Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Atheism and freedom of speech
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 76 of 108 (342268)
08-22-2006 5:53 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Dr Jack
08-22-2006 4:49 AM


Not quite sure what you mean there Mr Jack, but if you mean being actively anti religious I kind of agree. My freinds roll their eyes and slink away (CK stylee) when I get on my high horse.
Seems to me over here we agree that religion is one of those subjects that are not important enough to make points about because it can create a bad atmos at the party.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Dr Jack, posted 08-22-2006 4:49 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Dr Jack, posted 08-22-2006 7:34 AM Larni has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 77 of 108 (342281)
08-22-2006 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Larni
08-22-2006 5:53 AM


I mean back when I was a Christian I would get actively mocked if I stated what I believed; that has never, not even once, happened to me as an atheist. I get surprise, and questions, to be sure but never insults or mockery.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Larni, posted 08-22-2006 5:53 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by ramoss, posted 08-22-2006 10:00 AM Dr Jack has not replied
 Message 82 by Larni, posted 08-22-2006 11:44 AM Dr Jack has not replied
 Message 86 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-22-2006 5:59 PM Dr Jack has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 78 of 108 (342328)
08-22-2006 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Dr Jack
08-22-2006 7:34 AM


You definately don't live in the bible belt of the U.S.!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Dr Jack, posted 08-22-2006 7:34 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 108 (342351)
08-22-2006 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Discreet Label
08-20-2006 11:22 PM


Re: Why not?
Although your arguement about burial sites is interesting, i think ultimately the plot is given over for whatever religious decoration the person prefers, as it becomes their plot, only on federal grounds.
Perhaps. I'm not familiar on that aspect. It was something that was brought to my attention in an email.
What eradication of history? Most recent questions of religious expression has only been symbols put up in the last 2 decades or so. Anything put up beyond then has been hands off by the supreme court. Most past symbols aren't touched, its usually the newer ones that are under question.
No, there are special interest groups and individual claims from people like Michael Newdow who want to force the Federal Reserve to remove all words on currency containing or alluding to anything that could be construed as Judeo-Christian. There are some courthouses that have Mosaic effigies carrying the Commandements, old courthouses, that these groups would like to see removed. The plain fact of the matter is that Moses plays a central figure in the formation of American law as we trace its historical significance. To deny its historical significance would be like saying the Magna Carta had nothing to do with the US Constitution.
The hands off policy in regards to religion via politicians has been traditionally part of American politics. Faith tends to be regarded as a very private and personal set of feelings. But when the religious conservatives start to regain majority as in the 1820's, 60's 1920's and now, some politicians have used it as a measure to gain more support during those time frames. Usuaully its been used to demonize their opponent for his lack of 'faith'
I'm not sure what that means...? This last election came down to morals. That was very much evident in the voter polls. The majority of Americans didn't want somebody who doesn't 'wear their faith on their sleeve,' they wanted somebody with some real convictions as opposed to someone who will pander to who ever is in front of them at that particular moment. America was sick of appeasers, kiss asses, and compromisers who's foreign policies caved in to the demands of those who were bound and determined to kill us. Everybody was surprised to see 'morals,' of all things, to be the most important factor in the last election.
Nativity scenes are all right so long as there are other religious kinds holidiays expressed at similiar times. And while christmas used to be a 'pagan holiday'. In america its not even a pagan holiday anymore its a commercialized interest, anything really religious about christmas has been relegated to the family. Christmas has more become an excuse to through a party and to celebrate good cheer vs any form of religious observance.
I'm not big on Christmas other than an excuse to spend time with family. One, that's not even remotely close to the time Jesus was born, it was borne out of paganism, and its just another holiday to generate revenue. If you notice, every month there is a holiday in order to generate revenue, as if we don't spend enough money needlessly to begin with.
I'd be a little more careful about those points, a number of secular universities follow the traditional western european view of what a univeristy is. And the western european universities tend to be built around some form of church or something (traditional model). For example in california San Jose State University has a Mission on its grounds, and i don't think CSU system is in anyway religious.
Rght, and how far has drifted from that state? Oxford and Harvard are prime examples of that.

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Discreet Label, posted 08-20-2006 11:22 PM Discreet Label has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Discreet Label, posted 08-22-2006 11:20 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 81 by Wounded King, posted 08-22-2006 11:24 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Discreet Label
Member (Idle past 5064 days)
Posts: 272
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 80 of 108 (342357)
08-22-2006 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Hyroglyphx
08-22-2006 10:59 AM


Re: Why not?
No, there are special interest groups and individual claims from people like Michael Newdow who want to force the Federal Reserve to remove all words on currency containing or alluding to anything that could be construed as Judeo-Christian.
Currency never was supposed to contain any judeo christian refrences in the first place. It was pushed onto the currency as a political move to place America on a morale high ground over Russia. So that people like you could say, "look at those aetheistic godless wretches in Russia. At least we can be said to serve a higher purpose." How much do you even know about the history of currency? I mean it was a propagandistic tactic that was pretty damn useful considering that at least 1/3 of the world followed Christianity and or Islamic faiths. Showing that you serve GOD vs a godless state gets you hella points with the people in power, when you agree that there is a GOD.(whose GOD it is, always a different point).
There are some courthouses that have Mosaic effigies carrying the Commandements, old courthouses, that these groups would like to see removed. The plain fact of the matter is that Moses plays a central figure in the formation of American law as we trace its historical significance.
Who and could you refrence who is attempting to do these things, like actual court motions and or newspaper articles from a variety of resources? Not just a solitary resource but like 3 covering the same thing.
To deny its historical significance would be like saying the Magna Carta had nothing to do with the US Constitution.
That is where your wrong. One thing that you forget, while the founding father's were theistic they were not your kind of 'theistic'. They believed in the ability of man to govern themselves on their conscience and upbringing.
If they were at all interested in your phoney balooney pants refrence that the Constituition was based on GOD's law or shaped by GOD's policies they would of instituted a theocracy with a damn priest council or something. Not a democratic repulic that would allow theologically unsound people 'aethists' to be present.
And nearly all the laws used day by day in America, not those political handbag guestures made by politicians to please the right, are derived from English Common Law! (You British people I really like the way you handled law)
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/legalotln/
Where no statute or constitutional provision controls, both federal and state courts often look to the common law, a collection of judicial decisions, customs, and general principles that began centuries ago in England and continues to develop today. In many states, common law continues to hold an important role in contract disputes, as state legislatures have not seen fit to pass statutes covering every possible contractual contingency.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-22-2006 10:59 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-22-2006 6:34 PM Discreet Label has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 81 of 108 (342360)
08-22-2006 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Hyroglyphx
08-22-2006 10:59 AM


Re: Why not?
Rght, and how far has drifted from that state? Oxford and Harvard are prime examples of that.
I have to say I haven't noticed many Oxford Colleges pulling down their chapels and replacing them with libraries of secular humanist thought, and the university still has an active Divinity faculty. Maybe you could be a bit more specific. How far has it drifted from that state?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-22-2006 10:59 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 82 of 108 (342366)
08-22-2006 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Dr Jack
08-22-2006 7:34 AM


Yeah well, you only have to look at the way god botherers are depicted on TV and the public conception of people like JWs banging on ones' door trying to palm off copies of Watch Tower to see where these notions get reinforced.
Think of Dott Cotton off of Eastenders.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Dr Jack, posted 08-22-2006 7:34 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 108 (342392)
08-22-2006 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by crashfrog
08-20-2006 11:30 PM


Re: Why not?
No. Quite the opposite - we need to expand the number of allowable religious symbols in such instances. Currently the military doesn't allow pagan or wiccan religious symbols on grave markers, and that represents unconstitutional discrimination against religious minorities, don't you agree?
I don't think there should be graveyards at all, as it seems like a terrible waste of land. But that's just my personal opinon. If someone wanted a pentagram on their headstone it wouldn't bother me. You also have to take into consideration that Wicca was invented in the 1950's as a spinoff to Druidism and only in the last 10 years has gained any kind of popularity. Very recently the miltary has recognized Wicca as a religion, so I'm not sure how that plays out on gravestones.
I don't for a minute think that's true, or that there's any kind of pressure on politicians to suborn their personal religious beliefs. In fact, you can't be a politician in America if you're an atheist.
All Christian presidents, (after Jimmy Carter, of course), are pretty much flamed for their religious affinities and charged with making moral decision based on that faith, as if that were weird to do. As for atheism in politics, its everywhere. Its just that Americans are interested in Presidents with morals and continue to vote them in. As for those that did not get elected in, people see through thin disguises where they tout religious beliefs only when it serves to benefit them. I shall not name, names.
But I do have a problem when a pol steps up to the podium and says "look, we're going to pass a law banning such-and-such because dammit, that's what God wants us to do." I have a big problem with that - and I suspect you would too, especially if his god was a different god than yours. I mean, democracy is about compromise - but how can you expect someone to compromise on God's will?
Democracy is not at all about compromise, its about the majority rule. Its about being fair. That doesn't mean we have to give up our time-honored beliefs because the President-elect doesn't happen to follow our particular flavor of belief. The problem is that the US doesn't have a true Democracy. "We the People" no longer applies. And I find it ironic that both Democrats and Republicans have lost sight of this. I also don't like how the Supreme Court, a small body, makes decisions that the American public, per the Constitution should be voting on. I would prefer that we go back to a Libertarian rule where it really means that the People have the choice to govern our own laws. We should be able to vote directly for our Presidents, governors, and Senators, instead of polarizing the nation by forcing to side with one of two political entities. We ashould also be allowed to vote on matters most important to us, such as but not limited to, abortion, euthanasia, war-or-no-war, fetal stem cell research, gay marriage, etc, etc. Wouldn't you rather have a say in that instead of letting our decisions come from a body of activist judges seeking to further their own personal agenda? Both conservatives and liberals are faced with this nonsense. And what has happened is actually unconstitutional. The more I peruse the document, the more I see how we've fallen into a state of degradation from the intent of the Founding Fathers. This is a bi-partisan effort here that could benefit both sides.
It's fine for all politicians to believe whatever they want. They're private citizens, too, and they have the same right to religious belief as I do. But they also have a public obligation, they hold a public office, and their religious convictions should be allowed to inflect their public actions only in so far as those actions can be supported by a compelling secular purpose.
But don't you see how that's a non-sequitur? You are making it so that anyone that has a religious belief cannot inject opinion from that belief, which is central to how they arrive at their conclusions in the first place. Its now at the point where only secularism should be considered, which is a religion unto itself.
They come runnin' when you put up Christmas trees, too.
I guess they go running all around until they get the Socialist state they've always desired. When the founder himself tells us that Communism is the goal, I have to wonder how that could be misinterpreted. Any group that seeks to represnt NAMbLA has lost its scruples.
It's not quite an equal thing, though. The Nativity is a specifically Christian religious emblem. You're right that Christmas trees originate in a pagan tradition, but "pagan" isn't a specific religion - it's a catch-all description of a number of loosely connected heritage spiritual practices.
Neither is the Nativity explicit to only Christianity. Muslims identify with similar ideations.

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by crashfrog, posted 08-20-2006 11:30 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Discreet Label, posted 08-22-2006 4:04 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 92 by nator, posted 08-23-2006 12:23 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 84 of 108 (342424)
08-22-2006 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by crashfrog
08-21-2006 11:29 AM


Re: Why not?
True. On the other hand? The food is great.
I beg to differ crash
I mean, what is the deal with this fatty crap that passes for bacon over here?
And how come even baked beans are loaded with sugar?
Seriously, since moving here from England six years ago, the food has been my biggest problem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by crashfrog, posted 08-21-2006 11:29 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Discreet Label
Member (Idle past 5064 days)
Posts: 272
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 85 of 108 (342443)
08-22-2006 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Hyroglyphx
08-22-2006 12:52 PM


Re: Why not?
It's fine for all politicians to believe whatever they want. They're private citizens, too, and they have the same right to religious belief as I do. But they also have a public obligation, they hold a public office, and their religious convictions should be allowed to inflect their public actions only in so far as those actions can be supported by a compelling secular purpose.
But don't you see how that's a non-sequitur? You are making it so that anyone that has a religious belief cannot inject opinion from that belief, which is central to how they arrive at their conclusions in the first place.
I would point out that I don't think crash is saying that religious belief can not be injected into opinion. Its that the opinion of the politician should be shaped by the people whom the politician is representing. The politician must watch out for all of his constituency to the best of his ability not only the constituency that he feels he should watch out for.
Its now at the point where only secularism should be considered, which is a religion unto itself.
How do you come to the conclusion that secularism is even a religion?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-22-2006 12:52 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 108 (342462)
08-22-2006 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Dr Jack
08-22-2006 7:34 AM


Sounds about right
I mean back when I was a Christian I would get actively mocked if I stated what I believed; that has never, not even once, happened to me as an atheist. I get surprise, and questions, to be sure but never insults or mockery.
Yeah, that sounds accurate to my own situation, only in reverse. When I was an agnostic leaning towards atheism, nobody really seemed to care a whole lot, much less ridiculed over it. The moment I gave my life to Christ the tension was immediate between friends, family, or strangers that were aware of my conversion. That's just kind of the way it goes.

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Dr Jack, posted 08-22-2006 7:34 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 108 (342463)
08-22-2006 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Dr Jack
08-22-2006 4:49 AM


In England, you are much more likely to receive a negative response for coming out as actively religious than you are for either being apathetic about religion or actively religious.
Interesting.
I would never talk about my private beliefs in public.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Dr Jack, posted 08-22-2006 4:49 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 108 (342465)
08-22-2006 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Discreet Label
08-22-2006 11:20 AM


Re: Why not?
Currency never was supposed to contain any judeo christian refrences in the first place. It was pushed onto the currency as a political move to place America on a morale high ground over Russia. So that people like you could say, "look at those aetheistic godless wretches in Russia. At least we can be said to serve a higher purpose." How much do you even know about the history of currency?
I know that "In God We Trust" was issued some imte in the 1950's; '57 I believe. I don't know how much it had to do with secular Russia, especially when secular Russia could care less about the Christian heritage of America, except maybe to destroy it. Comrade Stalin told his people that he was going to destroy the notion of God. He succeeded for some time.
Who and could you refrence who is attempting to do these things, like actual court motions and or newspaper articles from a variety of resources? Not just a solitary resource but like 3 covering the same thing.
This is the main guy, Newdow, who claims that he did it on behalf of his daughters complaining about it. She happens to attend Calvary Chapel, Elk Grove. In other words, its a total lie. It offends him, not his daughter.
Michael Newdow - Wikipedia
Here's a debate between Newdow and Cliffe Knechtle
http://www.givemeananswer.org/main/frames/GDvideoframe.html
After him its been a snowball effect in many other states.
Accuracy in Media
That is where your wrong. One thing that you forget, while the founding father's were theistic they were not your kind of 'theistic'. They believed in the ability of man to govern themselves on their conscience and upbringing.
Thomas Jefferson was a Deist, just about all the rest were very much Christians. However, they each understood the importance of allowing people to believe as they would. This thinking came about from the effects of religious persecution in England.
If they were at all interested in your phoney balooney pants refrence that the Constituition was based on GOD's law or shaped by GOD's policies they would of instituted a theocracy with a damn priest council or something. Not a democratic repulic that would allow theologically unsound people 'aethists' to be present.
"The future and success of America is not in this Constitution, but in the laws of God upon which this Constitution is founded. We've staked the whole future of American civilization not on the power of government ” far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the commandments of God." -James Madison
Loading...
And nearly all the laws used day by day in America, not those political handbag guestures made by politicians to please the right, are derived from English Common Law! (You British people I really like the way you handled law)
Did I not say that the Constitution was loosely based off the Magna Carta? Uh, yeah I did. What you are failing to grasp is that all of these proclivities passed on from generation to generation derives from part Roman law and part Hebrew morality.

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Discreet Label, posted 08-22-2006 11:20 AM Discreet Label has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by anglagard, posted 08-22-2006 6:58 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 91 by kuresu, posted 08-22-2006 10:28 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 89 of 108 (342468)
08-22-2006 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Hyroglyphx
08-22-2006 6:34 PM


In God We Trust on US Coins
I know that "In God We Trust" was issued some imte in the 1950's; '57 I believe.
For further clarification, the first US coin to have the motto "In God We Trust" was the 2-cent piece in 1864. After that others followed so that by 1938, all us coins had the motto. You are correct in stating it started appearing on paper money starting in 1957 and is included on all currency printed since 1966. However, because the motto started appearing during the Civil War, I doubt it had anything to do with Stalin or communism.
Front page | U.S. Department of the Treasury
Edited by anglagard, : Forgot my customary link to back my assertions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-22-2006 6:34 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Discreet Label, posted 08-22-2006 8:23 PM anglagard has not replied

  
Discreet Label
Member (Idle past 5064 days)
Posts: 272
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 90 of 108 (342491)
08-22-2006 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by anglagard
08-22-2006 6:58 PM


Re: In God We Trust on US Coins
*grumble* I'd forgotten that particular portion about the coins. Thank you for the refrences~

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by anglagard, posted 08-22-2006 6:58 PM anglagard has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024