Passenger killed by air marshall

[CFLarsen]

I can name two, Chani and Me. Unless you count stupid questions like "what should we say to you when you sneeze?" as a problem. I feel kind out of place among my religious co-workers sometimes and I worry when I hear horror stories that OTHER atheists tell. But I cannot recall ever being hassled for being a non-believer and while I don't advertise it, I don't hide it either. Chani would tell you much the same thing and she is even more open about her atheism than I am.

There you go: You do not fit in because you are not a believer.

 

[CFLarsen]

Well then you are wrong for I, and some of my friends, are atheist. People at work know the same and I had less than zero problems. And although some of my christian friends tried to get me to go to church, they have not stopped being my friend when I refused their offers.

So, I don't know where your odd view of America's atheists comes from, but we're not hiding from the "believers."

Do you speak for all American Atheists?

 

[CFLarsen]

We don't say our right are handed to us from god; in fact we say it's natural to see that everyone has the same rights handed to them.

Equal rights is a different subject from where the rights come from.

Well sure, why flaunt your faith when your state already supports it with monarchy? Seems kind of pointless.

You really, really need to let go of this idea that Denmark is a theocracy. I'm not the only Dane who says this, you know.

Actually I think cases are still pending on that. Feel free to link the ones you are talking about.

The Dover Case was struck down. I'm not aware of any pending cases.

We are dead-set again the idea of living in a state-supported religious society. Not one in this thread have made it a point of how religious-free our country is; the point has been how religious-free our government is due to the constitution.

And, as I have shown, it isn't particularly religious-free. On your currency, in your courtrooms, even in the Supreme Court. And so on.

Covered this already in my earlier posts, but this has not been the issue for me. I think you are drawing a conclusion on poor data based on people posting on this forum, or you are seeing things that are simply not there.

But this is the place to find those non-religious Americans, isn't it? I'm sure there are Atheist forums for Americans, but this is a very good place to find them, too.

How would you define a country as secular?

Completely removed from any references to religion. I doubt any country is.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

There you go: You do not fit in because you are not a believer.

I don't really count feeling a little out of place as a real problem though. Especially since I have about a dozen other reasons that are totally unconnected to my atheism to feel that way. My boss is one of the religious types in my workplace and I have never ever, for example, felt discriminated against in any way (indeed, this particular boss treats me better than just about any other boss I have ever had in my life). And even the most religious of my co-workers has never been anything but professional to me. I just don't have anything to contribute to the conversation when the two of them start talking in the break room about the church they go to. I don't count that as a problem any more than I count the fact that I have different tastses in movies than they do and can't talk about that with them either.

 

[Grammatron]

Do you speak for all American Atheists?

I don't have to; you asked if I can "name one," I named myself and my friend and then Ny named himself and his wife.

 

[Grammatron]

Equal rights is a different subject from where the rights come from.

Ok.

You really, really need to let go of this idea that Denmark is a theocracy. I'm not the only Dane who says this, you know.

Did I say it was in that post?

The Dover Case was struck down. I'm not aware of any pending cases.

So you are making statements with out having facts?

And, as I have shown, it isn't particularly religious-free. On your currency, in your courtrooms, even in the Supreme Court. And so on.

Ok. Which religion?

But this is the place to find those non-religious Americans, isn't it? I'm sure there are Atheist forums for Americans, but this is a very good place to find them, too.

Is it? I thought it was a good place to come and have a nice debate on multitude of topics with smart and interesting people.

Completely removed from any references to religion. I doubt any country is.

Religion or God?

 

[CFLarsen]

Ok.

So, please address the point: Where do rights come from?

Did I say it was in that post?

Isn't that your contention? That Denmark is a theocracy? Just yes or no, please.

So you are making statements with out having facts?

I am asking what cases you believe are pending.

Ok. Which religion?

Doesn't matter. The point is that the society isn't religious-free. Do you argue that it is?

Is it? I thought it was a good place to come and have a nice debate on multitude of topics with smart and interesting people.

That, too. Surely, you don't claim that this is not a place where people who don't have a religious faith seek to go?

Religion or God?

Belief in a God means religion. Don't play word games with me. You should know better.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

What's interesting is this knee-jerk reaction, every time a non-American criticizes the US.

It's very easy to explain. there is plain old vanilla criticism, which is fine, then there is criticism which comes with a thinly veiled (and in some cases, not so thinly veiled) implication that Americans are some retarded sub-species of humanity and that the world would be better off if we all just commited mass suicide (if you want an example, I can't find the thread but I seem to recall someone a year or so ago making a post entitled 'The solution to the worlds problems' which consisted of a map of the world sans the US. A good many European posters thought this was hilarious).

Not all criticism of the US is of the latter type but it is common enough that one hears a lot of it, and it is often preceded by the first type. Once you hear enough of the latter type, you begin to get reeeeaaaalllllly suspicious that anytime you hear the first type of criticism that the second isn't far behind. Thus defensiveness.

 

[CFLarsen]

It's very easy to explain. there is plain old vanilla criticism, which is fine, then there is criticism which comes with a thinly veiled (and in some cases, not so thinly veiled) implication that Americans are some retarded sub-species of humanity and that the world would be better off if we all just commited mass suicide (if you want an example, I can't find the thread but I seem to recall someone a year or so ago making a post entitled 'The solution to the worlds problems' which consisted of a map of the world sans the US. A good many European posters thought this was hilarious).

Not all criticism of the US is of the latter type but it is common enough that one hears a lot of it, and it is often preceded by the first type. Once you hear enough of the latter type, you begin to get reeeeaaaalllllly suspicious that anytime you hear the first type of criticism that the second isn't far behind. Thus defensiveness.

Feel free to provide examples.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Feel free to provide examples.

Sure. I am unsure how to link to individual posts but if you check out the post that sparked off my exchange with Dr. Adequate in the "Why do non-Americans care so much about what happens inside the US?" thread, where he says "You guys have a culture now? How sweet" for the barely concealed condescension coupled with valid criticism I am talking about. Check out nearly any post where Ion or Undercover Elephant mentioned the US for the "not even bothering to conceal it" variety.

Then theres the stuff I read in books and magazines, and/or hear on the news which isn't in a linkable form. Myabe if I find something between now and TAM that illustrates what I am talking about I will bring it then.

 

[Grammatron]

So, please address the point: Where do rights come from?

I believe that's being discussed on a different thread.

Isn't that your contention? That Denmark is a theocracy? Just yes or no, please.

No.

Further more, I was making a point (which you seemed to have missed) that while our candidate may discuss their faith in public, a candidate for your country would not have the same need for it since you already have a state church.

I am asking what cases you believe are pending.

Oh so now you want some facts? Don't you think you should look into these things prior to making broad, general statements?

Doesn't matter. The point is that the society isn't religious-free. Do you argue that it is?

Society or government? I view those as different.

That, too. Surely, you don't claim that this is not a place where people who don't have a religious faith seek to go?

Since I can't read other people's minds I have no idea why they come here. Personally, I came here because of Randi's work and then found this forum to be a very interesting place for discussion and information. Religion had nothing to do with it.

Belief in a God means religion. Don't play word games with me. You should know better.

That's not true.

 

[CFLarsen]

I believe that's being discussed on a different thread.

I will await your response in that thread, then.

No.

What is your point, then?

Further more, I was making a point (which you seemed to have missed) that while our candidate may discuss their faith in public, a candidate for your country would not have the same need for it since you already have a state church.

You really need to educate yourself on Denmark, because it exemplifies your ignorance of Denmark. A political candidate does not derive his power from the Church.

Stop being such a willingly ignoramus and start learning about the world around you. Stop making this so goddamn easy for me.

Oh so now you want some facts? Don't you think you should look into these things prior to making broad, general statements?

I am asking you, because you made the claim that there were some cases that were pending. What cases were you thinking of?

Surely, that must be easy for you to answer. If not, then we can surmise that you were speaking out of your rectum.

Society or government? I view those as different.

Government, if you like. Why isn't your government non-religious, considering that there are references to God in, e.g., the Supreme Court, as well as on your currency?

Since I can't read other people's minds I have no idea why they come here. Personally, I came here because of Randi's work and then found this forum to be a very interesting place for discussion and information. Religion had nothing to do with it.

That's nice. I urge you to peruse the forum to find out more about why people come here.

That's not true.

What is "not true"?

 

[Grammatron]

I will await your response in that thread, then.

Ok

What is your point, then?

It was on a paragraph bellow to which you responded with..

You really need to educate yourself on Denmark, because it exemplifies your ignorance of Denmark. A political candidate does not derive his power from the Church.

Stop being such a willingly ignoramus and start learning about the world around you. Stop making this so goddamn easy for me.

Ah...learn to read? Did I say any of what you lambasted me for? No, I did not. I guess I need to break it down for you.

Since your country(Denmark) has an esteblished state religion it seems to be a moot point to bring up that during campaign if it was run like politicians due it here. The candidate don't bring up the fact they are US Citizens because or that have not rulled other countries prior to the campaign, it's obvious and assumed thing.

I am asking you, because you made the claim that there were some cases that were pending. What cases were you thinking of?

Surely, that must be easy for you to answer. If not, then we can surmise that you were speaking out of your rectum.

I do believe you can do this with out insults, please try.

http://www.restorethepledge.com/litigation/money/

http://www.restorethepledge.com/litigation/pledge/

Government, if you like. Why isn't your government non-religious, considering that there are references to God in, e.g., the Supreme Court, as well as on your currency?

What religion is our government Claus? By all means, name it.

That's nice. I urge you to peruse the forum to find out more about why people come here.

It's non of my business why they come here. If people want to answer on this thread why they came to this forum I won't stop them, but I won't engage in persuit in proving you more wrong than I already have. What's the benefit in making you wronger?

What is "not true"?

God does not equal religion.

 

[Upchurch]

For what it is worth, an article on the idea of secular American Christmas vs. religious Christian Christmas.


eta: this Unitarian actually does have a Christmas tree.

 

[luchog]

Jefferson's own account.

You know, I think I'll trust those sources more than I'll trust you. I hope you can understand that.

I certainly wouldn't complain, since nothing in those sources refutes what I've asserted.

Though I have to say, I'm a bit surprised to see the DoI being relegated to such insignificance. By Americans, no less.

I think this is yet another example of your complete failure to understand the cultural idiom; or yet another example of your spinning offacts to support an untenable position. You certainly seem to have ignored about two-thirds of what I've posted.

 

[luchog]

If they were truely inalienable, they wouldn't need protecting by law. But no, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness can all be taken from you and are done so under the social contract.

You are making the common mistake of equating "inalienable" with "inviolable". They are not synonymous. Rights can be, and frequently are, violated, or even restricted; they cannot be alienated.

 

[luchog]

Anyway, Claus, I think what is happening here is that there is a misunderstanding going on.

What is going on is that Claus insists on giving literal weight to a common rhetorical device; and insisting that the context of it's occurence has a more fundamental influence on American government than the charter that gave it it's form and function.

 

[Ed]

religion in SCOTUS? Where?

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Feel free to provide examples.

Another example I stumbled across today, this time one not from the forum. Though the article itself isn't particularly critical of Americans in general, note the title, in great big #24 font

"( Some ) Americans Not So Stupid After All"

You don't get a lot more condescending than that

Then scroll down to the guys October 25 entry

I am bored and when I'm bored I like to read about the antics of nutcase Americans.

Shall I continue to keep looking for examples or have I sufficiently illustrated my point?

 

[CFLarsen]

Sure. I am unsure how to link to individual posts but if you check out the post that sparked off my exchange with Dr. Adequate in the "Why do non-Americans care so much about what happens inside the US?" thread, where he says "You guys have a culture now? How sweet" for the barely concealed condescension coupled with valid criticism I am talking about. Check out nearly any post where Ion or Undercover Elephant mentioned the US for the "not even bothering to conceal it" variety.

Then theres the stuff I read in books and magazines, and/or hear on the news which isn't in a linkable form. Myabe if I find something between now and TAM that illustrates what I am talking about I will bring it then.

I meant of the vanilla type. From this forum.