud a lot, even if it fits into the conversation.
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
That kind of puts a kink in arguments citing poll results to show how tiny the atheist population is and how numerous (and therefore monolithic and overbearing) the Christian population is.
How do you figure that?
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
I know two atheists that might hold public office someday. It's a relevant issue. Not necessarily because of the small amount of people that might want to hold public office, but because they might not be able to at all if it were known.
Funny you should mention potentially moving to Seattle.....
Posted by Beautiful_Dreamer (# 10880) on
:
How would you suggest we police our own freaks other than calling them out when we see them? Most of us do not have our own tv stations or anything more public to speak on than a message board. And how do you know we aren't 'voting with our feet' so to speak, in terms of giving our votes to the people who aren't in favor of creating a Christian theocracy over here? I do not vote for any Religious Right members if I am given the chance to elect someone else into office, but apparently there aren't enough people who think like me around.
I had a problem with the way my former church was going and with the way it seemed to want to police everyone's life, so I left. And anyone in my frame of influence has heard me call out freaks on their antics. But I am only one person. I do not know what more you would have me do.
Posted by Beautiful_Dreamer (# 10880) on
:
I apologize if my last post seemed a bit rash, but I do want to know what you would suggest John Q. Christian should do to police our freaks that he isn't already doing.
Posted by benjdm (# 11779) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
quote:
Originally posted by benjdm:
About half of atheists / agnostics will lie to a human pollster, and probably another half of the non-liars will lie to their friends and relatives.
That kind of puts a kink in arguments citing poll results to show how tiny the atheist population is and how numerous (and therefore monolithic and overbearing) the Christian population is.
In terms of the general population I think you're right. In terms of the elected government I think we do have a monolithic and overbearing Christian population. Even the lowest poll results put atheists at ~3%. Congress has 1 atheist out of 535 members, and the 1 atheist is the first openly atheist member of Congress ever.
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
That kind of puts a kink in arguments citing poll results to show how tiny the atheist population is and how numerous (and therefore monolithic and overbearing) the Christian population is.
How do you figure that?
Are you serious?
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
BD
How about contacting your denoms power players and suggesting they use THEIR tv shows, publications, whatever, etc. to denounce stupid statements by televangelists, etc. as soon as they make them.
How about starting a blog about "nice" christianity" denouncing same? God knows the religious right here can provide you with material all the time. Just check out Focus on the Family and other organizations/links regularly.
How about starting a group at your church that does great things and getting it noticed by the media. When asked why you are doing it, say "We see so much bad publicity for Christians from (name of televangelist) we thought we would show people another side of us."
Or whatever.
Please do not sit there and say "I do not know what more you would have me do". It sounds, frankly, weak. Even if you are arguing your points on a thread, that is SOMETHING. But better is to actively engage in processes to get the word out to the media.
One of the best things I saw during the whole Katrina thing was an article on how the Hippie Food Banks and the Christian Evangelicals had set aside their differences to help the poor people with food banks in New Orleans. This is the kind of thing that needs to be seen more.
Posted by benjdm (# 11779) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by benjdm:
I only outed myself in the last year or two. Atheist carries a serious social stigma here.
Again, this is just not true where I live. Atheist is normal around here.
I am not citing local statistics. My personal experiences since I have outed myself have been nothing special - no problems. I do know plenty of coworkers and friends who will not out themselves, and the truly horrible experiences I read about are all from bible-belt areas.
Or are you pointing out that you are citing your local experiences ? I'm confused.
quote:
Perhaps it's due to the fact that Americans generally have a very difficult time seeing things from another's point of view? (It's an interesting study, BTW.)
Interesting. I'd love to take some sort of test like that and see how I did.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by benjdm:
I am not citing local statistics. My personal experiences since I have outed myself have been nothing special - no problems. I do know plenty of coworkers and friends who will not out themselves, and the truly horrible experiences I read about are all from bible-belt areas.
Or are you pointing out that you are citing your local experiences ? I'm confused.
You said that "Atheist carries a serious social stigma here." Since you say you're not citing local statistics, then what does "here" mean? The U.S. generally?
Well, that's my point. I am citing local experiences, yes - and I'm saying so explicitly. It's just not true from my point of view that "atheism carries a serious social stigma here." It's not true in most large cities or metropolitan areas in the U.S. (I can't say, for the South, having never lived there.)
Anyway, isn't "persecution" a little bit over the top, even in places like the Bible-belt? Even though there's still plenty of prejudice against gay people I'd never call it "persecution." And we're not going to have a gay President anytime soon, either, you know.
Posted by benjdm (# 11779) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by benjdm:
I am not citing local statistics. My personal experiences since I have outed myself have been nothing special - no problems. I do know plenty of coworkers and friends who will not out themselves, and the truly horrible experiences I read about are all from bible-belt areas.
Or are you pointing out that you are citing your local experiences ? I'm confused.
You said that "Atheist carries a serious social stigma here." Since you say you're not citing local statistics, then what does "here" mean? The U.S. generally?
That is what I meant, yes. It wasn't very clear though.
quote:
Anyway, isn't "persecution" a little bit over the top, even in places like the Bible-belt?
I agree and stated as such in my first post in the thread. (Link)
"I would not consider myself persecuted nor would I consider atheists as a group persecuted in the U.S. Culturally ostracized, probably, but we have plenty of company there."
quote:
Even though there's still plenty of prejudice against gay people I'd never call it "persecution." And we're not going to have a gay President anytime soon, either, you know.
I would say gays would be closer to being persecuted...not sure I would say they are, not sure I would say they aren't. They are denied civil rights based on being gay, in my opinion, and I am not. They poll as more accepted than atheists, though. There were openly gay congressmen before openly atheist ones and there have been more of them.
Posted by Wulfstan (# 558) on
:
MG said:
quote:
Studies Show that atheists are more despised than homosexuals and muslims in America.
Except that wasn't "studies" plural, it was one study, with a pitifully small sample frame: 2000 against a country of, what, 250 million? Done by phone.
quote:
All I am saying is that atheists get shit done to them, even if it is only social stigma. That's why they hide it. Being thrown out of families, not being able to marry someone, firings, whatever. That is all persecution to me.
But this sort of thing happens to all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons. I've no reason to believe that it happens to atheists unduly often, and your rhetoric is way ahead of your evidence.
How about you show stats comparing assaults on atheists with assaults on Muslims and/or homosexuals?
Further, that study, if true, just shows that a lot of people don't really like atheism. But you approvingly quote Dawkins who detests all religions and views them as contemptible. How are his views about religious people so much better than those cited in your study?
Also, I seem to remember a while back, someone made a comment on one of the boards about how they wouldn't want to employ a conservative Christian, and was promptly called to Hell for it. Can anyone remind me who that was, or if the thread still exists? And would you, MG, support that attitude?
Could we really trust someone who approves of Dawkins, and his rather extreme views, not to discriminate against a Christian in some way?
[code]
[ 30. July 2007, 20:12: Message edited by: John Holding ]
Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Would you talk about a belief you held if you knew that you could never hold public office if it got out? If Christians (which is a huge portion of the population) practically couldn't resist arguing and or being condescending to you? If it got to your boss you might be fired? If people might actually keep their children from being around you?
I think not....
You'd think right, I wouldn't say a thing.
Looking back to my experience of living in the US, during the very late 90s, when I think about it I can actually imagine something similar to the situation you describe in the parts of the country I hung out in (Virginia, Indiana), though I would struggle to see it in DC. At the very least atheists might have a hard time being taken seriously or they may encounter judgmentalism for their godlessness, etc. There is definitely a tendency for theocracy in the States, at a local level anyway, which you just don't get here in the UK (ironic, really, given our history and the fact that - technically anyway - the Anglican church is still represented in Westminster, but then perhaps we have simply grown through that and on into agnosticism/pluralism).
Why not send your atheist friends to the UK for a vacation? So long as they don't mind swimming through infected water every now and again, have sturdy wellies and umbrellas, then they should get a boost, as atheists seem to do perfectly well over here. I actually used to recommend to my evangelical Christian friends that they take a vacation in the States to give them a boost! (Although while Christians here in the UK are often ridiculed and in some workplaces there can be a measure of discrimination, they in no way are persecuted)
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by benjdm:
I would say gays would be closer to being persecuted...not sure I would say they are, not sure I would say they aren't. They are denied civil rights based on being gay, in my opinion, and I am not. They poll as more accepted than atheists, though. There were openly gay congressmen before openly atheist ones and there have been more of them.
Sorry, I meant to say I was addressing my "persecution" comment to the thread in general, not to you in particular. I just think it devalues real persecution when people say things like this. Prejudice, sure; nobody would quarrel with that.
It's interesting what you say about "openly atheist," though. Does that go to say that being atheist affects a person's life each and every day, the way being gay does (in living with a partner, say, something the culture in some places does not approve of)? How could that be? I'm a "person of faith," you would say - but I have periods of doubt as well. And again, I've been atheist in the past, and I don't remember it affecting my life at all, let alone anywhere close to the way being gay did.
And is it really true that there haven't been any atheist congresspeople? I can't imagine that's true, in the whole history of the U.S.
Posted by benjdm (# 11779) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
It's interesting what you say about "openly atheist," though. Does that go to say that being atheist affects a person's life each and every day, the way being gay does (in living with a partner, say, something the culture in some places does not approve of)? How could that be? I'm a "person of faith," you would say - but I have periods of doubt as well. And again, I've been atheist in the past, and I don't remember it affecting my life at all, let alone anywhere close to the way being gay did.
I agree that atheism is much easier to hide than homosexuality. Much, much easier. In those terms there is no comparison.
quote:
And is it really true that there haven't been any atheist congresspeople? I can't imagine that's true, in the whole history of the U.S.
None (unlikely) or none who were unwilling to hide it (likely.) When the Secular Coalition for America announced their contest to find the highest-ranking U.S. politician who was a non-theist, few thought the politician would be as high-ranking as a Congressman.
Press release outing the Congressman
quote:
...In October, 2006 the Secular Coalition for America, a national lobby representing the interests of atheists, humanists, freethinkers, and other nontheists, announced a contest. At the time, few if any elected officials, even at the lowest level, would self-identify as a nontheist. So the Coalition offered $1,000 to the person who could identify the highest level atheist, agnostic, humanist or any other kind of nontheist currently holding elected public office in the United States.
In addition to Rep. Stark only three other elected officials agreed to do so: Terry S. Doran, president of the School Board in Berkeley, Calif.; Nancy Glista on the School Committee in Franklin, Maine; and Michael Cerone, a Town Meeting Member from Arlington, Mass...
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
Thanks for the info.
[ 28. July 2007, 14:26: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
(I'm actually surprised, though, that past eras haven't produced more atheists in U.S. politics - particularly, maybe, from the Eastern cities and the mountain West.
This woman is listed as atheist at Wikipedia, and has worked on behalf of "America's atheists, freethinkers, humanists, and other nontheists through media appearances and speaking engagements." So there's another.)
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
Here's another person, a past governor of California.
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on
:
What does it mean to be "openly Atheist" -- do you wear a button on your lapel that says "Atheist"? Have signs in a swirly font in your cubicle that say "God Doesn't Exist"?
How often does one stand around with other people and talk about exactly what one's beliefs and worldview are? Is that normal office scuttlebutt where you are?
When a gay person "comes out" it isn't to society in general (unless they're famous) but to their family and friends. Not to the guys at work who stand around the water cooler and talk about the boss's inanities.
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
Wulfstan
2000 people is well within the acceptable, if not exceeding the operating bounds of a scientific study. Done by the University of Minnesota no less. That it was done by phone is so irrelevant, it is well, humorous. Phone can actually assist such studies due to the anonymity required to get people to disclose such personal information.
I smell a logical fallacy. Clearly no one is going to be able to pull a study to match an abitrary criteria you select, no matter how well intentioned, unless someone has happened to have completed that study. The atheist study is very recent. Article Here. This is clearly a relatively new finding. In addition, if atheists are smart enough to stay "in the closet" how are they going to be assaulted to be studied to satisy your criteria?
Frankly, I do not grant you that assaults are the sole criteria for "persecution" at all. I also do not grant you that "this sort of thing happens to all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons" is cause to disregard it. Sexual harrassment happens to all sorts of people to. I doubt you would be inclined to dismiss that on those grounds.
I do not appreciate it when people expel people from church. I do not appreciate it when people get expelled from their families because of relgion. I do not appreciate it when people get expelled from the same for a lack of religion. YMMV.
quote:
Originally posted by Wulfstan:
....you approvingly quote Dawkins who detests all religions and views them as contemptible. How are his views about religious people so much better than those cited in your study?
First, I do not grant you your assertion here. My statements are much more subtle than Dawkins, even when I may or MAY NOT agree with him. You will have to provide better examples if you want to misquote me.
More seriously, Dawkins does not detest all relgions, he doesn't have much to say against Buddhism at all, and basically says so. His reasons are much more varied, and supported I might add, than the simple assertion you have made.
There is a significant difference between a religion such as Christianity and wht is going on with Atheism/Atheists. Christians in America are the significant majority. Why is this relevant? Because in a democracy, or at least our democracy, we protect the minority opinion from oppression. All voices get to be heard. All opinions get a say. No one should have their ability to run for public office or whatever suppressed because they are a minority of any flavor. I don't care of you worship the devil, or if you are brown. You don't get suppressed.
If the majority has to put up with harsh and frankly, often correct, criticism from the minority or from Dawkins, poor babies. You get to vote in your people and put them on the Supreme Court because your the majority right now. When the atheists are in charge and call the shots, I'll feel sorry for you. Until then, Christians should stop playing the martyr, in America. Your about 1800 years too late for that.
I am sympathetic BTW where Christians are killed or persecuted in other lands. No one should ahve to put up with that. Even if they are wrong. quote:
Also, I seem to remember a while back, someone made a comment on one of the boards about how they wouldn't want to employ a conservative Christian, and was promptly called to Hell for it. Can anyone remind me who that was, or if the thread still exists? And would you, MG, support that attitude?
No I would not. I have employed conservative Christians. quote:
Could we really trust someone who approves of Dawkins, and his rather extreme views, not to discriminate against a Christian in some way?
Spot the logical fallacy.
[ 28. July 2007, 15:36: Message edited by: Mad Geo ]
Posted by benjdm (# 11779) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
What does it mean to be "openly Atheist" -- do you wear a button on your lapel that says "Atheist"? Have signs in a swirly font in your cubicle that say "God Doesn't Exist"?
To me, all it means is you don't lie when you answer questions. When someone asks "What church do you go to ?" or asks if your son will be in the Boy Scouts or things like that.
Posted by benjdm (# 11779) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
(I'm actually surprised, though, that past eras haven't produced more atheists in U.S. politics - particularly, maybe, from the Eastern cities and the mountain West.
This woman is listed as atheist at Wikipedia, and has worked on behalf of "America's atheists, freethinkers, humanists, and other nontheists through media appearances and speaking engagements." So there's another.)
She's a lobbyist, the first lobbyist for America's atheists, freethinkers, etc. The organization was only founded in 2005.
Posted by Wulfstan (# 558) on
:
MG said:
quote:
2000 people is well within the acceptable, if not exceeding the operating bounds of a scientific study.
Well that's debatable, I think it's a bit small to prove your assertions. The US is a big place, and it certainly won't show regional variations. A bigger, triangulated study including some more detailed qualitative data would be more valuable. Anonymity shouldn't be an issue, there are ways of ensuring it.
quote:
Clearly no one is going to be able to pull a study to match an abitrary criteria you select, no matter how well intentioned, unless someone has happened to have completed that study.
True, but it's not an arbitrary criteria. You're claiming persecution, which is a strong term. The only evidence you've come up with is a small survey showing that a fair number have a low opinion of atheists. This in no way proves persecution. You're trying to use the absence of evidence as proof that people are scared to "come out" as atheists. But as I've said already, there is an absence of people prepared to come out as Morris Dancers. Does that mean they are persecuted too? Absence of evidence is just that, lack of proof, and is therefore indicative of squat.
You complain I misrepresent you but this:
quote:
Frankly, I do not grant you that assaults are the sole criteria for "persecution" at all.
is complete misrepresentation. It is not THE criteria, but it is a significant one. It shows people are prepared to take their prejudices beyond the law and try and surpress their targets with force. Similarly:
quote:
I also do not grant you that "this sort of thing happens to all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons" is cause to disregard it.
Is gross misrepresentation. What I was suggesting was that discrimination for varied personal reasons is a more GENERALIZED problem within which the few anecdotes you have managed to produce would fit. The solution there would be better legal aid and perhaps better trade unions to support legal action on behalf of those discriminated against.
quote:
My statements are much more subtle than Dawkins, even when I may or MAY NOT agree with him.
quote:
I doubt it under this Christo-fascist administration and its court, but maybe
quote:
If the majority has to put up with harsh and frankly, often correct, criticism from the minority or from Dawkins, poor babies. You get to vote in your people and put them on the Supreme Court because your the majority right now. When the atheists are in charge and call the shots, I'll feel sorry for you. Until then, Christians should stop playing the martyr, in America.
Yeah real subtle. If, in that tirade, "you" meant me, then it's ill-directed. I'm a liberal who is so left it's probably off your scale, and I'm on the wrong side of the pond anyway. I also think Dawkins' somewhat hysterical drivel is entirely counter-productive anyway, by making atheism fit the aggressive caricature that the religious right have of it.
quote:
I do not appreciate it when people expel people from church.
Hmmm. Y'see this doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It's utterly vague and doesn't give reasons. And it's a bit authoritarian. If you're not a member of whatever church it is, how is it your business? The RCs won't have me 'cos I'm pro-choice and disagree with their entire ecclesiology, should they be made to take me?
quote:
There is a significant difference between a religion such as Christianity and wht is going on with Atheism/Atheists. Christians in America are the significant majority. Why is this relevant? Because in a democracy, or at least our democracy, we protect the minority opinion from oppression.
Well I can point to plenty of examples where you've fallen short on that last bit. I'm just not convinced atheists are one of them.
quote:
All voices get to be heard. All opinions get a say. No one should have their ability to run for public office or whatever suppressed because they are a minority of any flavor. I don't care of you worship the devil, or if you are brown. You don't get suppressed.
But atheists can run for public office. They might not get elected, but then that's democracy. It seems you're more concerned that people don't like atheists much and so might not vote for them. But that's hardly persecution, just personal preference.
I would maintain what I said about your views regarding conservative Christians. The mainstay of your argument has been that a majority of your countrymen (not mine thank God) have a low opinion of atheists. You haven't got clear proof that they translate this into illegal action i.e. discrimination. But since you seem to have an equally low opinion of the "Christo-fascists" (a light-hearted term of affection I'm sure) it does seem like you're in a glass house here. Albeit a minority glass house.
Posted by 206 (# 206) on
:
Sorry if I overlooked this somewhere but how common are 'true' atheists?
I can't trust my memory but even here I don't recall many (any?) who wouldn't be more accurately described as agnostic: they don't assert beyond doubt there is no God.
Maybe some of the grief the 'true' atheists get is comparable to the grief the religious fundies get - society is generally quite skeptical of their allegations of certainties where none are apparent.
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
Wolfistan
2000 national survey data (read the study I cited) from a University including survey data conducted by a renowned pollster (Gallup), and to normal scientific tolerances is more than most got around here, I can assure you. And if it's not good enough for you, well I'm afraid your not going to get very far with any argument your making, until you present contradictory evidence that shows otherwise. Welcome to Purg.
Trade Unions for atheists? How novel. Your knowledge of our trade unions is UK based. Which is to say, they don't protect individuals over here very well (which is to say Shitty or not at all). They protect the union. If the union was entirely composed of atheists, well then THAT would be something the Union could handle.
Actually I would be interested in your preception of how the U.S. has "fallen short" in your opinion. Recent cases please.
"You" meant Christians, in America.
As for authoritarian churches that expel people, yes, I am/was a member of one. I had 16 years of it stuffed down my throat. I am not only immenently qualified to judge that church, I am adequately qualified to judge Christianity in general, using you own texts if need be. As such, I will call a spade a spade and make it my "business" to call them on it as I see fit. As I have said before, don't even dare to think anyone can question my "business" when it comes to this. You (Christians) haven't got what it takes to stop me. And you won't, so drop it.
The expel I was referring to, involves throwing out members for slight disagreements. Not huge issues like abortion.
As for your last paragraph. It is now clear you don't live here. You have no idea what it's like to be a minority with an Administration that acts like it has a mandate from the gods. Truly. It is disgusting at times.
It is also clear that as a member of the Majority in question, you will probably be happy with whatever form of lesser-status I should point out here against atheists. It is okay with you that "people don't like atheists much". Well that's not how America works with these issues. We do not allow threats to religious liberty, even when those liberties are for the lack of religion. We do not say "that's democracy" because we do have rules protecting the minorities, even if Justice is slow at times.
206,
Accoring to the atheist non-study I cited earlier:
quote:
In the 2000 GSS, only about 3
percent of Americans affirm that “I don’t believe
in God,” perhaps the best direct indicator of
being an atheist, while another 4.1 percent agree
with the statement “I don’t know whether there
is a God and I don’t believe there is any way to
find out.” Taken together, these “skeptics,” as
Hout and Fischer (2002) call them, make up
only 7 percent of the population. In fact, only
about 1 percent of Americans self-identify as
“atheist” or “agnostic,” according to Kosmin et
al. (2001). This gap may indicate that many
skeptics do hold some form of religious belief,
or it may signal the stigma attached to the atheist
label.
So, atheists are about 7 percent, 6 percent of which are closeted. Gee I wonder why they are nearly all hiding.....
Posted by 206 (# 206) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
As for authoritarian churches that expel people, yes, I am/was a member of one. I had 16 years of it stuffed down my throat.
Dude! I didn't know you'd been 'disinvited' from a church - it's quite the exclusive club...
I used to know this old guy who was pretty sharp that once got tossed out of a bar for being rowdy. As they ejected him his last comment was 'I've been thrown out of better places than this'.
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
LOL.
No, sorry I wasn't clear on that. I haven't been ejected as of yet. The particular church that I still occasionally attend is so open minded as to be amazing. I think you'd have to be psychotic for them to eject you. It is a rare and precious place in that regard in an otherwise morally bankrupt institution.
I can otherwise assure you that I am not fit to go through the doors of any Christian Church with the exception of Unitarian Universalist, and would be expelled if I opened my mouth at many, if not most of them, strictly based upon my beliefs were I to share them.
Posted by Beautiful_Dreamer (# 10880) on
:
For what it is worth, I don't think you would be expelled from my church. You might feel uncomfortable taking the Eucharist, but no one would stop you. But then, if you are not a Christian, then why would you want to go to begin with? Do you go to make someone else happy? I know of people who mainly go to church for this reason.
I myself was not always a Christian, but the time I was an atheist was quite long ago and I was rather young, so my experience is probably not what yours is. I was seen as something strange and a target for preaching (which was irritating) but was not what I would call persecuted. And I live in the Bible Belt. But, as I said, your mileage may vary. If I were an adult atheist, things might have been different.
For the record, I think I can count on one hand the number of people I know who are true atheists. And any static they get could be a reaction to something they did, since they happen to be rather blatant and abrasive about it. One person even so much as told me that the reason he is an atheist is because he is intelligent, and if I were intelligent I would be an atheist too. How endearing. The rest are actually agnostic in that they don't *think* a God exists, but the are not *sure*. Most simply don't care. This is not to say that all atheists who get static deserve it, but in the case of the person I mentioned, he brings it on himself so has nothing to complain about. Maybe he is one of the 'freaks' you need to be policing. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I'll police the Christian freaks in my midst, you police the atheist ones in yours. Deal?
[ 29. July 2007, 22:53: Message edited by: Beautiful_Dreamer ]
Posted by Beautiful_Dreamer (# 10880) on
:
And the person who made the lovely comments I mentioned is someone who wanted to be my boyfriend, but part of the reason he was not was the attitude. I have no problem with atheists or anyone else of any other religion, provided they have respect for me and my beliefs. This person clearly did not. You, Mad Geo, have shown a good deal of respect despite the differences in opinion. Thank you!
Posted by benjdm (# 11779) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by 206:
Sorry if I overlooked this somewhere but how common are 'true' atheists?
I can't trust my memory but even here I don't recall many (any?) who wouldn't be more accurately described as agnostic: they don't assert beyond doubt there is no God.
That would start a whole semantic argument about atheist vs. agnostic. Do you really want to beat that dead horse ? Also, checking the dictionary, none of the 5 definitions mention certainty. They all refer to belief by itself. If someone puts the chances of a God existing at 49%, they can honestly call themselves an atheist, I think.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Wulfstan:
MG said:
quote:
2000 people is well within the acceptable, if not exceeding the operating bounds of a scientific study.
Well that's debatable, I think it's a bit small to prove your assertions. The US is a big place, and it certainly won't show regional variations. A bigger, triangulated study including some more detailed qualitative data would be more valuable. Anonymity shouldn't be an issue, there are ways of ensuring it.
Actually 2000 is very good. Most political polls (such as those to determine who is going to win the next presidential election) have sample sizes under 1500. Phone surveys have become a bit problematic since more people have given up their land lines for cell phones (surveys don't get to call cell phones), but it's probably at least as good as every other study done by the same methods in recent years.
If I were an atheist, and did something rash like write a letter to the editor stating my belief, I'm pretty sure there would be consequences--potential clients wouldn't come to me, some colleagues would stop referring to me. Of course, it would be even worse if I were openly gay. I've taken enough of a risk by having bumper stickers for Democrats on my car in a town this conservative. Persecution is a strong word, though, and I'd hesitate to use it for that.
Posted by benjdm (# 11779) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by 206:
Sorry if I overlooked this somewhere but how common are 'true' atheists?
I can't trust my memory but even here I don't recall many (any?) who wouldn't be more accurately described as agnostic: they don't assert beyond doubt there is no God.
In addition, does this go both ways ? Do you have to assert beyond doubt there is a Christian God in order to be a 'true' Christian ?
Posted by Beautiful_Dreamer (# 10880) on
:
Mad Geo, I wrote an entry in my blog about policing our freaks. You might want to read it.
Posted by Wulfstan (# 558) on
:
Okay, lets try this once more from the top.
For persecution
I would expect to see one or more of the following:
1: Unusually high instances of violence against said group.
2: Officially sanctioned and OPEN discrimination, in terms of refusing job/educational opportunities.
3: Evidence that said group had unusually high representation in the poorest classes/poorest housing etc
I'm sure there are other categories, but you get the idea.
So when MG says:
quote:
Actually I would be interested in your preception of how the U.S. has "fallen short" in your opinion. Recent cases please.
We're talking about non-whites until about 40 years ago (maybe still in some areas), left-wingers around the McCarthyite period and probably a good way either side, and homosexuals, for most of your (and everyone elses')history. Less so now, but only less so.
You say:
quote:
More seriously, it has often been my observation that word inflation and other hyperbole-laden things are the only things that get peoples attention in this Jerry Springer Era. One has to "burn bras" in order to get crap corrected.
No, it's insulting to those who have suffered real persecution, and it makes you sound intemperate and silly.
Timothy, I think your points are well made. The surveys mentioned do strongly suggest that atheists suffer from a lack of respect and are obviously misunderstood, as well as sometimes suffering covert discrimination. In this they are at home with people of the wrong political persuasion, especially lefties, Muslims, RCs (in certain areas) and others, so I don't see atheists as a particularly special case.
As Timothy said though:
quote:
Persecution is a strong word, though, and I'd hesitate to use it for that.
The problem of this kind of covert discrimination is therefore real, and by no means limited to atheists. How you deal with it is a problem, for which you offer no solutions. Better legal aid would be one possibility, better trade unions another (and note the word "better" here). If you don't like 'em what's your alternative?
Mg went on to say:
quote:
As for authoritarian churches that expel people, yes, I am/was a member of one. I had 16 years of it stuffed down my throat. I am not only immenently qualified to judge that church, I am adequately qualified to judge Christianity in general, using you own texts if need be. As such, I will call a spade a spade and make it my "business" to call them on it as I see fit. As I have said before, don't even dare to think anyone can question my "business" when it comes to this. You (Christians) haven't got what it takes to stop me. And you won't, so drop it.
Y'see I haven't a clue what you're on about here. You seem to be objecting, rather forcefully, to people being excluded from churches. Does this mean you are suggesting churches should be regulated by the state and banned from expelling people? It seems to be what you're implying, and I think it's a bit extreme. But that's probably just me. As for you being "adequately qualified to judge Christianity", I wouldn't claim that for myself, and you'll have to forgive me if I'm sceptical about you.
quote:
It is also clear that as a member of the Majority in question, you will probably be happy with whatever form of lesser-status I should point out here against atheists.
Again, you're caricaturing me in the way that you object people doing to you. I could probably exist in ECUSA, but I've argued vociferously in favour of gay bishops, so I don't think I'd be too popular with the Southern Baptists. And of course I'm not happy with the way atheism is viewed in the US. The likes of Dawkins however, and your increasingly shrill posts do the cause no good I suspect, any more than having The Trinity Broadcasting Network beamed into the UK by satellite helps to revive Christianity in the UK. It just presents an unpleasant stereotype that turns people off even more.
quote:
Well that's not how America works with these issues. We do not allow threats to religious liberty, even when those liberties are for the lack of religion.
Except according to you, the US is doing precisely that. You're contradicting yourself surely? If you could try and work out what you actually do mean with a few possible solutions, I think this would all go a lot more smoothly.
Posted by 206 (# 206) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by benjdm:
In addition, does this go both ways ? Do you have to assert beyond doubt there is a Christian God in order to be a 'true' Christian ?
Not by my definition but I presume I'm in the minority plus we'd have to get into what is a 'true' Christian and life is too short.
Posted by dogwonderer (# 12169) on
:
The fact that some theists deny atheists may feel persecuted is very revealing.
Christians have suffered persecution proper. Being fed to the lions can’t have been nice. They have their own war-wounds, so they should know persecution when they see it.
Perhaps the problem here is with the definition of ‘persecution’. Compared to the historical persecution of Christians, my own experience of the modern-day disadvantages of being an atheist is pale indeed. I wouldn’t necessarily call it persecution, myself, though I cannot speak for other atheists. ‘Disadvantage’, I call it.
What I’m interested in here, though, is the hypocrisy of Christians (who have themselves endured persecution, and whose ideology is supposed to be compassion and tolerance) when they deny the legitimacy of atheists’ claims of persecution. How can they claim to know whether what atheists feel is real or not? In being outside a group which says it feels persecuted, discriminated against, or disadvantaged in some way, how can they deny it?
Their opinions surely cannot contest the authority of personal experience. Theists often claim personal experience amounts to evidence of the existence of their God, no less. They may deny that the atheist experience of persecution is real, and they may deny that it constitutes ‘persecution’ anyway. But they have only their opinions with which to contest the opinions of those who have the authority of personal experience. And which seems more likely in the full wisdom of knowledge- the fantastic existence of God, or the terribly ordinary persecution of humans by humans?
The Christian denial of atheist persecution is a bit like the later abusing of the formerly abused. By denying persecution they’re ironically behaving in a persecutory way, like someone who’s once been bullied and who’s now in a position to enjoy a little poetic justice of their own: they often become bullies themselves. To see the worm turn and bite the bird gives us all a little thrill inside- a frisson of smug satisfaction. "Everyone else damned well should feel what it’s like to be persecuted, because we were!" Christians have been persecuted for two millennia and it must be rather pleasant secretly to imagine others getting just a little taste of the same. Go on- admit it.
Christians clearly haven’t learnt much from their own persecution. Evidently, they’re only as fallible as the rest of us humans- just a whole lot more hypocritical.
Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on
:
In my country (and yours too, I believe?) the catholics have recently been told that their adoption centres will be shut down in two years, to comply with government dogma.
Atheists aren't persecuted. They do, however, have to live in a world with lots of people who disagree with them and seek to make their beliefs felt. That's not persecution, that's just life.
Posted by Wulfstan (# 558) on
:
DogWonderer said:
quote:
Perhaps the problem here is with the definition of ‘persecution’.
Yup.
quote:
I wouldn’t necessarily call it persecution, myself, though I cannot speak for other atheists. ‘Disadvantage’, I call it.
In the parts of the US quite possibly in the UK I think it's absurd. The church-going population is something like 10% and they in turn are pretty diverse. If there are odd cases where a religious individual uses a position of power to push their own prejudices, that's possible, but there's no evidence that it's the norm.
quote:
What I’m interested in here, though, is the hypocrisy of Christians (who have themselves endured persecution, and whose ideology is supposed to be compassion and tolerance) when they deny the legitimacy of atheists’ claims of persecution. How can they claim to know whether what atheists feel is real or not?
See my previous post. You look for concrete evidence of persecution, I listed some possible examples. And if it really is persecution, chances are you'll find it.
quote:
Their opinions surely cannot contest the authority of personal experience.
Yes they can. One or two people's experiences of being bullied by a jerk aren't enough to claim persecution of atheists en masse.
quote:
But they have only their opinions with which to contest the opinions of those who have the authority of personal experience.
No, there are all sorts of stats that would throw up more concrete evidence. Are you seriously suggesting that there is no objective truth just personal opinion?
quote:
And which seems more likely in the full wisdom of knowledge- the fantastic existence of God, or the terribly ordinary persecution of humans by humans?
This is ludicrously vague, and a bit silly. How does the existence or otherwise of God prove atheists are persecuted?
quote:
The Christian denial of atheist persecution is a bit like the later abusing of the formerly abused. By denying persecution they’re ironically behaving in a persecutory way
Eh? So if I disagree with you I'm persecuting you? Don't you think that's a bit precious? Anyway, you're disagreeing with me, does that mean you're persecuting me too?
quote:
"Everyone else damned well should feel what it’s like to be persecuted, because we were!" Christians have been persecuted for two millennia and it must be rather pleasant secretly to imagine others getting just a little taste of the same. Go on- admit it.
No. I think you're kind of sick for suggesting it.
quote:
Christians clearly haven’t learnt much from their own persecution. Evidently, they’re only as fallible as the rest of us humans- just a whole lot more hypocritical.
Which one's exactly? All of them, or just the ones that disagree with you? Also you began by saying you didn't think atheists were persecuted, but disadvantaged, then started talking as if they were and that this was a given. Please make up your mind. And some evidence other than personal anecdote would be nice too.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
What I’m interested in here, though, is the hypocrisy of Christians (who have themselves endured persecution, and whose ideology is supposed to be compassion and tolerance) when they deny the legitimacy of atheists’ claims of persecution. How can they claim to know whether what atheists feel is real or not? In being outside a group which says it feels persecuted, discriminated against, or disadvantaged in some way, how can they deny it?
Because - again - some of us have been atheists during periods in our lives, too?
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Because - again - some of us have been atheists during periods in our lives, too?
Ah but clearly you weren't a true atheist if you have fallen away. This proves that your conversion to atheism wasn't real, and that you were never really atheist, but just thought you were.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Because - again - some of us have been atheists during periods in our lives, too?
Ah but clearly you weren't a true atheist if you have fallen away. This proves that your conversion to atheism wasn't real, and that you were never really atheist, but just thought you were.
But that doesn't matter, even if it were true. The point is that I was quite open about it - obnoxiously so, actually - and didn't experience anything I'd call "persecution," or even any sort of mild negative reaction.
Now, things could be different today. Or it could be because my "crowd" didn't care or actually approved. Or any number of reasons. The question was whether or not people who aren't atheists could understand what life is like for atheists. The answer is a simple "yes" - even if I was a closet religionist in those days. Even if I was "passing" as atheist, nobody would have known that. It was "Atheist Like Me," IOW. (Except that I wasn't passing; I was sincere.)
[ 30. July 2007, 17:53: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Wulfstan:
Okay, lets try this once more from the top.
For persecution
In those definitions are included the synonym words “punishment” (i.e. termination from a job for being an atheist) and “harassment” (same). quote:
I would expect to see one or more of the following:
1: Unusually high instances of violence against said group.
2: Officially sanctioned and OPEN discrimination, in terms of refusing job/educational opportunities.
3: Evidence that said group had unusually high representation in the poorest classes/poorest housing etc
You forgot:
4: Punishment (your definitions provided)
5: Harassment (your definitions provided)
How do you get high instances of violence/discrimination if 85% of a group (6% of 7% of the population) are hiding their beliefs? And again, Why Are They Hiding Their Beliefs! It is a statistical fact based on the study conducted. Why are so many people hiding something so simple as a belief if they weren’t in fear of oppression/persecution/harassment/violence?
P.S. I have no idea what poorness has to do with this (Number 3) ???? quote:
I'm sure there are other categories, but you get the idea.
So when MG says:
quote:
Actually I would be interested in your preception of how the U.S. has "fallen short" in your opinion. Recent cases please.
We're talking about non-whites until about 40 years ago (maybe still in some areas), left-wingers around the McCarthyite period and probably a good way either side, and homosexuals, for most of your (and everyone elses')history. Less so now, but only less so.
Hmmm.
Obama. Black and Leftist. On his way to presidency. Go figure.
Almost every TV show on nowadays has at least one gay character. Such that it bugs the evangelicals (good!). Some have more.
Now I am not saying we don’t have room fro progress, we most certainly do, including Gay Marriage. However, large inroads are being made very rapidly.
With atheists? Not so much.
quote:
You say:
quote:
More seriously, it has often been my observation that word inflation and other hyperbole-laden things are the only things that get peoples attention in this Jerry Springer Era. One has to "burn bras" in order to get crap corrected.
No, it's insulting to those who have suffered real persecution, and it makes you sound intemperate and silly.
Pulleassse. People that have suffered “real persecution” are usually MORE sensitive to these things, not less, like you are clearly exhibiting. If that is intemperate and silly, then I am in fine company (the persecuted). quote:
Timothy, I think your points are well made. The surveys mentioned do strongly suggest that atheists suffer from a lack of respect and are obviously misunderstood, as well as sometimes suffering covert discrimination. In this they are at home with people of the wrong political persuasion, especially lefties, Muslims, RCs (in certain areas) and others, so I don't see atheists as a particularly special case.
Hmmm. Interesting. It is telling that if Lefties, Muslims, RCs are the same with regards to persecution and you are minimizing the persecution of Athiests, than you must be minimizing the persecution of lefties, Muslims, and RCs.
I would not make that mistake.
I am not okay with lefties, Muslims, RCs, or atheists being persecuted.
Your mileage must vary.
quote:
As Timothy said though:
quote:
Persecution is a strong word, though, and I'd hesitate to use it for that.
The problem of this kind of covert discrimination is therefore real, and by no means limited to atheists. How you deal with it is a problem, for which you offer no solutions. Better legal aid would be one possibility, better trade unions another (and note the word "better" here). If you don't like 'em what's your alternative?
I find this obsession with the word “persecution” rather humorous now that I think about it. Is this some holy word to Christians? Is that what we are debating? quote:
Mg went on to say:
quote:
As for authoritarian churches that expel people, yes, I am/was a member of one. I had 16 years of it stuffed down my throat. I am not only immenently qualified to judge that church, I am adequately qualified to judge Christianity in general, using you own texts if need be. As such, I will call a spade a spade and make it my "business" to call them on it as I see fit. As I have said before, don't even dare to think anyone can question my "business" when it comes to this. You (Christians) haven't got what it takes to stop me. And you won't, so drop it.
Y'see I haven't a clue what you're on about here. You seem to be objecting, rather forcefully, to people being excluded from churches. Does this mean you are suggesting churches should be regulated by the state and banned from expelling people? It seems to be what you're implying, and I think it's a bit extreme. But that's probably just me. As for you being "adequately qualified to judge Christianity", I wouldn't claim that for myself, and you'll have to forgive me if I'm sceptical about you.
LOL. Anyone that knows me here and IRL knows that the last thing on earth I advocate is government interference.
I think churches should practice what the preach. They often don’t. If they are intolerant assholes, I simply plan to be there to point it out, when I encounter it. I don’t think that is overstepping any bounds if I was a stark raving atheist or a bible thumping Baptist.
And I don’t forgive you (or anyone) your skepticism, with regards to this. The limitations you place on yourself are of no relevance to me and feel free to keep them to yourself. When you have walked a mile in my shoes on this, you may then be skeptical of my experience with religion. quote:
quote:
It is also clear that as a member of the Majority in question, you will probably be happy with whatever form of lesser-status I should point out here against atheists.
Again, you're caricaturing me in the way that you object people doing to you. I could probably exist in ECUSA, but I've argued vociferously in favour of gay bishops, so I don't think I'd be too popular with the Southern Baptists. And of course I'm not happy with the way atheism is viewed in the US. The likes of Dawkins however, and your increasingly shrill posts do the cause no good I suspect, any more than having The Trinity Broadcasting Network beamed into the UK by satellite helps to revive Christianity in the UK. It just presents an unpleasant stereotype that turns people off even more.
I don’t think it is caricature to point out what you are actually saying/doing here. See DWs last post for a better analysis of the situation than I can provide. quote:
quote:
Well that's not how America works with these issues. We do not allow threats to religious liberty, even when those liberties are for the lack of religion.
Except according to you, the US is doing precisely that. You're contradicting yourself surely? If you could try and work out what you actually do mean with a few possible solutions, I think this would all go a lot more smoothly.
Okay, here’s the clarification:
Various minority groups have had the time to adjust the American system and populace to assist them from being persecuted. Atheists have not. YET. That you had to go back 40 years to find serious issues with blacks, lefties, and gays should inform you on this. Now we have a black leftie president running for the “most powerful person in the world”. An atheist can’t do that.
So where are atheists? 1967. Enjoy the “extreme” “shrill” rhetoric. I plan to keep it up until they are in 2007 with the rest of us.
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
But that doesn't matter, even if it were true. The point is that I was quite open about it - obnoxiously so, actually - and didn't experience anything I'd call "persecution," or even any sort of mild negative reaction.
Did you "out" yourself atheist at work, and what kind of work was it?
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on
:
That's what I've been maintaining all along, Mad Geo. We're late on getting started adjusting to atheists, because we had to get our hatred for all those other people out of our system first (not that it's all gone, alas). We'll probably have to hate atheists until somebody else to hate comes along. The Brits don't hate atheists so much (yet) because they're still too busy hating Pakistanis.
That's my theory, anyway.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Various minority groups have had the time to adjust the American system and populace to assist them from being persecuted. Atheists have not. YET. That you had to go back 40 years to find serious issues with blacks, lefties, and gays should inform you on this. Now we have a black leftie president running for the “most powerful person in the world”. An atheist can’t do that.
So where are atheists? 1967. Enjoy the “extreme” “shrill” rhetoric. I plan to keep it up until they are in 2007 with the rest of us.
Oh, brother. First of all Obama is not a "black leftie president"; he's a black middle-of-the-road Senator, who's 20 points behind the front-runner in the race for the nomination - in an election that won't happen for more than another year.
Second of all, there aren't any gay people running for President, and there isn't a hope of a gay person winning for another 50 years or more. Yet believe it or not, I'd never say we were in 1967 - a time when gay people were routinely arrested and got electro-shock therapy. (Did any atheists have these things happen to them in 1967, BTW? Or since? I really don't think so, but am open to correction on this point.)
[ 30. July 2007, 18:10: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posted by benjdm (# 11779) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Because - again - some of us have been atheists during periods in our lives, too?
Ah but clearly you weren't a true atheist if you have fallen away. This proves that your conversion to atheism wasn't real, and that you were never really atheist, but just thought you were.
Once Lost, Always Lost ? I'm not sure if that is official EAC Dogma...
Posted by Beautiful_Dreamer (# 10880) on
:
Here, atheism is seen as just another belief. Seen as a bit strange, perhaps, and a lot of atheists are flat-out nasty about it (but that is for you to police them on, they don't listen to me anymore), but here in my area atheism isn't seen as anything other than a different belief. And bashing people of different beliefs is not considered good form, so therefore bashing atheists is not considered good form. Your mileage may vary, of course. My area has a lot of transplants from Up North, so that may have something to do with it.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
But that doesn't matter, even if it were true. The point is that I was quite open about it - obnoxiously so, actually - and didn't experience anything I'd call "persecution," or even any sort of mild negative reaction.
Did you "out" yourself atheist at work, and what kind of work was it?
Yes. And it was various kinds of work: teacher, assistant teacher, work for an architectural consulting firm doing cost estimating, etc.
I thought you lived in California, anyway. There has been an atheist governor of that state, as I linked above.
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
Obama is a black leftie by the standards of the McArthy era (which was Woofistan's assertion). Besides, he's hardly a moderate, even by today's standards. That he's not ahead is a product of his lack of experience, not his color. The presidency is not an entry-level position. Hillaries got more experience in her pinkie toe.
We have numerous gay congresmen.
We one atheist congressmen, and he only just outed himself.
Ah yes, California. That root of all Conservatism.
[ 30. July 2007, 18:18: Message edited by: Mad Geo ]
Posted by Beautiful_Dreamer (# 10880) on
:
I was a teen when I was an atheist, but if there would be any area where an atheist would be treated badly, it would be here in the Bible Belt. I had people preach at me, which was annoying, but no one treated me badly. No one treats my atheist and agnostic friends badly, either. And they are pretty 'out' about what they believe in that if the subject ever came up, they would say what they believed (or didn't believe). Problem is, there just aren't a whole lot of situations in regular life where the subject of religion and belief really comes up. Someone might ask what church you go to, but that is about it. It just is not seen as an important question, or appropriate to talk about in all venues. It is not seen as appropriate to talk about religion of any kind (or lack thereof) in the workplace here. I have no reason to believe that my friends would be at a disadvantage being atheist here, though.
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
It just occurred to me that an atheist is going to have to get beaten up or die to become "persecuted" to the crowd assembled here.
There's something fucked up in that, somewhere.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Obama is a black leftie by the standards of the McArthy era (which was Woofistan's assertion). Besides, he's hardly a moderate, even by today's standards. That he's not ahead is a product of his lack of experience, not his color. The presidency is not an entry-level position. Hillaries got more experience in her pinkie toe.
We have numerous gay congresmen.
We one atheist congressmen, and he only just outed himself.
Ah yes, California. That root of all Conservatism.
Here's a list of atheists at Wikipedia. Most of them, as far as I can tell, were quite open about their atheism, and some are from previous centuries. There's a person listed as "the last person in England to be imprisoned for being an atheist (in 1842)," BTW. Obviously at one time there was real persecution; the question is whether or not that's still happening.
Most of these people have been open about being atheist. That is certainly not true about gay people, who were still being imprisoned as recently at 1960. There have also been explicitly atheistic governments and nations, in which the opposte problem occurred: religionists were jailed. That's never happened for gay people, either. Buddhists aren't theists; has there been widespread persecution of them in every culture as there has been of gay people?
Is your complaint mostly based in the fact that people won't vote for an atheist for political office? But even that's not true, as has been seen here. There are today open atheists in political office and there have been in the past, too; not so for gay people.
But perhaps atheists and gay people are not the best groups to compare; they're the ones I'm most familiar with personally, though.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
It just occurred to me that an atheist is going to have to get beaten up or die to become "persecuted" to the crowd assembled here.
There's something fucked up in that, somewhere.
Or perhaps you're going to have to actually make a coherent argument on this topic.
It's got to be one of the two, anyway....
Posted by benjdm (# 11779) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
It just occurred to me that an atheist is going to have to get beaten up or die to become "persecuted" to the crowd assembled here.
There's something fucked up in that, somewhere.
Or be imprisoned. Persecution is a strong word. I don't see it as fucked up.
Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
What I’m interested in here, though, is the hypocrisy of Christians (who have themselves endured persecution, and whose ideology is supposed to be compassion and tolerance) when they deny the legitimacy of atheists’ claims of persecution. How can they claim to know whether what atheists feel is real or not? In being outside a group which says it feels persecuted, discriminated against, or disadvantaged in some way, how can they deny it?
I think it is possibly a bit unfair to speak of hypocrisy when discussing persecution with 21st century Western Christians as I very much doubt many have endured persecution. I can appreciate why Western Christians might struggle to relate to the position posited here.
Also, feeling persecuted, while a valid feeling, is not actually the same as being persecuted. Someone extremely sensitive or very defensive can feel persecuted when in fact they are not being. However, having a mob chasing you down the street hurling abuse and objects at you on a regular basis would, by any measure, be classed as persecution. If a serious case is to be made for atheists being persecuted in the US (as opposed to the UK where I just don't believe it happens) then surely some distinction needs to be made between being disadvantaged, as you put it, and being persecuted.
However, just because an atheist may be disadvantaged as opposed to persecuted does not mean that the situation should remain as it is. No-one should be disadvantaged because of their worldview (unless it involves killing Jews or torturing children and such like, obviously).
On your point about tolerance, I'm not sure the Bible does actually promote tolerance. It promotes compassion, certainly, and respect, but I don't remember any teaching on tolerance. Besides, tolerance IMO is a somewhat patronising approach. I'm sure atheists don't want to be tolerated, but accepted and 'allowed' a voice. In the UK they have one but I don't think that has anything to do with the British not yet noticing atheism because they hate Pakistanis, as suggested by Mousethief. I would suggest the situation here has more to do with the general ambivalence towards religious faith that has grown during the post-war decades. As someone else said, only around 10% of the population go to church on an anything like regular basis here. Add to that a couple of percentage points here and there for other faiths and the default position appears to be one of non-belief (more likely agnosticism but also atheism).
Posted by dogwonderer (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Wulfstan:
... No. I think you're kind of sick for suggesting it...
How very prescient of you- I do feel slightly nauseous.
quote:
Originally posted by MadGeo:
It just occurred to me that an atheist is going to have to get beaten up or die to become "persecuted" to the crowd assembled here.
There's something fucked up in that, somewhere.
Hmm. Like I said: all this denial is very revealing, isn't it?
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
Hmm. Like I said: all this denial is very revealing, isn't it?
The problem is that you haven't given anybody any evidence of persecution.
So, is there any?
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
Anyway, I'm still atheist at times, myself; faith is not constant. Would I then be persecuted off and on, I wonder?
The problem, dogwonderer, is that many of this have indeed been in your place, and we don't relate to "persecution." What do you say to us, other than that we're "in denial" - which we obviously aren't, at least in our own experience?
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
Hmm. Like I said: all this denial is very revealing, isn't it?
That's what the man with the tin-foil hat says about people who don't share his delusion. Denial reveals nothing.
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on
:
Oh, and to further Tuba Mirum's point, the worst persecution I received when I was an atheist was to be asked (by my boy scout troopmaster or whatever they're called (it's been a long time)), "How can you not believe in God?"
Took me agonizing seconds to get over the trauma.
Posted by dogwonderer (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
The problem is that you haven't given anybody any evidence of persecution. So, is there any?
TubaMirum, I don't know if there is any evidence of persecution of atheists or not, though it seems reasonable (knowing what humans are like) that atheists could be persecuted. But I think there's more here than this single 'problem'.
I do have evidence that at least one atheist may be disadvantaged by their faith position (me), and it feels like persecution when this is flatly denied in principle by people who are in no position to do so. It feels like bigotry. It feels like hypocrisy too.
All this denial smells funny. So that's another problem, isn't it?
Posted by benjdm (# 11779) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
Oh, and to further Tuba Mirum's point, the worst persecution I received when I was an atheist was to be asked (by my boy scout troopmaster or whatever they're called (it's been a long time)), "How can you not believe in God?"
Took me agonizing seconds to get over the trauma.
On that topic, in today's scouts, you would get booted.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/West/10/31/atheist.scout.ap/index.html
Even an agnostic can't become a good enough citizen according to the BSA - see Welsh vs. BSA.
http://www.bsalegal.org/duty-to-god-cases-224.asp
Posted by dogwonderer (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
Hmm. Like I said: all this denial is very revealing, isn't it?
That's what the man with the tin-foil hat says about people who don't share his delusion. Denial reveals nothing.
I quite agree. But you need balls of steel to be so self-assured to believe that the person who claims to feel persecuted must in fact be deluded. It's a very brave position. Or a persecutory one.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
TubaMirum, I don't know if there is any evidence of persecution of atheists or not, though it seems reasonable (knowing what humans are like) that atheists could be persecuted. But I think there's more here than this single 'problem'.
I do have evidence that at least one atheist may be disadvantaged by their faith position (me), and it feels like persecution when this is flatly denied in principle by people who are in no position to do so. It feels like bigotry. It feels like hypocrisy too.
All this denial smells funny. So that's another problem, isn't it?
But we are in a position to do so; many of us have been atheists.
Granted that we've not been you in particular. Is that why you claim this is hypocrisy? Because I'm afraid there's no cure for that, since we can only be ourselves, with our own experiences. And we're not claiming that you can feel persecuted, either; we're only asking for some evidence for the argument the opening post addresses.
[ 30. July 2007, 20:27: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
That should read, "And we're not claiming that you can't feel persecuted, either; we're only asking for some evidence for the argument the opening post addresses."
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by benjdm:
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
Oh, and to further Tuba Mirum's point, the worst persecution I received when I was an atheist was to be asked (by my boy scout troopmaster or whatever they're called (it's been a long time)), "How can you not believe in God?"
Took me agonizing seconds to get over the trauma.
On that topic, in today's scouts, you would get booted.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/West/10/31/atheist.scout.ap/index.html
Even an agnostic can't become a good enough citizen according to the BSA - see Welsh vs. BSA.
http://www.bsalegal.org/duty-to-god-cases-224.asp
I know. It's fucked up. I believe they flush out gays too. Although if I were a gay teenager I certainly wouldn't want to go camping with a bunch of homophobic adolescents. But that doesn't make kicking them out right of course.
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on
:
Yes there's feeling persecuted and there's being persecuted. You can say "I feel persecuted" and I cant' argue. But if you say "I was persecuted, here's what they did..." and what you describe doesn't match what as far as I know "persecution" means, then I may very well say so. Which isn't denial just debate, which is what Purg is for, I've been told.
Posted by dogwonderer (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
And we're not claiming that you can't feel persecuted, either; we're only asking for some evidence for the argument the opening post addresses.
I'm sure I can't help you- I've told you honestly that I have indeed felt disadvantaged. I cannot answer for any other atheists- including you. But I can answer for myself.
I guess it's up to you what to make of my claim. I can't stop you from denying it, and I'm becoming disinclined to continue my attempts to bring this into the debate.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
I'm sure I can't help you- I've told you honestly that I have indeed felt disadvantaged. I cannot answer for any other atheists- including you. But I can answer for myself.
I guess it's up to you what to make of my claim. I can't stop you from denying it, and I'm becoming disinclined to continue my attempts to bring this into the debate.
Again: I've never denied that you feel persecuted; before this the only thing I've said to you was that I could identify with the closet.
But I can identify with you here again: I'm getting tired of saying the same things again and again, too. So perhaps I'll stop as well.
Posted by Wulfstan (# 558) on
:
DW said:
quote:
Hmm. Like I said: all this denial is very revealing, isn't it?
Is it? Of what? Please try and formulate an argument. Just once.
quote:
I quite agree. But you need balls of steel to be so self-assured to believe that the person who claims to feel persecuted must in fact be deluded. It's a very brave position. Or a persecutory one.
But this is just more of the same circular logic isn't it. You say you are persecuted. If we disagree, we're persecuters. This is drivel and a simple misrepresentation of the English language. IF you have been discriminated against on the grounds you claim, then one instance is not persecution. It would be abuse of position/unprofessional conduct/bullying.
You've even admitted previously that persecution is too extreme a word, but then pressed on with assertions and circular logic as if this proves anything except your own lack of a sensible argument.
To even begin to compare yourself with the those in the American Civil Rights movement of the 50s, or those persecuted by McCarthy, let alone those left to rot in Gulags is obscene. If you haven't the wit or subtlety appreciate this then I pity you. You're not alone of course, there have been Christians on these boards who've try to play the martyrdom card, or suggest, with nauseous relish that they may be persecuted in the future, as if that somehow embues them with extra virtue or credibility. It's a cheap political ploy whoever does it though, and shows the same sickening, sectarian characteristics on both sides.
quote:
I can't stop you from denying it, and I'm becoming disinclined to continue my attempts to bring this into the debate.
Hmmmm. Your disinclination to continue debating is very revealing isn't it...
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
For those of you (not) keeping score so far we have:
Christians (presumptive) with regards to the athiest's/nontheist's arguments:
"Intemperate", "Silly", "Ludicrously vague and silly", "bit precious", "kind of sick", "tin-foil hat...share his delusion", "you're going to have to actually make a coherent argument" "Please try and formulate an argument".
Your words speak volumes.
[edited to add the latest]
[ 30. July 2007, 20:54: Message edited by: Mad Geo ]
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
(One more thing, including a correction: I should have written above that "Again: I've never denied that you feel disadvantaged...."
But again, that wasn't the statement in the OP, and many of us have said the same thing: that "persecution" is too strong a word. If "disadvantaged" had been used in various posts here, I think many fewer people would have objected.
But you're right that we're just going over the same territory again, so it's probably best to just move on at this point.)
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
For those of you (not) keeping score so far we have:
Christians (presumptive) with regards to the athiest's/nontheist's arguments:
"Intemperate", "Silly", "Ludicrously vague and silly", "bit precious", "kind of sick", "tin-foil hat...share his delusion", "you're going to have to actually make a coherent argument" "Please try and formulate an argument".
Your words speak volumes.
[edited to add the latest]
So that's pretty much it, then, eh? You guys are just going to continue to say how "revealing" and "hypocritical" our words are? Rather than, you know, actually having to come up with something that demonstrates your point?
Well, that seems....dull.
Posted by dogwonderer (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Wulfstan:
Hmmmm. Your disinclination to continue debating is very revealing isn't it...
Yes; it reveals that you are Supremely Right.
I haven't the heart.
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
Actually I felt I have presented adequate argument here (or at minimum, quantity of argument) enough for anyone to see I gave it a go. As did DW. I have no need to further argue to meet your arbitrarily established criteria. I get that you want somebody dead/beaten/damaged in order to use the term "persecuted".
I think IMHO the two most relevant points to date on this thread are that
1) Someone will have to die to impress you (collectively) of the problem, and
2) Having this discussion tends to result in the atheists/nontheists being, how shall we say, challenged rhetorically in interesting ways. Not that it doesn't happen elsewhere, mind you, it's just SO ironic.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
1) Someone will have to die to impress you (collectively) of the problem, and
IOW, when we doubt that "persecution" is happening because of the obvious lack of evidence - no one has died and people are not being jailed - you understand that to mean not that we're correct - since no one has died and people are not being jailed or otherwise persecuted - but that we're heartless and bloodthirsty instead.
Interesting. And, I notice, a nicely-set no-win rhetorical trap.
And, Q.E.D.
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
Speaking of tinfoil, where on earth did I say, or even imply, that you were "heartless and bloodthirsty". I am merely stating the obvious.
If you demand that persecution requires death/beatings/violence, then someone has to die/get beaten to meet that criteria.
I personally think that intimidating behavior such as harrassment, firings, etc. is nasty enough behaviors to qualify. I'd rather not have it get to beatings. Call me silly. Oh wait! I already was, nevermind.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I personally think that intimidating behavior such as harrassment, firings, etc. is nasty enough behaviors to qualify. I'd rather not have it get to beatings. Call me silly. Oh wait! I already was, nevermind.
Yes, harrassment and firing would be enough to qualify - except that I haven't seen it demonstrated that that's going on on any sort of widespread basis. It sure as hell isn't going on where I live; religious people are viewed with more suspicion around here.
(Granted, I don't really read your posts much anymore, so perhaps you've given some sort of evidence of this. If so, please point it out.)
[ 30. July 2007, 21:58: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
I stood by and listened as my (then) boss said the following "If I found out an employee was an atheist, I would fire them". This was in greater Los Angeles, California. Three.5 years ago. Mid-morning.
I know that probably doesn't mean anything to you. So be it. I could care less if actual first hand experience counts to you or not.
This is the same guy that I am fairly confident found a way to "let go" of actual and suspected gay employees of his. The gay firings were before my time, and I didn't actually hear him say that, but I heard enough of him later to know that is almost certainly what happened. I have no doubt he would fire atheists (still will).
These calls for proof of (whatever) persecution assumes that 1) the media would catch it or even care, and 2) that the bastards such as my ex-boss get caught, at minimum. I do not grant you any of that, as I have first hand experience that says otherwise.
You can call me a liar (I wouldn't recommend it) but clearly DW and I have had some experiences that make us dubious of the protections that society usually affords (most) minorities.
Posted by Beautiful_Dreamer (# 10880) on
:
Actually, I am sorry some of you feel like you are at a disadvantage for being an atheist. I can only speak for my own experience, and I was never treated badly, or subjected to any worse treatment than minor irritation, when I was an atheist. The worst I had to deal with was having someone preach at me and tell me I was going to hell. Which meant nothing to me, since at the time I did not believe there was a hell.
And I would say that firings and harassment fall under the guise of persecution, but I simply haven't seen it. My atheist friends have not had anywhere near the problems you are making it out that they would have. The subject simply is not discussed. If anything, I feel like I have to walk on eggshells around some of them for fear that I will offend them with my religion (and I do not proseltyze, I am talking about worrying I will offend them if I mention church at all). But, your mileage may vary. Apparently it does. No one is denying that you feel disadvantaged, or saying you should. The most I see anyone saying is that they simply do not see it. But then I don't know what it is like to be an adult atheist, so what do I know?
And I still think you guys need to correct other atheists when they talk down to us like we are stupid because we have a faith. I have no problem standing up for myself, but not everyone is as bold as I am. And I am usually pretty low-key in person.
[ 30. July 2007, 22:16: Message edited by: Beautiful_Dreamer ]
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I stood by and listened as my (then) boss said the following "If I found out an employee was an atheist, I would fire them". This was in greater Los Angeles, California. Three.5 years ago. Mid-morning.
Yes, and I'm sure there are many people who say the very same things about gay people, too - and we don't have any protections, either.
The difference is that I wouldn't say that gay people are persecuted on any sort of widespread basis in the U.S. today, or that it was 1967 again because of an incident like this.
One personal anecdote - which isn't even about a firing, but about talking about a hypothetical firing - does not imply persecution. And it doesn't mean it's 1967, either. Don't be so shocked that people find your rhetoric overheated; it is, if this is all you've got.
[ 30. July 2007, 22:36: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
I am not shocked at anything various people assert here, especially about anything I said or (more likely) didn't say. And heated? Pullease. I've seen fluffy bunnies that get upset over "damn".
I mean I just saw someone assert that gays aren't persecuted, when they aren't allowed to marry in most states, and occasionally one or two have to die occasionally. Nothing serious.
Go figure.
I see.
You must be right.
Nah, nothing going on there.
Nope.
Don't ask. Don't tell.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I mean I just saw someone assert that gays aren't persecuted, when they aren't allowed to marry in most states, and occasionally one or two have to die occasionally. Nothing serious.
Go figure.
I see.
You must be right.
Nah, nothing going on there.
Nope.
Don't ask. Don't tell.
Exactly, Geo. Those are gay people who can't marry, and who are getting bashed, not atheists. Thanks for making it so clear how full of it you are.
Talking of fluffy bunnies....
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
(You obviously wouldn't know "persecution" if you fell over it, my dear.
And believe me: it ain't 1967. You wouldn't know anything about that, either.)
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
Well, that was fun. Anyone got a glass of Histrionic tonic?
quote:
Originally posted by Beautiful_Dreamer:
And I still think you guys need to correct other atheists when they talk down to us like we are stupid because we have a faith. I have no problem standing up for myself, but not everyone is as bold as I am. And I am usually pretty low-key in person.
So I was thinking about this on the drive home. Are there any groups that you might consider stupid for various reasons? The ones that I have routinely encountered as "Stupid" according to Christians include but are not limited to:
Mormen
Unitarian Universalists
Scientologists (can't say I disagree there)
Astrologers
RCs
Non-RCs
Cultists
Baptists (for the Rapture)
I am NOT saying that Christians are stupid. The reason I ask is that there are so many sects that espouse simply absurd beliefs. They are even deemed absurd by the other members of the faith. The big ones can't agree with the little ones. The Trinitarians worship three gods and claim one. The Unitarians claim one god, but are accepting of three. Some wear Holy Knickers, others wear pointy hats. Most of them like testicles on their holy people. Some have prophetesses that won't allow modern medicine. Others have prophetesses that insist upon it, yet equally insist that women can't be pastors!
It is not that much of a leap IMO to see how they think Christians stupid. Don't you occasionally think how stupid other denoms are? I mean really, no matter which group you are in, the out-group is always the bastard. I've met very few people that could avoid this, and they were saints on earth.
In addition, atheists have often been ran through the wringer by religion, or the religious anyway. Took me a long time to settle into my current nontheist stance and even now I hide it from many in the interest of avoiding problems, if not persecution. The church I came out of, frankly, still pisses me off if I think about how they treat people. If I just focus on the "good" individuals, well, that's how I can overlook it.
Embracing one's religion's stupidity is a lesson I feel that needs to be learned.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Well, that was fun. Anyone got a glass of Histrionic tonic?
Speaking of, how's the self-pity coming along, Geo? Got more whining in store for us on the topic of overheard hypothetical persecutions at the office from 7 years ago?
Boy, I tell ya: that last story had me crying my eyes out....
Posted by benjdm (# 11779) on
:
Madalyn Murray O'Hair and Larry Hooper jump to mind as two atheists who were murdered. Well short of the Matthew Shepard etc. list that was already posted.
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
Ah the joys of being an atheist in America:
Atheist family ejected from their neighborhood. Another family is ejected by a landlord after it's found out.
Then look at the attitudes displayed by two members of the panel. "They need to shut up" "Obnoxious" "Europe is becoming intolerant" Unbelievable.
More atheist bashing, complete with false legal indictments.
Seven states have actual anti-atheist laws. "No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution."
Atheist fired. Wins lawsuit.
Famous atheists son has job yanked.....
Death threats. Boycott.
Conversation with the Bush Campaign coChairman, Ed Murnane
quote:
Sherman: American Atheists filed the Pledge of Allegiance lawsuit yesterday. Does the Bush campaign have an official response to this filing?
Murnane: It's bullshit.
Sherman: What is bullshit?
Murnane: Everything that American Atheists does, Rob, is bullshit.
Sherman: Thank you for telling me what the official position of the Bush campaign is on this issue.
Murnane: You're welcome
Let me guess.....no one died.....yet.
Oh Wait!
Benjd found the smoking gun. I guess that means ahteists are a persecuted lot now, since we documented all the requirements to date. Stand by for the rules to change.....
[ 31. July 2007, 01:28: Message edited by: Mad Geo ]
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by benjdm:
Madalyn Murray O'Hair and Larry Hooper jump to mind as two atheists who were murdered. Well short of the Matthew Shepard etc. list that was already posted.
I thought MMO was an unsolved mystery?
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on
:
Finally, some evidence (remains to be seen if it's good evidence but let's lay that aside for now). Now we can debate about whether these things constitute persecution, rather than a couple of anecdotes. Thank you.
And the O'Hairs were murdered by another atheist so their blood is on youse guys, not us.
[ 31. July 2007, 01:56: Message edited by: MouseThief ]
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
Several things.
First of all, if an atheist wins a lawsuit, and on the basis of "religious discrimination," doesn't that disprove prior statements that "there aren't any protections for atheists"? I only ask because in many places there really aren't any protections for gay people, who can be fired at will and do not have a basis for bringing a lawsuit.
Second of all, those "No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution" laws are old laws that have never been repealed from the books; every state used to have them. So get them repealed, just like gay people worked to do.
Third of all, it was an atheist's son who got his job yanked (and restored, BTW). How is that "discrimination against atheists"? Is the son an atheist? (Hint: the article said the father was a "well-known litigious lawyer.")
Fourth of all, who cares what the Bush campaign says about American Atheists? The Bush campaign is run by Karl Rove; what did you expect? (And maybe American Atheists is an idiotic organization? It could happen, and it doesn't say anything about the treatment of atheists generally.)
The murder of the atheist is very bad, of course. And those are indeed a bunch of idiots on CNN, no doubt. Will look at the other links and comment on those later.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
(P.S.: Have you ever heard the Bush Admin - and its lackies in the infotainment world - talk about the ACLU? It's much worse than that.)
Posted by benjdm (# 11779) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
And the O'Hairs were murdered by another atheist so their blood is on youse guys, not us.
Really ? I didn't realize that one had been solved.
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Fourth of all, who cares what the Bush campaign says about American Atheists?
It was the elder bush, George H. W. Bush, and the worst quote wasn't put in. Sherman was the only one to document it, making it suspect, but here is what supposedly was said:
quote:
Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?
Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.
http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
That [Obama]'s not ahead is a product of his lack of experience, not his color. The presidency is not an entry-level position. Hillaries got more experience in her pinkie toe.
[tangent]Obama's political resume is pretty nearly equivalent to Lincoln's in 1860 (Lincoln had eight years of legislative experience at the state level to Obama's seven, and two years at the federal level to Obama's three)[/tangent]
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by benjdm:
It was the elder bush, George H. W. Bush, and the worst quote wasn't put in. Sherman was the only one to document it, making it suspect, but here is what supposedly was said:
quote:
Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?
Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.
http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm
Yeah, Reagan and Bush said the same sorts of things about gay people, so I can understand the animosity.
BTW, the guy who murdered the atheist was found "guilty of second-degree murder with mental illness." Not that it excuses it, of course, but it's not too surprising that that's the case. Here's a quote from the article:
quote:
On December 19, 2005, we returned to Judge Bill's court to witness sentencing of Arthur Shelton. The prosecution asked for the 'high end' of punishment - 25 to 45 years, while the defense was still pleading for not guilty due to insanity or, at the very most, a soft sentence at the 'low end' of punishment 15 to 22 years. Judge Bill invited Shelton to make a statement and after fumbling for words Shelton stated he was sorry that Larry was dead but he did a job that had to be done. He stated that he actually, "saw fire and smoke coming from Larry's eyes and knew he was the devil himself."
The family is obviously bonkers also. And these two guys were friends and roommates; I don't think this proves anything, honestly, as bad as it is.
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Obama's political resume is pretty nearly equivalent to Lincoln's in 1860 (Lincoln had eight years of legislative experience at the state level to Obama's seven, and two years at the federal level to Obama's three)[/tangent]
Lincoln didn't have his finger on a glowing red nuke button.
Things are just a smidgie different now.
Posted by benjdm (# 11779) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
The family is obviously bonkers also. And these two guys were friends and roommates; I don't think this proves anything, honestly, as bad as it is.
No disagreement. I just thought I'd throw out what info I had.
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
I keep hearing you say Yeah, but.... Yeah, but....
You asked for evidence and now we have provided it. That some of you are trying to minimize/dismiss/question it was completely and sadly, predictable.
The evidence points to a trend. The trend is that when atheists speak up about their beliefs, they are ostracised, ejected from their communities, and quite possibly beaten and or killed.
I had stated that only 1% of the 7% of atheists are in hiding for a reason. I have proved that they have good reason. That they are upheld in court like gays and blacks before them doesn't mean they have made the same progress in civil rights, or anywhere near it. Polls indicate the gross bias towards them. All the evidence is now pointing to persecution by everyone's defintion here.
That you somehow want to dismiss this as irrelevant indicates repressed bias, outright hostility to atheists, an agenda, or something similar. I invite you to investigate your own weaknesses, if it applies to you.
Posted by benjdm (# 11779) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
That you somehow want to dismiss this as irrelevant indicates repressed bias, outright hostility to atheists, an agenda, or something similar. I invite you to investigate your own weaknesses, if it applies to you.
To my recollection, no one has dismissed it in the way you characterize. The difference of opinion is really a minor one - what it takes for the label 'persecuted' to apply. Is there anyone in the thread who would dispute that generally speaking (granted it varies wildly by area) people's opinions of atheists are lower than many other groups and this translates into actual harm ? I would not dispute this for GLBT, Muslims, blacks, and probably others who I have forgotten. GLBT would be closest to persecuted (or actually persecuted) IMO. I don't see Muslims or atheists as persecuted. The harms are real and significant, but I don't see it rising near the level I would label persecution.
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
That you somehow want to dismiss this as irrelevant indicates repressed bias, outright hostility to atheists, an agenda, or something similar. I invite you to investigate your own weaknesses, if it applies to you.
I'll keep this handy advice in mind, but if I should ever find it necessary to investigate any psychological weaknesses I may have, I probably will seek out the assistance of a licensed professional, not an internet discussion board.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I keep hearing you say Yeah, but.... Yeah, but....
You asked for evidence and now we have provided it. That some of you are trying to minimize/dismiss/question it was completely and sadly, predictable.
The evidence points to a trend. The trend is that when atheists speak up about their beliefs, they are ostracised, ejected from their communities, and quite possibly beaten and or killed.
I had stated that only 1% of the 7% of atheists are in hiding for a reason. I have proved that they have good reason. That they are upheld in court like gays and blacks before them doesn't mean they have made the same progress in civil rights, or anywhere near it. Polls indicate the gross bias towards them. All the evidence is now pointing to persecution by everyone's defintion here.
That you somehow want to dismiss this as irrelevant indicates repressed bias, outright hostility to atheists, an agenda, or something similar. I invite you to investigate your own weaknesses, if it applies to you.
IOW, you don't really want to actually discuss anything. You just want to make outrageous statements and loudly feel sorry for yourself in public and make ad hominem arguments against anybody who disagrees with or questions you.
Gee. What a shock.
[ 31. July 2007, 03:56: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
(P.S., Georgie: you're the only one here who doesn't seem to get the point that everybody else is making.
So it could just possibly be your problem - and I invite you to consider that.)
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
Has it occured to you yet TM, that I do not feel sorry for myself? Because it should have. Stop transferring.
And MT, if this Board or others helps you understand things about yourself, as it does to other thinking individuals here including myself, well then you may not need to see a therapist about that particlur issue. But if you do need to see one for this, well by all means.
Enjoy.
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on
:
"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons." -- Emerson
Posted by Wulfstan (# 558) on
:
benjdm said:
quote:
Really ? I didn't realize that one had been solved.
Yeah it has. There was a programme about the O'Hairs on BBC4 a few months back. They've even found the remains of the bodies. The culprit was a nut-job, of no religious affiliation, who got fired by them and took revenge.
I agree with your summary of the debate(?) so far as well. The definition of persecution is the key here, but it's hard to discuss it amidst the wailing and gnashing of teeth.
MG said:
quote:
You asked for evidence and now we have provided it. That some of you are trying to minimize/dismiss/question it was completely and sadly, predictable.
Y'see this is such a cheap shot. You've provided some evidence, but for the first 3 screens that consisted of two surveys suggesting dislike not persecution. This last lot is more interesting but persecution is a big word and since one of your cases resulted in the atheist winning their case, despite the "Christo-fascists", there's still room for debate.
quote:
That you somehow want to dismiss this as irrelevant indicates repressed bias
Again, cheap shot. No-one's done that, they've just questioned how far it proves persecution en-masse. And the cod-psychology bit is just juvenile.
quote:
LOL. Anyone that knows me here and IRL knows that the last thing on earth I advocate is government interference.
I think churches should practice what the preach. They often don’t. If they are intolerant assholes, I simply plan to be there to point it out, when I encounter it.
Because that'll really be constructive.
quote:
I am NOT saying that Christians are stupid. The reason I ask is that there are so many sects that espouse simply absurd beliefs. They are even deemed absurd by the other members of the faith. The big ones can't agree with the little ones. The Trinitarians worship three gods and claim one. The Unitarians claim one god, but are accepting of three. Some wear Holy Knickers, others wear pointy hats. Most of them like testicles on their holy people. Some have prophetesses that won't allow modern medicine. Others have prophetesses that insist upon it, yet equally insist that women can't be pastors!
And you see this is just a wilful misrepresentation. Trinitarians worship 3 Gods? Of course. Absolutely they do. Grow Up.
quote:
The limitations you place on yourself are of no relevance to me and feel free to keep them to yourself. When you have walked a mile in my shoes on this, you may then be skeptical of my experience with religion.
I see. You are above criticism. Your experiences prove universal discrimination, no-one has suffered like you. Your visionary utterances will call the guilty to account, and anyone who doubts you is a "Christo-fascist" oppressor.
quote:
Embracing one's religion's stupidity is a lesson I feel that needs to be learned.
Yeah, how about one's non-religious stupidity?
We're pretty much just flinging insults now and while I won't call you a liar (I neither know nor care) I can't take you seriously and I think the reverse is probably true, so I think I'll call it a day.
Posted by dogwonderer (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Wulfstan:
... I think I'll call it a day.
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on
:
This CNN story has more evidence of American dislike of atheists:
quote:
An earlier poll by the Pew Research Center said 30 percent of respondents said they would be less likely to vote for a candidate that was Mormon. The negative sentiment rose to 46 percent for Muslim candidates and to 63 percent for a candidate who "doesn't believe in God."
I have no idea what the equivalent figures in the UK are but they certainly would be different. I would expect an atheist to be preferable to a Muslim but I could be wrong.
Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on
:
How did the US come to change the Constitution to this belief that God rules? Was it really endorsed by a groundswell of public opinion or did particular groups of Christians campaigning for it push it through without discussion?
quote:
It's an old shibboleth of those who want to inject religion into public life that they're honoring the spirit of the nation's founders. In fact, the founders opposed the institutionalization of religion. They kept the Constitution free of references to God. The document mentions religion only to guarantee that godly belief would never be used as a qualification for holding office—a departure from many existing state constitutions. That the founders made erecting a church-state wall their first priority when they added the Bill of Rights to the Constitution reveals the importance they placed on maintaining what Isaac Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore have called a "godless Constitution." When Benjamin Franklin proposed during the Constitutional Convention that the founders begin each day of their labors with a prayer to God for guidance, his suggestion was defeated.
(The Pledge of Allegiance Why we're not one nation "under God." By David Greenberg)
Caveat, I have no idea what the politics of this site are, I'm posting because I found the article of interest.
It seems to be strangely in 'limbo' at the moment, no judge can rule for it but it's still taken over as defining the nation - wouldn't the Atheists who feel themselves marginalised now be better served by raising objections to this change?
Devoted to God though I am I find it extremely jarring to hear Bush claiming God's support for a government's policy of invasion, torture and so on, not my kind of God, but what do Atheists think of this?
Myrrh
Posted by benjdm (# 11779) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
How did the US come to change the Constitution to this belief that God rules?
Was it really endorsed by a groundswell of public opinion or did particular groups of Christians campaigning for it push it through without discussion?
It was pushed through with discussion. Such votes are not at all divisive in Congress, since (until recently) 535 of 535 Congressmen self-identified as theists. 534 out of 535 is a slight improvement, but for now, only lawsuit-happy immoral atheists would complain about such things.
(lawsuit happy refers to people usually hearing about atheists in the news only when involved in a church-state separation lawsuit. Immoral refers to the American Heritage Dictionary, 2nd-4th editions, which all include 'immorality' in the definition of atheism.)
quote:
It seems to be strangely in 'limbo' at the moment, no judge can rule for it but it's still taken over as defining the nation - wouldn't the Atheists who feel themselves marginalised now be better served by raising objections to this change?
I have done, repeatedly. Most recently here . There was very little support for my side.
quote:
Devoted to God though I am I find it extremely jarring to hear Bush claiming God's support for a government's policy of invasion, torture and so on, not my kind of God, but what do Atheists think of this?
Umm. I'm going to bite my tongue on that one.
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
Reading this thread has certainly been an eyeopener. I'm still unclear about what disadvantages dogwonderer sees in being out as an atheist in the UK but I'm astounded by what posters have said about the situation in the US. Over here, there's a tendency to regard religious opinions as essentially private and thus they're not important in decisions about jobs (except specifically religious ones). From what people have said, it sounds like there is discrimation against atheists in some parts of the States at least, though I wouldn't go as far to say persecution (as I would say that tends to be more active and violent)
Though on the scouting issue, I've just looked at the official scouting website and found that whilst open to any religion they are not open to atheists. It doesn't seem to be about `being able to be a good citizen' but being about the fact that scouting is faith based and talks about duty to love God. Given that doing `duty to God and Queen' is part of the Scout promise, it's hard to see how an atheist could make it. (I'm less sure about republicans, one could take the line of working with the situation as it is now).
Carys
Posted by dogwonderer (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
I've just looked at the official scouting website and found that whilst open to any religion they are not open to atheists
I promised myself I wouldn't contribute further to this thread, but this raises some interesting stuff.
Firstly, how is this sort of discrimination actually legal?
Also, why on earth should the Scout movement exclude atheists when even churches (the house of God) do not?
Finally, how can a child be an atheist? Being an atheist is a bit like being a theist- children are not capable of exercising the sort of authoritative discretion required to be either.
I think this is bad.
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
I've just looked at the official scouting website and found that whilst open to any religion they are not open to atheists
I promised myself I wouldn't contribute further to this thread, but this raises some interesting stuff.
Firstly, how is this sort of discrimination actually legal?
Maybe this should have it's own thread. I'm not sure that there is a legal problem. To join this group you have to sign up to its principles, one of which is belief in God, if you don't belief in God don't join.
quote:
Also, why on earth should the Scout movement exclude atheists when even churches (the house of God) do not?
Depends what you mean by exclude. Sure, you can go to Church as an atheist, but if you want to be baptised but were still an atheist, I think the Church would be justified in asking various questions.
quote:
Finally, how can a child be an atheist? Being an atheist is a bit like being a theist- children are not capable of exercising the sort of authoritative discretion required to be either.
I think this is bad.
I disagree entirely on this point. I think you're doing children a disservice. I know someone who refused to read The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe aged about 7 because it was Christian propaganda. I was a Christian in my own mind from a young age. Yes, I've made decisions since to stick with that since, but that doesn't invalidate my early decisions.
Carys
Posted by Matins (# 11644) on
:
You should start a rival scouting organization open to all people excluded by Boy Scouts. It could start small. Take the excluded children on a camping trip that included fishing and hiking.
Posted by benjdm (# 11779) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
Though on the scouting issue, I've just looked at the official scouting website and found that whilst open to any religion they are not open to atheists. It doesn't seem to be about `being able to be a good citizen' but being about the fact that scouting is faith based and talks about duty to love God.
quote:
Policies
● Youth and Adult Volunteers
Boy Scouts of America believes that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God. Accordingly, youth members and adult volunteer leaders of Boy Scouts of America obligate themselves to do their duty to God and be reverent as embodied in the Scout Oath and the Scout Law. Leaders also must subscribe to the Declaration of Religious Principle. Because of its views concerning the duty to God, Boy Scouts of America believes that an atheist or agnostic is not an appropriate role model of the Scout Oath and Law for adolescent boys. Because of Scouting’s methods and beliefs, Scouting does not accept atheists and agnostics as members or adult volunteer leaders.
http://www.bsalegal.org/duty-to-god-cases-224.asp
According to them, you cannot be a good enough citizen if you don't recognize an obligation to God.
quote:
Given that doing `duty to God and Queen' is part of the Scout promise, it's hard to see how an atheist could make it. (I'm less sure about republicans, one could take the line of working with the situation as it is now).
Duty to God and Queen....UK scouts discriminate also ? You lost me. I only know about U.S. scouts.
Posted by benjdm (# 11779) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matins:
You should start a rival scouting organization open to all people excluded by Boy Scouts. It could start small. Take the excluded children on a camping trip that included fishing and hiking.
Camp Fire Boys and Girls - already exists and is open to all. Very small organization.
Camp Quest was also started at least partially due to this problem/
Posted by 206 (# 206) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by benjdm:
Boy Scouts of America believes that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God.
You learn something every day: I had no idea this kind of prejudice was that engrained in the BS of A.
And I keep trying to comprehend why many theists are apparently suspicious of atheists.
How about this: theists are theists because (whether nature or nurture) they believe the existence of God is patently self-evident therefore they can't help but believe atheists are being intellectually dishonest by asserting there is no God.
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
It's worse than that.
They now ban gays, atheists, and agnostics. They have a right to free speech (go figure, on that one) apparently that includes keeping out whomever they desire. I guess that's fine, they'll never see another penny from a whole lot of people including the government.
Posted by dogwonderer (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by 206:
And I keep trying to comprehend why many theists are apparently suspicious of atheists.
It's because we eat babies.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Posted by 206 (# 206) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
It's because we eat babies.
That would explain it but I think my theory has some merit.
Posted by dogwonderer (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by 206:
That would explain it but I think my theory has some merit.
A great deal of merit, imo.
But I would also say theists are theists because (whether nature or nurture) they believe the existence of God is patently self-evident therefore they can't help but believe atheists are a threat to them by asserting there is no God.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Not at all. I think the existence of God is far from self-evident. I think it's more likely than not, and I have a measly handful of experiences and events which I can't put a more parsimonious explanation on, but that's it. I can quite see why people wouldn't believe in God.
Posted by Petrified (# 10667) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
quote:
Originally posted by 206:
And I keep trying to comprehend why many theists are apparently suspicious of atheists.
It's because we eat babies.
Yes that's part of it but they are also worried you will try and convert them.
(is atheism contagious like girl cooties)
Posted by dogwonderer (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Not at all. I think the existence of God is far from self-evident.
So, the question is, then, Karl: would you let atheist kids in the Scouts, or their atheist parents as Helpers, if you were in charge of the BSofA? If so, why do you suppose the people in charge don't?
Posted by 206 (# 206) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
But I would also say theists are theists because (whether nature or nurture) they believe the existence of God is patently self-evident therefore they can't help but believe atheists are a threat to them by asserting there is no God.
That, too.
I should have said 'some theists are theists...'
Posted by Otter (# 12020) on
:
IIRC, the Boy Scouts of America are able to discriminate against gays, atheists, etc. on the basis that they are a private organization, not a public one. This has resulted in them losing access to schools and other public buildings for meeting spaces in many places. Mr. Otter doesn't keep up on Scouting news much any more - not happy with the way the current programs are set up, and also I suspect because of the decisionn to be discriminatory.
That said, I know of leaders that were willing to buck the official policy and welcome boys from atheist families (I say "were" because it's been a few years and I don't know if those leaders are active or not).
Posted by benjdm (# 11779) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Otter:
That said, I know of leaders that were willing to buck the official policy and welcome boys from atheist families (I say "were" because it's been a few years and I don't know if those leaders are active or not).
There are plenty. It is a bad solution but better than nothing, I guess. The scouts involved have to lie and hide their beliefs or risk ending up like Darrell Lambert.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/West/10/31/atheist.scout.ap/index.html
http://www.bsa-discrimination.org/html/lambert.html
One of my medium-term goals is to have my meetup group possibly partner with the local Unitarian Universalist group and / or the local Humanist group and sponsor a Camp Fire Boys and Girls group. I don't know if we'll every pull it off.
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Not at all. I think the existence of God is far from self-evident. I think it's more likely than not, and I have a measly handful of experiences and events which I can't put a more parsimonious explanation on, but that's it. I can quite see why people wouldn't believe in God.
Yes, but you're a liberal.
Posted by Beautiful_Dreamer (# 10880) on
:
I wonder if anyone who has been given flack for their beliefs or lack thereof has ever considered that perhaps they might have put themselves in a position to be more open to that? Meaning, the only atheists (or Christians, for that matter) I have ever known who have had problems were the ones who were, for lack of a better word, obnoxious about their beliefs and insisted on pushing them in everyone else's face. I have known Christians who would not have had any problems if they had been appropriate in the workplace (in this particular case) and not made their faith an issue where it was not previously. I suppose this could apply to atheists too. People do not like being told they are only religious because they are less intelligent, but I know several atheists who believe this and make it very well known. Just like people do not like it when Christians push their faith and tell other people they are going to hell because they believe differently. The atheists or agnostics (or Christians, even) who do not make their beliefs an issue do not have any problems getting along with other people. It is not a case of anyone having to hide anything, it is an issue of not making a big issue of your beliefs.
Posted by benjdm (# 11779) on
:
Well, sure there are people who are jerks who then try and claim they get treated badly for reasons other than they are jerks. That's a given. Hopefully, we're trying to ignore those cases.
Posted by Beautiful_Dreamer (# 10880) on
:
I still maintain that there are certain places where discussing beliefs or religion isn't done, or isn't appropriate. Like the workplace. I have worked in places where people had religious items in their own cubicles, and this was fine. But it was considered an unofficial rule not to discuss the subject, particularly with customers. It is one thing if the customer brings the subject up with you (like asking if something you are selling is kosher or something like that), but we were not to bring it up with them. If you wanted to have a bible study group after work, for instance, that was fine, but it was to take place away from the office in your own time. That is just considered to be considerate to your customers and coworkers. In such places, you wouldn't know if someone was an atheist or not, or you wouldn't have anything beyond a basic, polite conversation about it. The mileage in your workplace may vary, however.
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
Yes to what Benjdm said.
I think the core issue is that IF it is brought up in the workplace and IF the person wasn't obnoxious about it, THEN gets fired or mistreated because of a half baked belief that atheists are unethical or simply due to religious bigotry THEN that demonstrates a serious problem, persecution.
Posted by Beautiful_Dreamer (# 10880) on
:
If anyone is fired because of any belief, religious or otherwise, when they have not made a big issue of it and they are being fired because of bigotry, that is a problem. I think we can all agree on that. I simply don't know that it happens as often as some seem to think it does. I don't presume to know what goes into every hiring or firing decision. There are just so many variables.
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
I'm not sure if how often something has to be to run into the "persecution" definition. I guarantee that if it were myself fired for stating my beliefs in a conversation where it was initiated, my persecution would be the least of thier concerns when the ACLU and/or my attorney contacted them.
If large groups of people (1.8 million or 6% of the US population) have to stay in hiding about a belief they hold with regards to religion, then that is telling, especially when coupled with what happens to people that do get outed or speak up as shown earlier in this thread.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
If large groups of people (1.8 million or 6% of the US population) have to stay in hiding about a belief they hold with regards to religion, then that is telling, especially when coupled with what happens to people that do get outed or speak up as shown earlier in this thread.
But they don't. There are about 5 books on the bestseller list right now on this topic. There are plenty of atheists who make no secret of their atheism, something you can read about on their websites anytime day or night. Nobody in New York City, for instance, would think of "hiding" their atheism; nobody around here gives a damn. That was true in New England when I lived there; it was true on the West Coast when I lived there. It's true in most large cities, your "example" from 6 years ago notwithstanding.
And you haven't shown anything about "what happens to people" at all. You won't answer challenges to the examples you've given - you prefer to imagine it's somebody else's problem - but I'm afraid you haven't made your case at all.
Yes, people in small towns don't tend to like people unlike themselves. Is that supposed to be news?
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
Hmmm.
Polls provided. Check.
(6% of 7% estimated atheists do not self-report.)
Examples of cases where persecution happened provided. Check.
A whopping six ahteists of the 1% atheists out themselves and write a book: Check
Anecdotal arm waving evidence from selected naysayers (not all mind you): Check
Ingnoring frothing people that are going to cherry pick out the bad cases and ignore the good cases: Priceless.
There are some things that money can't buy. For everything else there's Mad Geo.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Hmmm.
Polls provided. Check.
(6% of 7% estimated atheists do not self-report.)
Examples of cases where persecution happened provided. Check.
A whopping six ahteists of the 1% atheists out themselves and write a book: Check
Anecdotal arm waving evidence from selected naysayers (not all mind you): Check
Ingnoring frothing people that are going to cherry pick out the bad cases and ignore the good cases: Priceless.
There are some things that money can't buy. For everything else there's Mad Geo.
I really don't know what you think you're trying to prove here. You're the only one on this thread that claims "persecution." Other atheists don't.
And I can't even understand what you're saying in this post. 6-7% of atheists don't self-report? That's just a bit above the margin of error, I'd think - and so what? 6-7% of people, generally, are weird in some way. And is that what you base your claim of "persecution" on? Laughable, really.
FYI, I haven't seen much in the way of "good cases," either, I must say. Most of the links you gave are serious reaches.
Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
It's worse than that.
They now ban gays, atheists, and agnostics. They have a right to free speech (go figure, on that one) apparently that includes keeping out whomever they desire. I guess that's fine, they'll never see another penny from a whole lot of people including the government.
This is an interesting take on the Scouts. Being as I am from the land where it all began, what I've seen of the movement has been a liberalisation of it rather than a restriction (but if people keep suing then I suppose lines are going to be drawn in the sand all over the place). In my adult lifetime the Scouts incorporated many different expressions of God: when my sibs were Scouts (in the 1970s) only the Christian God was recognised, mainly because any other God was hardly represented. I don't know where the movement in England is up to with regard to gay leaders. Perhaps someone more in the know will be able to update on that.
Here in England the Scout movement was traditionally bound up with the Anglican church in particular: as a child I remember parade Sundays when the Scouts and Boys Brigade would take out their respective flags and walk up the aisle with them and place them in holder thingies at the altar end of the church. Historically the Scouts have been tied to faith, albeit not as strongly as the likes of the Boys Brigade, and to discipline and serving King/Queen and country (in a non-combatant role) - that's how it was all set up in the first place, which was very appropriate to the culture of the day.
Although I'm not at all in favour of discrimination against atheists, I'm struggling to see why atheist parents would want their child to swear to God or why the Scouts should stop swearing to God just because atheist parents don't want their child to do that? Shouldn't volunteer organisations be able to stand by their own group ethos? All interest groups are bound to exclude someone. I can't join men's groups coz I'm not a bloke. Should all men's groups be forced to accept women because I'm excluded and thus undermine the male ethos of their group? I wouldn't say they should.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
Although I'm not at all in favour of discrimination against atheists, I'm struggling to see why atheist parents would want their child to swear to God or why the Scouts should stop swearing to God just because atheist parents don't want their child to do that? Shouldn't volunteer organisations be able to stand by their own group ethos? All interest groups are bound to exclude someone. I can't join men's groups coz I'm not a bloke. Should all men's groups be forced to accept women because I'm excluded and thus undermine the male ethos of their group? I wouldn't say they should.
The Scouts has been a quasi-public institution for a long time; they're sort of a civic institution in many ways, even when they don't get public moneys. Every kid used to belong.
So it does sort of make sense to argue that discrimination against any child is wrong. But I agree with you that since God is part of their "charter," so to speak, it's a bit strange that atheists would object. Perhaps they want a similar organization without any reference to God - and perhaps somebody should start one.
Posted by benjdm (# 11779) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
But I agree with you that since God is part of their "charter," so to speak, it's a bit strange that atheists would object. Perhaps they want a similar organization without any reference to God - and perhaps somebody should start one.
The Girl Scouts have no problems with practicing a non-discrimination policy. In my area, there are no Camp Fire Boys and Girls nor Camp Quest. There is a YMCA - they have become non-discriminatory even though they have the Christian God as part of their 'charter.'
The Boy Scouts still get a whole lot of public preferential treatment and are (in most areas) the only program of their type.
Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on
:
However, if one argues that the scouts should liberalise and give up their focus on God* because they're a quasi-public institution, then one's penalising them for their success.
*I can't say I particularly noticed it outside of parade days when I was a member, but hey.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by benjdm:
The Girl Scouts have no problems with practicing a non-discrimination policy. In my area, there are no Camp Fire Boys and Girls nor Camp Quest. There is a YMCA - they have become non-discriminatory even though they have the Christian God as part of their 'charter.'
The Boy Scouts still get a whole lot of public preferential treatment and are (in most areas) the only program of their type.
The Boy Scouts, though, do have the oath which does contain reference to God.
But the situation is the same for the gay thing, actually; the Girl Scouts have no issues with lesbians being involved, either as girls or as leaders.
Posted by benjdm (# 11779) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
The Boy Scouts, though, do have the oath which does contain reference to God.
So does the U.S. in the Pledge of Allegiance and the National motto...
The girl scouts include God in their oath:
quote:
On my honor, I will try:
To serve God* and my country,
To help people at all times,
And to live by the Girl Scout Law.
* The word "God" can be interpreted in a number of ways, depending on one's spiritual beliefs. When reciting the Girl Scout Promise, it is okay to replace the word "God" with whatever word your spiritual beliefs dictate.
which they just make flexible. The Boy Scouts are without excuse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scout_Promise
quote:
But the situation is the same for the gay thing, actually; the Girl Scouts have no issues with lesbians being involved, either as girls or as leaders.
Nor do they have a problem with non-theists.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
I don't know why somebody couldn't argue that, in fact: that conceptions of "God" vary even among theists, and therefore no one particular view can be required.
When I was a Girl Scout - for about 20 minutes or so - the oath was this:
(Put up first 3 fingers of right hand, holding pinky to palm with thumb)
On my honor
I will try
To do my duty
To God and my country
To help other people at all times
Especially those at home.
How about that "at home" part? That's from when a woman's place was in the kitchen....
Actually, I think atheists are getting caught up in the "gay" fallout on this one; probably if that hadn't happened, the whole "God" thing could have been negotiated.
Posted by benjdm (# 11779) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
However, if one argues that the scouts should liberalise and give up their focus on God* because they're a quasi-public institution, then one's penalising them for their success.
I argue that they should liberalise and give up their focus on discrimination because it's the right thing to do. Legally, they should stop accepting public support, but they refuse to even do that (see the Boy Scout Jamboree.)
The Boy Scouts are so focused on discriminating they won't even accept UU programs for religious merit badges.
quote:
The Boy Scouts of America's stance on homosexuality and atheism has brought it into conflict with the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA) — a "theologically liberal" religion that lists "affirming the inherent worth and dignity of every person" as one of its central tenets. In 1998, the BSA removed recognition of the UUA emblem programs for Cub and Boy Scouts, feeling the UUA program "contains several statements which are inconsistent with Scouting’s values". Most of these statements expressed the UUA's disapproval of BSA's membership policies on gays and atheists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_membership_controversies#Religious_emblems_programs
Yes, the UU dogma of "The inherent worth and dignity of every person" is inconsistent with scouting's values. If you want your religious merit badge, your religion has to be OK with considering gays and non-believers to be of lesser inherent worth and/or dignity.
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
However, if one argues that the scouts should liberalise and give up their focus on God because they're a quasi-public institution, then one's penalising them for their success.
Who says that them giving up their focus on gods is a form of "penalization" anyway? I say that them giving up their focus on gods is correcting their own bigotry.
Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on
:
Leaving aside anyone's views on the non/existence and non/bigotry of God for a moment, why should people who formed arounda common interest* be made to give up that common interest, just because there are a lot of them? I find the concept of 'educating' people out of their supposed bigotry (according to the state) to be a far scarier and more intolerant prospect than having a club formed by and for theists, keep their focus by restricting the membership to theists.
*Don't talk about forming round a common interest of murdering gays, please. That's both a red herring and a straw man.
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
Because I don't think the Boy Scouts formed around a common interest in preserving theism. They formed around a common interest of promoting social welfare, but that does not require a belief in gods. Some might say a belief in gods hampers that, but i digress.
The front page of their website doesn't even mention anything about gods or religion whatsoever.
However, on a second page there is subdivisions related to specific church groups (a small part of the list) and lo and behold I AM IN! Buddhist nonthiests apparently CAN be a boy scout. What an opportunity. Oh but darn, I am afraid that my interest in Gays not being murdered prevents me from joining such an organization.
(Sorry I couldn't resist a nice herring).
Posted by benjdm (# 11779) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Leaving aside anyone's views on the non/existence and non/bigotry of God for a moment, why should people who formed arounda common interest* be made to give up that common interest, just because there are a lot of them?
Do you see any of us complaining about the Knights of Columbus ? No. That is an organization for Catholic men, claimed as such. The BSA is no such thing. The BSA claims "The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law." In their policies they make it explicitly clear that they do not consider non-theists or homosexuals capable of making ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by benjdm:
Do you see any of us complaining about the Knights of Columbus ? No. That is an organization for Catholic men, claimed as such. The BSA is no such thing. The BSA claims "The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law." In their policies they make it explicitly clear that they do not consider non-theists or homosexuals capable of making ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes.
No, they make it explicitly clear that the people in charge are idiots. So scwew 'em.
Posted by dogwonderer (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Actually, I think atheists are getting caught up in the "gay" fallout on this one; probably if that hadn't happened, the whole "God" thing could have been negotiated.
Yes- that sounds reasonable and fair. That atheists should be discriminated against because of their obvious association with that diabolic abomination of homosexuality makes perfect sense. It's a good thing humans have become so enlightened by the teachings of Jesus Christ- without great Christian ideals like charity and forgiveness, and loving our neighbours, this world would surely be in a terrible mess.
Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by benjdm:
The BSA is no such thing. The BSA claims "The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law."
Do we really have to go round in circles here? The scout oath includes doing one's duty to God and one's country.
Posted by benjdm (# 11779) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
quote:
Originally posted by benjdm:
The BSA is no such thing. The BSA claims "The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law."
Do we really have to go round in circles here? The scout oath includes doing one's duty to God and one's country.
So does the Girl Scout's oath. You just make that part of the oath optional. The military oath of enlistment includes an optional 'so help me God.' It wouldn't be like they had to reinvent the wheel.
I must be misunderstanding what you're saying.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
Yes- that sounds reasonable and fair. That atheists should be discriminated against because of their obvious association with that diabolic abomination of homosexuality makes perfect sense. It's a good thing humans have become so enlightened by the teachings of Jesus Christ- without great Christian ideals like charity and forgiveness, and loving our neighbours, this world would surely be in a terrible mess.
No, you're misunderstanding me, dogwonderer.
In the U.S., a gay man from New Jersey sued the Boy Scouts because once they found out he was gay, they refused to let him be part of the organization any longer. (He had been a Scout all his life and wanted, like others, to continue to participate as a Scoutmaster or whatever it's called.)
This ultimately went to the Supreme Court, which ruled that the BSA was a private organization and could determine its own membership rules.
My point is that after that, they had to be consistent or get sued again; they had argued in the court cases that their charter (or whatever it's called) contained certain provisions that made them unable to admit gay people. To be consistent, they'd have to exclude atheists on the basis of certain other provisions.
The gay issue casts a long shadow here; it's moved the "religious" right much further right than it would otherwise have gone. It's the line in the sand, just like it is right now in the Anglican Communion.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
(Anyway, private organizations can discriminate, if they want. It's their loss, though, and in this case will ultimately make the Boy Scouts something that many people don't want to be part of.)
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
WOW, sarcasm is lost....
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
WOW, sarcasm is lost....
Well, you know the old saying: sarcasm is the weapon of the weak.
IOW, I simply assume that dogwonderer would be more straightforward and forthright than that. Obviously you don't....
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
Nice.
That's funny, the quote I heard was
"Sarcasm, intellect on the offensive"
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
But here's my question, now that we're on the topic: why are you guys taking this so personally?
Why, for instance, does the fact that the Boy Scouts exclude gays and atheists somehow imply that they "do not consider non-theists or homosexuals capable of making ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes"? That's just another bunch of overheated rhetoric.
Furthermore, even if the above were true, why do you care what they think? They're obviously wrong, so what difference does it make if they're jackasses on this topic?
Here's the plain facts: some people are assholes. And some people - sometimes the same people - don't want you around; they'd rather be assholes and gather together in groups to be assholes.
So what?
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Nice.
That's funny, the quote I heard was
"Sarcasm, intellect on the offensive"
Well, true: it's often offensive; you don't see much of the "intellect" part, though.
Posted by dogwonderer (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
But here's my question, now that we're on the topic: why are you guys taking this so personally?
Hath not an atheist eyes? hath not an atheist hands, organs,
dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with
the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject
to the same diseases, healed by the same means,
warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as
a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed?
if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison
us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not
revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will
resemble you in that. If an atheist wrong a Christian,
what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian
wrong an atheist, what should his sufferance be by
Christian example? Why, revenge. The villany you
teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I
will better the instruction.
[Apologies to Bill].
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
Hath not an atheist eyes? hath not an atheist hands, organs,
dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with
the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject
to the same diseases, healed by the same means,
warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as
a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed?
if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison
us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not
revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will
resemble you in that. If an atheist wrong a Christian,
what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian
wrong an atheist, what should his sufferance be by
Christian example? Why, revenge. The villany you
teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I
will better the instruction.
[Apologies to Bill].
Let me ask again: why are you offended by what you think the Boy Scouts of America thinks about you?
Posted by dogwonderer (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Let me ask again: why are you offended by what you think the Boy Scouts of America thinks about you?
Because it is a false and hypocritical presumption that I eat babies. I am not necessarily better or worse than any theist, as a human, just because I am an atheist. Hence the adapted Shylock quote. I should have thought this was something you could easily relate to.
Posted by benjdm (# 11779) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
But here's my question, now that we're on the topic: why are you guys taking this so personally?
Why, for instance, does the fact that the Boy Scouts exclude gays and atheists somehow imply that they "do not consider non-theists or homosexuals capable of making ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes"? That's just another bunch of overheated rhetoric.
They hold that non-theists or homosexuals cannot be good enough citizens to be part of their mission. It's not overheated rhetoric.
quote:
Furthermore, even if the above were true, why do you care what they think? They're obviously wrong, so what difference does it make if they're jackasses on this topic?
Here's the plain facts: some people are assholes. And some people - sometimes the same people - don't want you around; they'd rather be assholes and gather together in groups to be assholes.
So what?
The BSA is an integral part of American culture. The assholes are held up as exemplary organizations of our culture. The activities of sons in the BSA was the main topic of conversation among the fathers at the local poker game last week. At the 4th of July town celebration, three groups did the opening ceremonies: the BSA, the VFW, and the American Legion. To the VFW's credit, they started allowing atheists to join in 2004. The American Legion and BSA both consider atheists second class citizens (the American Legion never admits that the plaintiffs in the Mt. Soledad cross case are veterans but does allow them to join.)
Why should I find it acceptable to be considered a second-class citizen ?
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Let me ask again: why are you offended by what you think the Boy Scouts of America thinks about you?
Because it is a false and hypocritical presumption that I eat babies. I am not necessarily better or worse than any theist, as a human, just because I am an atheist. Hence the adapted Shylock quote. I should have thought this was something you could easily relate to.
Nobody said you ate babies. That kind of rhetoric is not very helpful; it's sensationalistic and everybody knows it's untrue and over-the-top. (And it was at one time responsible for pogroms and mass murder and mass forced evacuations. Is there really anything like that going on here?)
And no, I don't care what the Boy Scouts thinks about homosexuality; I know they're wrong.
Thicker skins, people. You can't fight these things by making wild claims based on the fact that you're hurt because somebody you don't know doesn't like you for some arbitrary reason.
I was also trying to point out that most of this has to do with a political shift to the right in the U.S., and has nothing much to do with individuals at all. And that even if it did, it doesn't matter.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by benjdm:
[They hold that non-theists or homosexuals cannot be good enough citizens to be part of their mission. It's not overheated rhetoric.
You're changing the argument here; this isn't what you said before, which was indeed overheated. And, again: what do you care what they think? They're idiots if they think that, and why would anyone want to belong to such an organization?
quote:
Originally posted by benjdm:
The BSA is an integral part of American culture. The assholes are held up as exemplary organizations of our culture. The activities of sons in the BSA was the main topic of conversation among the fathers at the local poker game last week. At the 4th of July town celebration, three groups did the opening ceremonies: the BSA, the VFW, and the American Legion. To the VFW's credit, they started allowing atheists to join in 2004. The American Legion and BSA both consider atheists second class citizens (the American Legion never admits that the plaintiffs in the Mt. Soledad cross case are veterans but does allow them to join.)
Why should I find it acceptable to be considered a second-class citizen ?
It is not anything like an "integral part of American culture" any longer. That era is over; belonging to the BSA is today a choice that some people make - and not very many any longer.
Anyway, as you said, there are alternatives. Join one, and make it better than the BSA.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
(BTW, girls can't belong to the Boy Scouts, either.)
Posted by benjdm (# 11779) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by benjdm:
[They hold that non-theists or homosexuals cannot be good enough citizens to be part of their mission. It's not overheated rhetoric.
You're changing the argument here; this isn't what you said before, which was indeed overheated.
No, I have merely substituted in their mission from their website.
quote:
It is not anything like an "integral part of American culture" any longer. That era is over; belonging to the BSA is today a choice that some people make - and not very many any longer.
Anyway, as you said, there are alternatives. Join one, and make it better than the BSA.
I'm guessing we are talking past each other. The large loss of membership the BSA is experiencing is at least partially due to the complaining and opposition they are receiving from these stances - such as this mini-topic.
While I was writing this, I got an email from MAAF (Military association of atheists & freethinkers):
quote:
One of our members held a MAAF meeting at his base here in Iraq and ended up being harassed and threatened with UCMJ action by a fundamentalist officer who posed as a "freethinker" in order to get in to the meeting. I forwarded the member's actual report to Jason, but I've done a sanitized write-up (deleted names and references to installations) on what happened for his protection because I expect this to make the rounds of the various interested parties. Here's the story I'm circulating:
Thought you'd be interested in this report of the first-ever meeting of Atheist service-members in Iraq under the umbrella of the MAAF-Iraq chapter of the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers.
One of our members, a young Atheist enlisted soldier, thought he would like to see if he could generate some interest in MAAF meetings at his Forward Operating Base (FOB) here in Iraq (not the base I'm at, by the way). He got things coordinated and started hanging flyers, and after weeks of having to re-hang his flyers almost daily because some vandal kept tearing them down, he finally succeeded in having a small MAAF meeting. I wasn't there because the meeting wasn't on my FOB, but I knew he was holding it and was expecting to hear from him after the meeting. Keep in mind that this young soldier did everything right - he went through the Chaplain's office and jumped through all the hoops it takes to legally hold meetings that are religiously or philosophically based. Four soldiers attended this meeting - all of them very junior enlisted soldiers with the exception of one Major (an O-4), who claimed to be a "freethinker".
Well, to make a very long story a little shorter, the Major turned out to be a fundamentalist Christian who verbally berated the other attendees, accused them of plotting against Christians and disrespecting soldiers who have died protecting the Constitution, and threatened them with punishment under the UCMJ for their activities (said they were "going down") and said he would do whatever it took to shut the meetings down. Keep in mind that by this point, he had two of the attendees (one soldier fled when the shouting started) standing at the position of attention so that he could yell at them, berate them, and humiliate them. This apparently went on for several minutes at which time the Major shut down the meeting by saying he wasn't some "push-over Chaplain" and that he would not tolerate the meetings to continue.
The young MAAF member who hosted the meeting is absolutely freaked out about what happened, but he said he's going to continue with the meetings and isn't going to be bullied by the prayer warriors. I've advised him to immediately notify the Chaplain sponsor of what happened to get guidance while I try to figure out what to do next. I should hear something back from him tonight sometime and there's even a small possibility I might be able to score a mission to his FOB and attend one of his meetings in the next few weeks (if I do, I'll meet with the Chaplain in person).
As for immediate action, he's going to get me the names of his Chaplain sponsor and the name of the officer who disrupted the meeting. My intent right now is to make a formal report to the most senior Chaplain I can find along with possibly an Equal Opportunity complaint against the officer if we can get him fully identified. I may not be eligible to make that complaint because I wasn't there, but I can at least smooth the way for this young troop to make one if he elects to. At the very least, I can make the EO office formally aware of what happened there.
More info will follow when I get it, but right now, feel free to disseminate this information since I've intentionally sanitized it for names and locations. I will be happy to forward any words of support to him if they get mailed to my email address - he could really use some encouragement right now, I think.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by benjdm:
I'm guessing we are talking past each other. The large loss of membership the BSA is experiencing is at least partially due to the complaining and opposition they are receiving from these stances - such as this mini-topic.
No, it has been in steep decline - like every other civic organization - since the 1970s. People don't join things the way they used to - and when they do, they don't join the same organizations they used to.
The same thing happened to religion also. The fastest-growing segment of the population is the "unchurched" today. I suppose both declines - in church membership and in BSA membership - could be partly because of complaints about some of these issues, but it seems much more likely that it's because people don't want to belong to organizations that take the sorts of stances they do. In the case of religion, it's a reaction against the "religious" right's attempted takeover of the political system - and of course against the hysteria and irrationality of a lot of right-wing religious groups.
IOW, people are getting fed up on their own with the positions and actions of these organizations, and are just voting with their feet.
[ 02. August 2007, 15:33: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
In the case of the military, actions that exclude atheists are clearly illegal. I've heard, in fact, that the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs had become a de facto branch of Evangelical Christianity. Not just plain Christianity, or religion; but Evangelical Christianity in particular. And this was fairly well-known to be the case, too; open preferential treatment for Evangelicals over anybody else.
There are some court cases in the works on this right now, I think.
Posted by benjdm (# 11779) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
(BTW, girls can't belong to the Boy Scouts, either.)
If the Girls Scouts renamed and opened up to boys, the whole thing would go away. I just need to talk them into it...
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by benjdm:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
(BTW, girls can't belong to the Boy Scouts, either.)
If the Girls Scouts renamed and opened up to boys, the whole thing would go away. I just need to talk them into it...
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by benjdm (# 11779) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
No, it has been in steep decline - like every other civic organization - since the 1970s. People don't join things the way they used to - and when they do, they don't join the same organizations they used to.
But when you compare the steepness of the declines, the BSA is even steeper than the others - or at least in the limited comparisons I looked at.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by benjdm:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
No, it has been in steep decline - like every other civic organization - since the 1970s. People don't join things the way they used to - and when they do, they don't join the same organizations they used to.
But when you compare the steepness of the declines, the BSA is even steeper than the others - or at least in the limited comparisons I looked at.
Yeah, I haven't looked at those stats in particular.
Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by benjdm:
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
quote:
Originally posted by benjdm:
The BSA is no such thing. The BSA claims "The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law."
Do we really have to go round in circles here? The scout oath includes doing one's duty to God and one's country.
So does the Girl Scout's oath. You just make that part of the oath optional. The military oath of enlistment includes an optional 'so help me God.' It wouldn't be like they had to reinvent the wheel.
I must be misunderstanding what you're saying.
The mission of the BSA is to <do certain stuff> by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law. Their vision statement is to "prepare every eligible youth in America to become a responsible, participating citizen and leader who is guided by the Scout Oath and Law". So making the oath optional would be to shift the BSA's focus as dramatically as if Christianity made the Nicene Creed optional.
As TubaMirium says, all this shows is that the BSA contain some exclusivist arseholes who don't want to get to know People who Aren't Like Them. This isn't new information, though. I already knew that arseholes existed in the world, and that there are plenty of arseholes who would think I was a twonk if they met me. So what? It doesn't offend me that the National Secular Society would think this; I know they're wrong and am happy for them to keep on having their wrong ideas in isolation, if they so please.
Posted by benjdm (# 11779) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
The mission of the BSA is to <do certain stuff> by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law. Their vision statement is to "prepare every eligible youth in America to become a responsible, participating citizen and leader who is guided by the Scout Oath and Law". So making the oath optional would be to shift the BSA's focus as dramatically as if Christianity made the Nicene Creed optional.
So let me get this straight. If I complain about the National Motto or the Pledge of Allegiance or whatever, I should just STFU because it's only a word. If I complain about the Boy Scouts, I should just STFU because their motto contains certain words, and you can't just ignore or modify those.
quote:
As TubaMirium says, all this shows is that the BSA contain some exclusivist arseholes who don't want to get to know People who Aren't Like Them. This isn't new information, though. I already knew that arseholes existed in the world, and that there are plenty of arseholes who would think I was a twonk if they met me. So what? It doesn't offend me that the National Secular Society would think this; I know they're wrong and am happy for them to keep on having their wrong ideas in isolation, if they so please.
The National Secular Society would be analogous to a church or the Knights of Columbus. How in the world could you compare them to the BSA ?
If we are both agreed that the BSA national leadership are arseholes for taking the positions they've taken, what are we arguing about, anyway ?
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
....the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs had become a de facto branch of Evangelical Christianity. Not just plain Christianity, or religion; but Evangelical Christianity in particular.....
This evangelical military academy would have offended me greatly when I was a Christian!
Liberties, ie church and state seperation, matters to some of us PASSIONATELY. If someone wants to piss away their rights, feel free, but don't piss away mine while they're at it, thank them very much.
Regarding thick skin.
Some of us have incredibly thick skin thanks to the Ship, etc. and yet also fight the fights that we are presented with. I am one of the non-theists that can stand up and say "FUCK YOU" to whomever it may concern with regards to this issue, and I basically have. OTOH, I think that this persecution of atheists is bullshit and needs addressing everywhere its found for the atheists.nontheists that aren't able or willing for whatever reason (i.e persefuckingcution) to stand up and tell Christians (the ones that say stupid shit anyway) et al, that atheists are some lesser being and deserve to be chased out of their communities, or whatever else stupid shit "they" say.
If someone(s) here is taking this personally it's probably because many of the people here are HUMAN, and the last time I checked nobody liked being treated like shit. Telling them to "get a thicker skin" is so fucking unhelpful that it is only useful in showing the person saying it for what kind of person that THEY are. I will let THEM decide for themselves if perhaps they have thickened their skin so much that they are incapable of humanity and treating others with respect even when they disagree with them.
Not addressed to TM:
We have watched at least two or more supposed Christians on this thread be complete and utter bigoted assholes (NOT NAMING NAMES) so often that it is amazing to us atheist.nontheist folks off-thread. But I guess that just goes to show what atheists/nontheists have to put up with. It is SO ironic that the people screaming for "proof" the loudest are also the ones bashing the hardest.
It's not amazing at all come to think of it, it is just another proof of concept to what I and others are saying, to an outside observer/audience.
Do go on.
Posted by Beautiful_Dreamer (# 10880) on
:
I wouldn't feel comfortable with likening any problems I have as a Christian (or an atheist, when I was one) to the problems suffered by nonwhites and gays, as some have here. The reason is this: When I was an atheist, I was one because I chose to be that way. I could have sought out religion if I wanted to, but I did not. When I became a Christian, it was by choice. Gays and nonwhites have no choice in the matter, so there is, IMO, no comparison to the problems someone has because of a choice they made, assuming they knew what they were getting into. And in my case, I did. If I hadn't, or if my faith were something I were born with, then I might see it differently. I can only speak for myself, so that is what I am doing. Your mileage may vary. I don't deny that things can be unpleasant for atheists in some situations, but I wouldn't compare their problems to those of other marginalized groups who had no choice in what they are.
Posted by Matins (# 11644) on
:
I don't think atheists can choose to believe in God any more than a gay person can choose to be attracted to the opposite sex. They can cover it up about the same. This would mean being ashamed or even dishonest about who they were.
Still, I don't believe persecution of atheists is a wide spread phenomenon. Atheists potentially face discrimination. Most people do for some reason or another. In most cases, its illegal. Some Christians don't think very highly of atheists. Some atheists don't like Christians. The problem is that Christians find the most outspoken atheists obnoxious. If atheists want to be accepted by Christians, they should change that. Atheists have a right to equal protection under the law. They don't have the right to be liked or accepted.
Posted by benjdm (# 11779) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beautiful_Dreamer:
The reason is this: When I was an atheist, I was one because I chose to be that way.
That's an amazing ability. I could not choose to be either a theist or an atheist any more than I could choose to believe Superman is real or my wife is fictional. All I could do is lie about my status, which I grant is pretty easy.
Posted by J. J. Ramsey (# 1174) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by benjdm:
So let me get this straight. If I complain about the National Motto or the Pledge of Allegiance or whatever, I should just STFU because it's only a word. If I complain about the Boy Scouts, I should just STFU because their motto contains certain words, and you can't just ignore or modify those.
Apples and oranges alert! The National Motto or the Pledge of Allegiance are on thin ice because they at the very least come dangerously close to conflicting with the founding document of the U.S., especially the establishment clause of the First Amendment. That's not a factor with the Boy Scouts.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by benjdm:
That's an amazing ability. I could not choose to be either a theist or an atheist any more than I could choose to believe Superman is real or my wife is fictional. All I could do is lie about my status, which I grant is pretty easy.
But obviously people change from one state to another, and fairly regularly. Atheists become believers and vice versa.
I did. She did. Even George says he did. So how do we explain that?
Posted by benjdm (# 11779) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I did. She did. Even George says he did. So how do we explain that?
I'm guessing either:
A) Changed such that the same data led you to conclude theism
or
B) Acquired new data that led you to conclude theism
or some combination of the two. If you can choose your conclusions at will, you can do something I cannot.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by benjdm:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I did. She did. Even George says he did. So how do we explain that?
I'm guessing either:
A) Changed such that the same data led you to conclude theism
or
B) Acquired new data that led you to conclude theism
or some combination of the two. If you can choose your conclusions at will, you can do something I cannot.
Well, I do think there is some "choosing" involved in some cases, actually. People with one mindset have to make a conscious choice to take seriously the other viewpoint. Sometimes it comes as "revelation" - the "aha!" moment - but most of the time it's a choice.
I had to do that in A.A. - and so do most others. People in trouble often have to choose to give up their previous point of view in order to get out of the trouble - and that's a choice.
And it would also be a choice, if you're a believer, to pay attention to whatever doubts you might have and to accept that God might not exist, and think about what that might mean.
Probably there are just some who don't believe and never will - or, on the other side, some who do believe and never won't. But I'd think they're in the minority, actually; I bet most people are potential switchers. That's just a guess, though.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
This guy has some interesting things to say along those lines, actually. He's a serious conservative and a long-time homo-hater, but I've always liked his writing.
Anyway, he's going through some interesting changes. Thought you might like to read it.
[ 03. August 2007, 02:44: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on
:
If somebody forms a society for left-handed men named Phil, would right-handers or left-handed men named Bert complain they were being unfairly treated? Must every private group be open to any person? Why? Why can't left-handed men named Phil have their silly little organization?
Similarly the Boy Scouts are for people who can promise to be Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Clean, and Reverent, and who promise on their honor to do their duty to God and Country (among other things). While one could defintely argue that there's no reason a gay boy couldn't promise to be all those things, but surely an atheist could not.
The criteria for membership isn't saying that atheists are worse than theists, or that only theists can be good citizens, or anything of the sort, although I suppose people in the group could say that, but they would be going beyond their remit. But merely for exclusing atheists? The God Thing is just part of what the group is about. It may be petty-minded, it may be absurd, but it's their right to gather based on criteria of their own choosing, however arbitrary or foolish people outside the group may think them.
So what's the problem, really, with a group that wants to weave theism into their raison d'etre? Who the hell gives a fuck, and if they do, why?
Posted by benjdm (# 11779) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
And it would also be a choice, if you're a believer, to pay attention to whatever doubts you might have and to accept that God might not exist, and think about what that might mean.
Oh, sure, I agree with that. But if you pay attention to whatever doubts, etc., and you still believe, can you choose to believe otherwise ?
quote:
Probably there are just some who don't believe and never will - or, on the other side, some who do believe and never won't. But I'd think they're in the minority, actually; I bet most people are potential switchers. That's just a guess, though.
Potential switching is not the same thing as being able to choose. My dog has been both non-neutered and neutered at different times in his life and did not choose.
In any case, I have become convinced some people can choose what they believe. Interestingly, only theists have convinced me. I can't choose what I believe.
Posted by benjdm (# 11779) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
So what's the problem, really, with a group that wants to weave theism into their raison d'etre? Who the hell gives a fuck, and if they do, why?
Those of us who are not theists and want our kids to have fun and be a part of the community ? Perhaps be eligible for being honored by the local government for attaining Eagle status, etc. ? Participate in the government funded Boy Scout Jamboree ?
Should I stop criticizing the group and opposing its policies ? Why ?
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on
:
Because it's stupid? No reason why atheists can't make their own organization for their kids to have fun in. Why bust down somebody else's door? It's like stupid people wanting to join Mensa. They're doubly stupid.
Posted by benjdm (# 11779) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
Because it's stupid? No reason why atheists can't make their own organization for their kids to have fun in. Why bust down somebody else's door? It's like stupid people wanting to join Mensa. They're doubly stupid.
But we are doing both. Camp Quest was started in response to this and Campfire Boys and Girls clubs have gotten more support.
It is nothing like stupid people wanting to join Mensa. Theism is not an integral part of scouting, no matter how many times people point me at the scout oath. The other scouting organizations worldwide that also have such oaths and don't discriminate have shown that.
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on
:
It's not intrinsic to camping or playing steal-the-bacon or any number of things, no. If that's all Scouts is, then it would be absurd for them to exclude atheists or girls or whatever. Clearly some people think there's more to it than that. They wound God into both their Law and their Oath, long before there was anything like a vocal atheist minority. Do you think they did it just to keep those evil icky bad atheists at bay? Or maybe it really meant something to them? No, couldn't be that.
All you've shown is that there can be groups that don't have a theistic belief structure that do many of the same things as the Boy Scouts do. I don't think Scouting USA (or whatever the UK equivalent is called) would gainsay you. But that's not the point.
[ 03. August 2007, 03:33: Message edited by: MouseThief ]
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
Because it's stupid? No reason why atheists can't make their own organization for their kids to have fun in. Why bust down somebody else's door? It's like stupid people wanting to join Mensa. They're doubly stupid.
Perhaps because people do draw arbitrary lines around things. It's not okay for men to banish women from "their own" jobs. It's not okay for whites to banish blacks from "their own organizaiton" and yes, it's not okay for Boy Scouts to banish Atheists and Homosexuals from their own organization.
Quite frankly I'm not sure it's okay for Mensa to ban anyone either, although I can't imagine why anyone, no matter how smart, would want to join them anyway. But maybe I'm just not that much of a smart arrogant fuck (shoot away).
Posted by benjdm (# 11779) on
:
How rude of me to complain. Why should I complain about not being able to be a part of things such as:
quote:
Great to see so many teenagers still enjoying Scouting, and having fun at the Jamboree.
quote:
I cannot speak highly enough of my time in Sea Scouts. It accompanied me through the worst "growing up" years, and taught me leadership, the value of earning trust, skills in electricity, plumbing, carpentry and many other things, as well as a love of the sea. I can't recommend it highly enough.
Posted by you, no less!!!!
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=008010#000009
(found by searching for 'boy scouts' in subforum 'Heaven.') Could you point me out the part of the thread where theism was an integral part of anyone's experiences ? I can't find it.
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on
:
Ah, that thread exhausts everything there is to say about scouting, does it?
Truth be told for much of the time I was a boy scout, I was an atheist. Which I think I've already said on this thread. They never tossed me out, even when I complained about the benediction prayer the scoutmaster ended a campfire "service" (iykwim) with. ("What about people who don't believe in God?" I naively asked. "How can you not believe in God?" he asked. That was it.)
Every summer camp I went to had a "chapel" -- a clearing in the woods with benches, where an older scout held vaguely non-denominational "services". In point of fact few people went. I went in part out of curiosity (are there religious people that aren't complete obnoxious jerks?) and partly to be a pain in the ass. And the "service" consisted in loose chatter, the only part of which I recall was my being told how obnoxiously Christian the Chronicles of Narnia were, and how instead I should read the Lord of the Rings. (Which I went and did when I got home!) It never up to that time occurred to me that Narnia was obnoxiously Christian, because I didn't know a whole lot about Christianity.
When I was in Sea Scouts at a Regatta (rough equivalent of a Jamboree), they demanded that everyone be in the chapel service on Sunday morning (it was at a Navy base). A handful of us begged out because, as we said, we had our own religion. And we spent the time poking fun at religion and religious people. And we still weren't kicked out.
Was I a hypocrite, then? Probably. Was I perjuring myself when I said the oath and recited the law? Yeah, probably. Did I care? Nah, it never even occurred to me then. But at no time did anybody give me a test to ensure my religious leanings, or was I ever asked point-blank what my beliefs were. And being that they're a private organisation, I just don't see why they can't have all this religious stuff if they want it. I'm glad they didn't kick me out, because I gained a lot from it. If they had, I would have found somewhere else to gain a lot (and been even more bitter about religion for a longer time than I was anyway).
So are things different where you are? Do you have to present your child's baptismal certificate for them to enroll? Are you afraid that your child will perjure himself, or worse, actually start to believe that crap? Tired of being a stealth atheist and want to scream it from the rooftops? Why tilt at this particular windmill?
Posted by benjdm (# 11779) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
So are things different where you are? Do you have to present your child's baptismal certificate for them to enroll? Are you afraid that your child will perjure himself, or worse, actually start to believe that crap? Tired of being a stealth atheist and want to scream it from the rooftops?
I only have girls, so this is not a personal issue for me. But since I organize a local atheist meetup group (is that shouting it from the rooftops ?) there would be no stealth. Also, my understanding is for Cub Scouts it is not the child making the religious declaration but the parent.
I was also a Boy Scout while I was an atheist - I lied about the topic all the time as a kid.
quote:
Why tilt at this particular windmill?
It is both a reflection and a contributing factor of the culture that says I am not to be considered a member. They spin me up to no end.
Posted by Socratic-enigma (# 12074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Why tilt at this particular windmill?
quote:
Originally posted by benjdm:
It is both a reflection and a contributing factor of the culture that says I am not to be considered a member. They spin me up to no end.
There was some kerfuffle in the early nineties, when our newly installed Governor-General (Queen's rep. and Head of State - and nominal patron of the 'Boy Scouts of Australia') reiterated that he was an atheist.
Sacre Bleu! This resulted in hasty scrambling to find a suitable replacement patron until the 'born-to-rule' Conservatives (Liberal Party) were returned to office and duly appointed a suitable God-fearing man to the position.
Whils't in Australia, being an atheist is not generally a disadvantage (we even had an atheist Prime-Minister in the 80s), there has of late, been a disturbing resurgence in religiosity - facillitated to some degree by American Charismatic/Pentacostal/Conservative/Evangelicals (and their local clones) who particularly target the young.
Our current crop of pollies have been clambering over each other to demonstrate their personal religious fervour - which previously would have been considered distinctly unAustralian.
Many of us find this disturbing.
I also think it might be useful to distinguish between atheist and non-believer (although I realise they're technically the same).
To me an atheist, is someone who has considered the merits of religion, and found them incompatible with their world view - conversion is not a possibility.
One may be a non-believer through ignorance, rebellion or simply through experiencing periods of extreme doubt - but it does not (in my personal view) make you an atheist.
TM,
Thanks for the excellent article - I'm sending it to some of my (Christian) friends.
S-E
Posted by dogwonderer (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
No reason why atheists can't make their own organization for their kids to have fun in. Why bust down somebody else's door? It's like stupid people wanting to join Mensa. They're doubly stupid.
I don’t wish to be part of the Scouts movement myself, so it might seem fair of you to question why I’m complaining about being ineligible to join.
But there’s a very important principle here at stake. To be discriminated against as unsuitable for membership of a group on the basis of personal beliefs is unacceptable, in this day and age. I’m quite sure you appreciate this.
If Christians were excluded from my Golf Club on the basis of their religion, it would not matter one jot if it happened to be written into the Club constitution. You would consider it wrong in principle to be discriminated against on that basis.
What the BSA is doing is discrimination. To condone it, implicitly or otherwise, is worse.
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
No reason why atheists can't make their own organization for their kids to have fun in. Why bust down somebody else's door? It's like stupid people wanting to join Mensa. They're doubly stupid.
I don’t wish to be part of the Scouts movement myself, so it might seem fair of you to question why I’m complaining about being ineligible to join.
But there’s a very important principle here at stake. To be discriminated against as unsuitable for membership of a group on the basis of personal beliefs is unacceptable, in this day and age. I’m quite sure you appreciate this.
Not if the group being joined has those beliefs as a core part of what it's about. So it's ok for a church to insist on only baptised people on the PCC, but not for a golf club to refuse to accept Christians, because a Church is about religious beliefs in a way that a golf club is not. The difficulty with the Scouts is that it is perceived as secular from the outside, but sees itself has having a strong spiritual dimension. Thus outsiders think that it is strange/wrong that they should exclude atheists but inside it the line about `duty to God' isn't just an optional extra but a key part of it.
I was surprised to find that the Scouts in the UK make it clear that they do not regard themselves as open to atheists because I'd always thought of them as secular. This reflects the situation where I grew up where our church had brownies/guides and boys brigade who had termly church parades. The Scout troups were not church sponsored and only turned up for Remembrance Day and possibly St George's Day. However, looking at their resources, I see that faith stuff is potentially a strong part of what they do. There are factsheets about faith here
From the first of them
quote:
The Scout Association is an open organisation and its membership is drawn from a variety of religious backgrounds all of whom make a Promise to 'do their Duty to God.' Although many Members have little or no contact with religion they fully support the values of The Scout Movement. Scouting works in partnership with religious communities to help its Members develop their understanding of God. Chaplains/Advisers have a very important role to play in this partnership. We hope that this pack will be a starting point for all those undertaking these important
I think comments or implications that atheists can't be good citizens are wrong, but I don't think that that means that they have to let them in. I don't think there should be a witch-hunt either. I'd be inclined to take the line that if they're prepared to say the oath (with its reference to God) that that's good enough. I think that's where the BSA have gone too far. This appears to be a shift in recent times given that Mousethief's experience was of the sort I would expect.
Excluding people on their sexuality is definitely wrong. And I'm very pleased to find that in the UK this is made clear. I just searched their factsheets for sexuality and found a document headed 'it's OK to be Gay and a Scout.
Carys
Posted by seasick (# 48) on
:
As someone who was a scout, I can't say that it was my experience that faith was an important part of it. On normal evening meetings I don't think there was any 'religious' stuff at all. If we were on camp and it was Sunday then there would be a Scouts' Own service, but that was school assembly religion really. Annual carol service, remembrance day and St George's day services if you bothered to turn up for them (which most people didn't). We certainly had no chaplains or advisers.
Posted by dogwonderer (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
quote:
The Scout Association is an open organisation and its membership is drawn from a variety of religious backgrounds all of whom make a Promise to 'do their Duty to God.' Although many Members have little or no contact with religion they fully support the values of The Scout Movement. Scouting works in partnership with religious communities to help its Members develop their understanding of God. Chaplains/Advisers have a very important role to play in this partnership. We hope that this pack will be a starting point for all those undertaking these important
You'd think the kids of atheist parents would be the first on their list of most desirable applicants, if the above truly represents their raison d'être! Think about it.
Certainly, it seems a very weak justification for exclusive discrimination, ISTM.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
Well, I certainly hope the BSA ends their unjust discrimination against girls very soon.
It's really not any different, you know; if it is, please explain how. I think the BSA is being stupid, but it's certainly within their rights to be stupid. And if you want to be consistent you'll have to argue against the "no-girls" policy too. Are you prepared to do that?
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
If Christians were excluded from my Golf Club on the basis of their religion, it would not matter one jot if it happened to be written into the Club constitution. You would consider it wrong in principle to be discriminated against on that basis.
If belonging to the golf club were necessary to, say, get a job with city government, or the golf club were a municipally owned one, then yes I would consider it wrong because of my very strong belief in the separation clause.
And certainly I might resent it very much (hopefully not in a petulant way), especially if I had a golf Jones and this was the only course within a day's drive.
But I don't consider it wrong on principle for a private group to have bizarre membership criteria. That's just part of the right of peaceful assembly. Certainly in terms of evangelism (or neutralangelism for atheists?) it seems counterproductive. Although evangelism is not always a prime consideration. And if the internet is a decent representation, as a Christian I would find it very difficult to be the only believer in a group of atheists, having a particularly strong attachment to my bowels, and liking to keep them both whole and inside my body.
Which immediately raises the question of groups that want to keep out blacks or Jews or disabled people, which I do consider wrong on principle. Making me either hypocritical or wishy-washy depending on how charitable one is feeling.
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
....Which immediately raises the question of groups that want to keep out blacks or Jews or disabled people, which I do consider wrong on principle. Making me either hypocritical or wishy-washy depending on how charitable one is feeling.
Herein lies the rub, and thanks for your honesty!
I don't think you are hypocritical or wishy washy, these things are not clear, and it definitely depends on how society draws these often arbitrary distinctions. If you are a member of the persecuted class, of course you want to have your side be allowed to be put "in". And if you are a member of the non-persecuted class, or worse, the persecuting class then you would desire for the persecuted class to be "out".
It is here that the irony of Christians and exclusivity abounds IMO. They want to be loving and neighborly and all that, but not to atheists, or not to gays, or whatever. You can tell a people by their exclusivities.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
Anybody on the girls thing? Anybody at all?
Or are you all just going to continue to persecute us?
[ 03. August 2007, 15:20: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
(Yeah. Thought not.)
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
Geez,
Give us a minute to post already.
I have no problem with the Girl Scouts and the Boy Scouts merging into one Scouts entity. None whatsoever. As long as they accept girl and boy atheists and gays, it's all good.
[ 03. August 2007, 15:28: Message edited by: Mad Geo ]
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
This is timely.
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
Oh my there is more.....
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Geez,
Give us a minute to post already.
I have no problem with the Girl Scouts and the Boy Scouts merging into one Scouts entity. None whatsoever. As long as they accept girl and boy atheists and gays, it's all good.
That's not the question. I'm asking you why you're not making a big stink about girls - you haven't, once - the way you are about atheists. Why aren't you arguing against the Boy Scouts on this basis? Why aren't you trying to destroy the organization on behalf of girls? Are they second-class citizens, to you?
I'll give you plenty of time to figure this one out....
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
You are not serious. Let me break it down for you:
A. Boy Scouts
B. Girl Scouts
C. Equality.
A+B=C
Got it?
And Oh By The Way, someone not that long ago gave me an ass chewing for using gays and women as examples of discrimination. I WONDER who THAT could possibly BE? I wonder why I am gun shy to answer questions along those lines until someone else asks the question. Apparently us atheists.nontheists aren't allowed to point out the obvious with regards to gays and women's issues. The fact that I am DEEPLY and SINCERELY concerned that women and gays be treated as stone cold equals is apparently immaterial for Buddha-knows-what-stupid-fucking- reason. I am likewise concerned that atheists.nonthiests get a fair deal too. But clearly YMMustV.
But I digress.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
You are not serious. Let me break it down for you:
A. Boy Scouts
B. Girl Scouts
C. Equality.
A+B=C
Got it?
No. The Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts aren't equivalent; the Girl Scouts were formed later as a totally separate organization. Get it? The two organizations have different policies and different structures.
And today there are plenty of scouting organizations that accept all boys, even ones shut out by the Boy Scouts. Get it?
[ 03. August 2007, 15:52: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
And Oh By The Way, someone not that long ago gave me an ass chewing for using gays and women as examples of discrimination. I WONDER who THAT could possibly BE? I wonder why I am gun shy to answer questions along those lines until someone else asks the question. Apparently us atheists.nontheists aren't allowed to point out the obvious with regards to gays and women's issues. The fact that I am DEEPLY and SINCERELY concerned that women and gays be treated as stone cold equals is apparently immaterial for Buddha-knows-what-stupid-fucking- reason.
Well, it's simple: you've been an abusive jerk to me, not once but several times. Sorry it comes as such a shock to you that I don't like you.
Posted by benjdm (# 11779) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Anybody on the girls thing? Anybody at all?
Or are you all just going to continue to persecute us?
Actually, I would agree with you. But since right now Girl Scouts have (IMO) the superior group and I can't find any females asking for my support in opposing the policy...'til now, that is.
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on
:
I do not agree. I think adolescense is a time when people are working out a lot of stuff that is far easier to work out (or at least some major bits of it are) in a unisex setting.
[ 03. August 2007, 16:14: Message edited by: MouseThief ]
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
I do not agree. I think adolescense is a time when people are working out a lot of stuff that is far easier to work out (or at least some major bits of it are) in a unisex setting.
Yes, I agree with this.
I was being facetious above; my point was to demonstrate the inconsistencies in the arguments that are being made here.
People who claim to be Libertarians shouldn't get so bent out of shape about this, actually.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
(And please, the sad story about "being chewed out" hasn't stopped you, MadMan, from arguing against the Boy Scouts on behalf of gay boys.
You just didn't think about girls - or else you recognized that what Mousethief says is right and that it might weaken your argument.
Come off it, really.)
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Yes, I agree with this.
I was being facetious above; my point was to demonstrate the inconsistencies in the arguments that are being made here.
Okay, missed that. I think my irony meter is in need of some serious calibration.
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
MTs on a roll today. Well said.
TM
If girl scouts aren't equivelent (which I don't grant you), whose fault is that? You cannot seriously be saying that they need to mash up with boy scouts because the women in charge can't (persumably) emulate the best aspects of the other organization, are you?
As for your personal issues, it takes two to tango. You aren't exactly the Patron Saint of Diplomatic Language yourself. What was it someone said recently? Ah yes, something to the effect of "Get a thicker skin".
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
Crossposted. Your irony meter isn't off. The delivery was.
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
My but this thread is going fast.
TM,
"MadMan" is unacceptable. Before you can claim persecution by me, I suggest you try to actually look like a victim first.
Someone else brought up gay boys first IIRC. But it's no matter, I subsequently decided I'd use whatever groups I see fit. No point in letting someone else's personal issues get in the way of a discussion.
[ 03. August 2007, 16:41: Message edited by: Mad Geo ]
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
"MadMan" is unacceptable. Before you can claim persecution by me, I suggest you try to actually look like a victim first.
Someone else brought up gay boys first IIRC. But it's no matter, I subsequently decided I'd use whatever groups I see fit. No point in letting someone else's personal issues get in the way of a discussion.
I'm not claiming to be a "victim," or that I'm "persecuted" by you of all people; you can have the victim act all to yourself.
You wondered why you were getting the reception you were; I told you, that's all. Don't ask if you don't want to know.
Posted by historyguy (# 12888) on
:
Hello all,
First post!
I think that the Boy/Girl Scouts need to define themselves further if they do not want to allow certain populations to join. So long as they state up front that they are a group based on a particular religious ethos, I have no problem with their limiting their membership to those who agree with their views.
As for the broader question of this thread, it seems to me that there is a fundamental difference between embracing someone's beliefs on a personal level and accepting their right to believe how they wish.
I can (and we should) accept a person's right to be gay, atheist, Christian, or Muslim without embracing any of those beliefs to be "right" in a spiritual sense. Of course, I may not want to elect someone to office who does not share my worldview, but if my worldview is in the minority or if I define my voting criteria too narrowly, I'll likely lose.
By this definition, I do not believe that (in most cases) atheists are persecuted. Certainly there are exceptions that I have seen, having spent a number of years living in the most theocratic state in the U.S. - Utah. But for the most part I consider this claim to be a hyperbolic use of the word "persecution". Blacks, Jews, and gays can certainly make such a claim, but atheists? Not very often.
However, as an American I believe that one of our founders, James Madison, was right when he warned against the "tyranny of the majority". Most Western nations, of course, have adopted mechanisms to protect minority belief systems and identities.
These systems are constantly circumvented by those of an ideological bent (whether they be common citizens or the President of the U.S.), but there's only so far that they can go before people and elements in the government reel them in. Call me naive, but even the overt racism that characterized the U.S. for most of its history was eventually dealt with (although it took far too long for that to occur).
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
Well that was as productive as expected. Clearly your desire to hold a grudge overwhelms your desire to have a discussion. The Christian Love is underwhelming I gotta say.
I still demand respect, even if hateful. Cease and desist with the name calling.
I'll tell you what.
I throw out a fresh start, an olive branch as it were. You try to be as good in Purg with me as you can be, and I will do the same with you. I plan to anyway. Since that is The Commandments and all, I think that's a fair offer. You may attack the issue not the person and all that.
Meanwhile the discussion can continue, regardless.
The math is again simple,
Girl Scouts have their version of Boy Scouts which meets the requirements of equitable-ness. Gays and Atheists do not (or at least not that I am aware of). We do not tolerate persecution of minorities in such matters, or at least we shouldn’t.
It is an interesting question as to WHY people feel the need to discriminate against gay and atheist boy scouts, isn’t it? They clearly think they are inferior in some way. Those ways are probably that they are afraid that they will 1) corrupt them with other ways of viewing the world 2) inferior ethical stances 3) pedophilia (in the case of gays).
Since 1 is to be desired and 2 and 3 are absurd, unless there is some other motive at play, why would one support prejudice such as displayed by the Scouts?
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Girl Scouts have their version of Boy Scouts which meets the requirements of equitable-ness. Gays and Atheists do not (or at least not that I am aware of).
Why don't the atheists make one? I understand the gay thing because most teenage people aren't even sure about their sexuality, and the "reverent/duty-to-God <> gay" thing is debatable. But "reverent/duty-to-God <> atheist" is hard for me to argue with. It's like a bunch of buddhists in Podunk, Mississippi saying "there's not enough of us to start a temple, so the Christians have to let us in, and moreover alter their teachings so that our religious views aren't discriminated against."
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
Why don't blacks?
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on
:
I've already admitted my hypocrisy in that regard. Now go play nicely with your toys.
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
And there you go. I was merely answering your question.
I had to leave my toys at home. Work and all that.
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on
:
I think there is historic reason to think that discriminating against blacks goes against the core of Christian teaching. Not enlarging one's doctrine to include Buddhism doesn't seem so nearly so central.
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
Actually, "Love thy neighbor" seems pretty fundie to me. YbiasMV
[ 03. August 2007, 18:30: Message edited by: Mad Geo ]
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
The Christian Love is underwhelming I gotta say.
Oh, right. That's what we were talking about before.
It's impossible to chide anybody for a lack of "athiest love," isn't it?
Posted by dogwonderer (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
It's impossible to chide anybody for a lack of "athiest love," isn't it?
I'm not quite sure what you're insinuating, drenched as it seems to be in sarcasm.
Would you please explain?
Posted by benjdm (# 11779) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
Why don't the atheists make one? I understand the gay thing because most teenage people aren't even sure about their sexuality, and the "reverent/duty-to-God <> gay" thing is debatable.
Gay people are not rejected because of the reverent thing. Gays are obviously incapable of being morally straight.
http://www.bsalegal.org/morally-straight-cases-225.asp
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
It's impossible to chide anybody for a lack of "athiest love," isn't it?
I'm not quite sure what you're insinuating, drenched as it seems to be in sarcasm.
Would you please explain?
Well, it's simple: Christians are expected to show "Christian love" because we are exhorted to "love our neighbors as ourselves."
There's no such standard for atheists. Right?
It's not sarcasm, just a plain fact. We were talking about this on your "hypocrisy" thread, in fact; you yourself said that since there was no specifically atheist standard, there was no way atheists could be scolded for hypocrisy. And since there's no expectation that atheists "love their neighbors," they can't be scolded for failing to do so.
[ 03. August 2007, 19:24: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by benjdm:
Gay people are not rejected because of the reverent thing. Gays are obviously incapable of being morally straight.
I've already addressed this. You may want to scroll up.
Posted by dogwonderer (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Christians are expected to show "Christian love" because we are exhorted to "love our neighbors as ourselves."
Well, I'm your neighbour, and I'm not feeling your Christian love, TubaMirum.
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on
:
We're not required to make you feel it, only to do it.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
Well, I'm your neighbour, and I'm not feeling your Christian love, TubaMirum.
Why not? What have I done?
Posted by dogwonderer (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
Well, I'm your neighbour, and I'm not feeling your Christian love, TubaMirum.
Why not? What have I done?
I'm putting my neck out here. ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
If you need me, an atheist, to tell you what Christian love should feel like, I think we’re in trouble. But, since you ask, I’d presume love to manifest itself as tolerance and understanding when your neighbours complain of feeling discriminated against- not steadfast denial and endless counter-argument that they even should. To me, love would imply kindness, empathy, consideration, even trust, that your neighbour is sincere in his feelings, and a willingness to seek resolution. Instead, I just feel antipathy and intransigence. But that’s okay. I won’t be crying myself to sleep or anything.
Posted by benjdm (# 11779) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
quote:
Originally posted by benjdm:
Gay people are not rejected because of the reverent thing. Gays are obviously incapable of being morally straight.
I've already addressed this. You may want to scroll up.
Well, I'm lost again. You posted 'reverent <> gay' when the basis for excluding homosexuals is not reverence but moral straightness - that's all I was pointing out.
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on
:
Ah, you were unhappy because I wasn't complete enough in my statement? Okay how does this suit:
All the religious requirements of the scout oath and law do not of themselves preclude homosexual scouts.
Posted by benjdm (# 11779) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
Ah, you were unhappy because I wasn't complete enough in my statement? Okay how does this suit:
All the religious requirements of the scout oath and law do not of themselves preclude homosexual scouts.
Of course. Similarly, all the moral requirements of the scout oath and law do not themselves preclude atheist scouts.
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on
:
But the religious ones do.
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
It's impossible to chide anybody for a lack of "athiest love," isn't it?
That's pretty funny actually. As someone once said: Those that behave just to get into heaven, have no values. "Love thy neighbor" indeed. As long as "thy neighbor" is one of those particular genders/creeds/breeds that we approve of, of course.
It's been my observation that many atheists.nonthiests are humanists which affirm the dignity and worth of all people.
Speaking for myself, I respect the Christians that apply their "love thy neighbor" principle wholeheartedly. It has been my experience that they are rare, but they do occur, and many of them on the Ship.
The difference is that atheists/nontheists don't treat their humanism like a marketing gimmick and wave it around like the flag like Christianity does. Pretty hard to do while hiding what you are from the Christians anyway.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
If you need me, an atheist, to tell you what Christian love should feel like, I think we’re in trouble. But, since you ask, I’d presume love to manifest itself as tolerance and understanding when your neighbours complain of feeling discriminated against- not steadfast denial and endless counter-argument that they even should. To me, love would imply kindness, empathy, consideration, even trust, that your neighbour is sincere in his feelings, and a willingness to seek resolution. Instead, I just feel antipathy and intransigence. But that’s okay. I won’t be crying myself to sleep or anything.
Sorry, Dogwonderer.
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
The difference is that atheists/nontheists don't treat their humanism like a marketing gimmick and wave it around like the flag like Christianity does.
No they treat their "rationality" that way.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
That's pretty funny actually. As someone once said: Those that behave just to get into heaven, have no values. "Love thy neighbor" indeed. As long as "thy neighbor" is one of those particular genders/creeds/breeds that we approve of, of course.
It's been my observation that many atheists.nonthiests are humanists which affirm the dignity and worth of all people.
Speaking for myself, I respect the Christians that apply their "love thy neighbor" principle wholeheartedly. It has been my experience that they are rare, but they do occur, and many of them on the Ship.
The difference is that atheists/nontheists don't treat their humanism like a marketing gimmick and wave it around like the flag like Christianity does. Pretty hard to do while hiding what you are from the Christians anyway.
All that in order to avoid the actual point, which is that you can feel free to use other people's known standards against them - but that since others have no idea what any particular atheists' standards are, they can't do the same thing.
Posted by benjdm (# 11779) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
But the religious ones do.
And, apparently, the moral ones preclude homosexuals. Different parts of the oaths / code are the reasons for the exclusions of each.
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on
:
You will persist in misreading me, benjdm. I ask you to stop.
Posted by benjdm (# 11779) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
You will persist in misreading me, benjdm. I ask you to stop.
OK. Can anyone else explain the point to me ?
Posted by dogwonderer (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
...you can feel free to use other people's known standards against them - but that since others have no idea what any particular atheists' standards are, they can't do the same thing.
But I've discovered today that it is not appropriate to group Christians together and judge them accordingly. Likewise with atheists (and we are likely to be even more diverse than Christians, without a Christ to unite us).
So, I'm afraid you have to judge us individually, on our individual merits, and abandon your presumptions about us as a group.
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
All that in order to avoid the actual point, which is that you can feel free to use other people's known standards against them - but that since others have no idea what any particular atheists' standards are, they can't do the same thing.
Perhaps you fail to see that treating people like shit while flag waving a creed that says the opposite (or whatever) is worse than saying nothing at all. I can see how you might want that to be, but I'm, afraid the rest of the world doesn't see it your way.
While I am not thinking MT is a hypocrite, I can respect his understanding of how others might view that as hypocrisy.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
I'm curious, though, why it's considered out of bounds to advise people to get thicker skins in order to fight the injustices against them. For one thing, that specifically gives the lie to the idea that I deny there's discrimination. For another, it's not an insult; it's advice. I've been there and I know. You don't have to be insulted by people who don't like you for ridiculous reasons; that just gives them satisfaction they don't deserve.
And again: I've been arguing that discrimination is not "persecution" - and BTW just about everybody here agrees with me, including both atheists and former atheists. I thought this was a Debate board; are you saying that "Christian love" implies that I have to agree with everything everybody says? That seems vile, to me.
I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings, Dogwonderer, but it wasn't intentional.
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on
:
What did I say, MG? I'm not sure what you're referring to.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
So, I'm afraid you have to judge us individually, on our individual merits, and abandon your presumptions about us as a group.
I don't and can't have any presumptions about atheists as a group, since atheists don't have anything in common, necessarily. That's the whole point.
And you forget: I was an atheist myself. Why in the world do you think we're so different that I can't possibly understand what it's like? Why are you making out that we are so completely different and that I'm one of the "persecutors"? It's insulting, frankly.
Posted by dogwonderer (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings, Dogwonderer, but it wasn't intentional.
You didn't, but thank you for your kind apology- I do appreciate it. FWIW, I do not bear a grudge against you.
I think one of the problems here is when one person decides for another how thick their skin ought to be.
I think there should be a Golden Rule of discrimination: If a person feels discriminated against (rightly or not), it may be more prudent not to contest this fact by disputing the validity of their feelings or by criticising their sensitivity threshold. I cannot imagine this would often be very constructive, and I suspect it would generally reinforce their sense of being discriminated against. Pointless, really.
Love is good, though.
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on
:
There's discrimination and there's persecution. The OP was about the latter. I'm not denying atheists are discriminated against; I don't remember anybody on the thread doing so either although I may be disremembering. The debate (pre-boy-scout anyway) has been about the meaning of "persecution" and whether discrimination counts.
I wouldn't deny anybody their feelings. But I may ask if in relating those feelings to us, they are using the words the way everybody else does, or are at least paying them extra if they're not.
[ 03. August 2007, 21:37: Message edited by: MouseThief ]
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Perhaps you fail to see that treating people like shit while flag waving a creed that says the opposite (or whatever) is worse than saying nothing at all. I can see how you might want that to be, but I'm, afraid the rest of the world doesn't see it your way.
While I am not thinking MT is a hypocrite, I can respect his understanding of how others might view that as hypocrisy.
Stop pretending I'm saying anything about "creeds," please. I'm disagreeing with you on a topic that I have personal experience of myself. Stop making out like we're different species so you can play the put-upon victim.
I don't agree with you on this particular topic; neither do about fifty other people, both current and former atheists. You apparently can't handle that except by attempting to smear me in as many ways as you can think of.
Sad.
Posted by CrookedCucumber (# 10792) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I don't and can't have any presumptions about atheists as a group, since atheists don't have anything in common, necessarily. That's the whole point.
The fact that it is possible to use the word `atheist' of some particular set of people implies that there is at least some commonality of viewpoint, surely? In any event, I'd be inclined to think that there's as much commonality in theological belief among atheists as there is among those people who describe themselves as `Christians'.
However, if you're suggesting that there are no common, objective moral principles that are associated with atheism, I would be inclined to agree. The fact that atheists do have moral standards, and that they are often similar from one person to another, is not because they are atheists, but because they are people.
Having said that, I tend to think that the same is true of Christians as well. Where a bunch of Christians disagrees with a bunch of atheists on some question of morality, it's likely to be question on which Christians themselves disagree. That's my experience, anyhow.
Posted by dogwonderer (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Why are you making out that we are so completely different and that I'm one of the "persecutors"? It's insulting, frankly.
I can see that, and I regret it.
But discrimination is such an emotive issue, I'm like a dog with a bone: I just won't let go. The princple is so important to me. If there's one thing mankind ought to have learnt by now, discrimination on religious grounds is simply unacceptable. I'm honestly surprised by anyone who even offers a counter-argument to this. Especially someone who belongs to one of the most discriminated-against groups in history.
Intolerance cannot be tolerated.
Posted by benjdm (# 11779) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
The fact that it is possible to use the word `atheist' of some particular set of people implies that there is at least some commonality of viewpoint, surely? In any event, I'd be inclined to think that there's as much commonality in theological belief among atheists as there is among those people who describe themselves as `Christians'.
I'd say it is more accurate to say there's as much commonality in theological belief among theists as atheists. <shrug> I'd compare humanists to Christians.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
I think one of the problems here is when one person decides for another how thick their skin ought to be.
I think there should be a Golden Rule of discrimination: If a person feels discriminated against (rightly or not), it may be more prudent not to contest this fact by disputing the validity of their feelings or by criticising their sensitivity threshold. I cannot imagine this would often be very constructive, and I suspect it would generally reinforce their sense of being discriminated against. Pointless, really.
Love is good, though.
Well, you might be right about the "skins" thing. I really meant to just say, "Fuck 'em" and that they weren't worth getting worked up over.
It doesn't matter what these people think; they are wrong. That's all. But I will take your advice and not say it that way again.
Most of this, I think, is that I'm fighting with George and the particular way he (euphemistically speaking) "debates," and unfortunately I think you're in the crossfire. But I never meant most of these comments against you at all.
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
But I don't consider it wrong on principle for a private group to have bizarre membership criteria. That's just part of the right of peaceful assembly....
....Which immediately raises the question of groups that want to keep out blacks or Jews or disabled people, which I do consider wrong on principle. Making me either hypocritical or wishy-washy depending on how charitable one is feeling.
Actually TM, my bad, apologies, when I said that about creeds I was NOT referring to you, but to (some) Christians, whom you seem to be defending with regards to this issue of prejudice against atheists whilst professing "love thy neighbor". I did not intend for you to own that.
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Stop pretending I'm saying anything about "creeds," please. I'm disagreeing with you on a topic that I have personal experience of myself. Stop making out like we're different species so you can play the put-upon victim.
I don't agree with you on this particular topic; neither do about fifty other people, both current and former atheists. You apparently can't handle that except by attempting to smear me in as many ways as you can think of.
I want to make it clear again that I am not a victim here. I am one of the ones that WOULD "put it out there" if it were relevant and I have here to be sure. I would be selective WHERE I put it out there as I too want to keep my job etc. But some of my personal experiences might be considerably victim-like for someone with thinner skin, so it is relevant to the conversation.
As for your 50 (...not....) people you're in agreement with..... Well YEAH. It's a Christian board!
DW, Benjdm, myself, and others are the CLEAR minority here, so having numbers on your side and taking it as some kind of Manifest Destiny that you are right is a wee bit, well, hillarious. Good luck with that.
I have already said I will behave. You can assume any "smearing" is probably mud that you are standing in, or something. I am NOT trying to slam you.
P.S. George is also not my name. It is short for Geologist.
[ 03. August 2007, 21:53: Message edited by: Mad Geo ]
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
I might also add that the way you debate TM is so similar to the way I debate it is truly a pot, kettle, black and probably why we WERE both getting under each others skin. That is not a dig, it is an observation.
Posted by dogwonderer (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
..unfortunately I think you're in the crossfire. But I never meant most of these comments against you at all.
Not at all- please don't worry about the crossfire. I don't feel at all injured, but I do remain very keen to make my viewpoint understood. It's a useful debate, and I'm glad to contribute (for what that's worth).
Re: the discrimination/persecution thing. Totally different, but closely related. Like racist jokes- harmless humour, or not? Don't ask the joke-teller, ask the subject.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
I can see that, and I regret it.
But discrimination is such an emotive issue, I'm like a dog with a bone: I just won't let go. The princple is so important to me. If there's one thing mankind ought to have learnt by now, discrimination on religious grounds is simply unacceptable. I'm honestly surprised by anyone who even offers a counter-argument to this. Especially someone who belongs to one of the most discriminated-against groups in history.
Intolerance cannot be tolerated.
I've said that the policy is wrong and discriminatory, quite a number of times. I don't know what else I'm supposed to say. I don't think it's worth worrying about anymore, though, because the issue's been decided legally and because there are so many other things to worry about.
No gay person thinks or talks about the Boy Scouts at this point; it's way, way down on the list of things to do.
There is also discrimination here against girls, though, which nobody seems to notice. That was my only point, really.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
DW, Benjdm, myself, and others are the CLEAR minority here, so having numbers on your side and taking it as some kind of Manifest Destiny that you are right is a wee bit, well, hillarious. Good luck with that.
You're not quite getting the point that lots of us are speaking from personal experience; atheism isn't genetic or biological, and it's not permanent, either, by observation.
Or that other atheists agree with me that "persecution" is not correct. And THAT, my dear Geologist, is the topic here.
In fact, you're the only one who continues to make this claim. Funny, that....
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
I'm sorry, did I enter the tyranny of the democracy and somebody failed to put up a sign?
I swear to Buddha, you can't imagine how little I care if I am the last person standing in the room on a position. Nor should anyone else, ever. It's called a discussion, and it would be pretty dull with all of you slapping each other on the back about how you all agree, wouldn't it?
If I was on a jury of someone's conviction, I wouldn't let you shout me down (or whatever) with 50 or 100 people's opinion, and I won't let it happen here either. It's absurd you're even trying.
Oh and btw, I am not at all sure DW is in disagreement with me. I suspect he is slightly to the side of me and to the other side of you. Not exactly a ringing endorsement. But I'll let him clarify his position if he should want to. He's probably smart enough to stay out of it.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
Actually, it's become sort of funny to listen to somebody who blasts Christians 24 hours a day - on a Christian website, BTW - complain of persecution by Christians.
It's something of a self-falsifying claim, actually. Wouldn't you say?
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
LOL,
Yes, because I never sleep.
What better place to talk about it? Perhaps someone besides yourself might reconsider their completely bigoted opinoins in the darkness of those expressed here. Not yours mind you. Whatever opinions that might be bigoted.
Posted by J. J. Ramsey (# 1174) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
Why don't the atheists make one? I understand the gay thing because most teenage people aren't even sure about their sexuality, and the "reverent/duty-to-God <> gay" thing is debatable. But "reverent/duty-to-God <> atheist" is hard for me to argue with.
Judging from some of the confusion on this thread, you may want to rephrase your statements for those not familiar with <>, the not-equal operator from Pascal.
[ 04. August 2007, 14:23: Message edited by: J. J. Ramsey ]
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on
:
A moment of levity in an otherwise non-levity thread.....
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:
Judging from some of the confusion on this thread, you may want to rephrase your statements for those not familiar with <>, the not-equal operator from Pascal.
How about actually pointing out some of the "confusion," or perhaps making an argument?
While the "we're-so-much-smarter-than-you" thing is, I suppose, a lot easier than the above, it's a bit, well, light on substance. A bit weak, I'm afraid....
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
A moment of levity in an otherwise non-levity thread.....
Well, I'm convinced at last. This guy is definitely persecuted.
Oh, the humanity! How on earth can he go on, with the incessant ringing of the doorbell before noon?
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
(BTW, these door-to-door atheists are as bad as the religionists they parody.
Preaching theology as "fact" - and offering no evidence whatsoever - seems to be the tactic of both groups. Ironic, that.)
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
Well, I will say that, persecuted or not, there are definitely people - sadly, kids and younger people - who face discrimination for their atheism, and we should actively support them. Following are some comments from Richard Dawkins.net, under an article titled "The Out Campaign." One kid writes that:
quote:
I live in Lancaster, PA. Yeah, I'm talking about the place where thousands of people are partying like it's 1699. Ok, so most people around here aren't Amish, but the red here is deep and dark. 75% of my relatives the women wear coverings and the men drive black cars. In their churches, the women sit on the one side and the men sit on the other (in order that they don't have sexual thoughts during prayer service. I'M NOT KIDDING!!!) Coming out scares me to death. I envy you people who live in areas of the world that are so tolerant to individual beliefs.
Another writes:
quote:
Its scary as hell coming out in a red state like MO. But I did indeed do just that. Here is my letter to the editor called, "The New Brights, and Why I Am One Of Them."
I understand that many have issues with the term Bright, but my local paper would not print anything I wrote with Atheist in it. So I altered it a bit, and got a response. They have confirmed that I wrote it, and said they plan on printing it. Only time will tell
I am a liitle nervous, but all in all pleased with what I have done.
Here is the Editorial I wrote,
What is a Bright you ask? According to the Brights Web site http://www.the-brights.net , a bright is a person who has a naturalistic worldview. Whose worldview is free of supernatural and mystical elements. In a nutshell, we do not believe in a god or gods. Brights are individuals who do not think alike on many issues, and it is not our desire to press for conformity.
My journey to becoming a bright started long ago. I have always been skeptical and inquisitive. So when my questions about god or the bible were unanswered or answered with, "God works in mysterious ways," I would walk away frustrated, angry and dejected. As I became more educated I learned of many other religions and many other ways to view the world. With this knowledge I was forced conclude, they all can't be correct.
So who was right? Talk to a Christian and they will tell you, they have the one true path to God. Ask a Muslim, they will tell you that they have the one true path, etc.... This was no help either. So I read the bible, and the more I read, the more I was aghast at the cruelty and vengeance of God in the Old Testament. But when you are dead in the Old Testament, that was it. The New Testament God, while he has a great many lessons to teach, wants to punish you forever if you choose not to believe. This did not sound like a God of love to me.
All of this led me to become an agnostic. I felt that I could not prove whether god exists or not. Nor could anyone else for that matter. So agnosticism seemed the correct decision.
Then Amendment 2 (www.missouricures.com) became a huge issue in our state. I am a proponent and a staunch advocate for all forms of stem cell research, and was a member of the Missouri Coalition For Life Saving Cures. I would argue with opponents, and the one constant attack on the research was that it was against God's will. I would ask, how do they know? Former Senator and Episcopal Minister John Danforth, says otherwise. Of course I would ask Senator Danforth the same question.
I could not understand how one could make that argument, when they can not prove that God even exists. They were arguing on faith. All other arguments are easily countered because of science. This attack by the religious on the potential cures that could from stem cell research, was the tipping point for me. I began to read and study once again, and this time I read a book, called the God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins, and The End Of Faith by Sam Harris, Atheism, A Case Against God by George Smith, and many many more.
The more I read, the brighter I became. The more knowledge I consumed about astronomy, biology, physics, geology, etc..the less and less the probability of the existence of god became. I became a bright, because my worldview does not include any supernatural or mystical elements. If you want to believe in the supernatural,that is your choice, just don't try to legislate it.
Very interesting to me, an older person writes this:
quote:
I've always been an extremely vocal and unapologetic atheist, but I've also always recognised that to be so isn't easy for everyone. The anti-atheist prejudice is real, and in some areas quite vicious. So I'll wear the shirt as an expression of solidarity with those people more than as a personal expression of belief (or lack of) And also because I agree with Richard when he says, "We need to stand up and be counted, so that the demographically savvy culture will come to reflect our tastes and our views. That in turn makes it easier for the next generation of atheists."
Those of us who grew up in the relatively enlightened post-war era, in which religion was very much in retreat in the west, have been complacent. That has allowed the madness to take root and thrive again. No more complacency. This is worth shouting about.
Obviously you can see that prejudice goes both ways, but certainly people - especially young people - shouldn't be scared to be open as athiests. These people need support, just like gay people did. Even though there are many obnoxious and supercilious atheists, like Dawkins, they are right that kids like this deserve better. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
It does seem like things have gone backwards in recent years, too, which is possibly why my experiences have been so different. And of course, it is true that in many places in the world, "coming out" like this would be extremely serious. People get the death penalty for converting to Christianity in some countries, and I'm sure it's true for atheism, as well.
You'll be happy to know, Geologist, that I've put this post on my blog. You can also get a Scarlet "A" to put on your own, here.
Posted by J. J. Ramsey (# 1174) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:
Judging from some of the confusion on this thread, you may want to rephrase your statements for those not familiar with <>, the not-equal operator from Pascal.
How about actually pointing out some of the "confusion," or perhaps making an argument?
I was hoping that Mousethief would clarify things himself, but it looks to me like he is saying that being gay shouldn't be against the Boy Scouts' stated rules (though obviously the Scouts themselves believe otherwise), but that atheism was obviously against the Boy Scout oath any way you slice it.
Anyway, I wasn't trying to do a "we're-so-much-smarter-than-you" bit. I just thought the Pascal reference was a little obscure.
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on
:
God, I hate the term "bright". If you need proof that atheists can be just as stuck-up as Christians, there it is. It has a twang of 1984 about it too. I understand the circle-the-wagons mentality, but if you're trying to show that you're an integral part of society and just like folks, picking a word that says "we're smart and you're stupid" isn't terribly, well, bright. "Fight prejudice with prejudice" so seldom achieves good effects.
I agree that making life hell (or even purgatory) for atheists whether young or old is not acceptable behaviour. Can't we all just get along? Having a close family member (stepson) who is an atheist, I try to speak out for atheists, particularly against the idea that they can't be good moral people. Everybody has the right to decide for himself (or herself) what they believe. (Yes, I know, some of you will say you don't "decide" but let's not do semantics, eh?)
[ 05. August 2007, 19:17: Message edited by: MouseThief ]
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
God, I hate the term "bright". If you need proof that atheists can be just as stuck-up as Christians, there it is. It has a twang of 1984 about it too. I understand the circle-the-wagons mentality, but if you're trying to show that you're an integral part of society and just like folks, picking a word that says "we're smart and you're stupid" isn't terribly, well, bright. "Fight prejudice with prejudice" so seldom achieves good effects.
I agree that making life hell (or even purgatory) for atheists whether young or old is not acceptable behaviour. Can't we all just get along? Having a close family member (stepson) who is an atheist, I try to speak out for atheists, particularly against the idea that they can't be good moral people. Everybody has the right to decide for himself (or herself) what they believe. (Yes, I know, some of you will say you don't "decide" but let's not do semantics, eh?)
I agree about "Bright." But people act stupidly in a million ways (ironic, huh?).
We just have to try to look past the attitudes and behavior of Dawkins et al. to get to the real meat of the issue. It's that old problem of polarization, again; there really are two different worlds at the moment - and I mean vastly different. Religious people are considered odd around here; I always wonder whether or not I should wear my cross to job interviews, or at work.
I think all people "decide" what to believe, BTW; how could anybody not go through a process of coming to their own worldview and philosophy?
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:
I was hoping that Mousethief would clarify things himself, but it looks to me like he is saying that being gay shouldn't be against the Boy Scouts' stated rules (though obviously the Scouts themselves believe otherwise), but that atheism was obviously against the Boy Scout oath any way you slice it.
Anyway, I wasn't trying to do a "we're-so-much-smarter-than-you" bit. I just thought the Pascal reference was a little obscure.
Sorry, I misunderstood you. Apologies....
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:
I was hoping that Mousethief would clarify things himself, but it looks to me like he is saying that being gay shouldn't be against the Boy Scouts' stated rules (though obviously the Scouts themselves believe otherwise), but that atheism was obviously against the Boy Scout oath any way you slice it.
I was saying that I don't see how being gay precludes being "morally straight" (or vice versa). I think it's apparent that being an atheist precludes being "reverent" and doing one's "duty to God."
Posted by J. J. Ramsey (# 1174) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Sorry, I misunderstood you. Apologies....
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
I was saying that I don't see how being gay precludes being "morally straight" (or vice versa). I think it's apparent that being an atheist precludes being "reverent" and doing one's "duty to God."
Thanks, both of you.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0