Be a good little atheist...

bokonon said:
Jim Crow was a set of discriminatory laws. You may hear people in Montgomery saying they'd like to see Jim Crow return, but I assure you they aren't "people like me."

The fact is, the laws regarding religion forbid discrimination, so the situation is nothing like Jim Crow. The fact that bigots try to find ways around the law is nothing new, but the law is on our side, unlike the situation in Montgomery in 1955.
Click to expand...

Jim Crow was not a set of laws, it was a state of being. The law forbid certain behavior (like forbidding black people to vote) and Jim Crow broke those laws by pretending the laws had other purposes. It also manifested itself in laws being applied unevenly, which is more relevant to this discussion. It was not "The Law" that allowed lynchings. It was not "The Law" that forbid non-whites from living in certain neighborhoods (usually). It also did not end when the laws did. It died an extremely slow death, and while it's fairly well dead today, it still twitches on occasion.

I'll forgive the issue of your obvious view of Southerners as "bigots" and assume it's merely a case of unbigoted ignorance. From my experience the South today is no more racist than the North, it's just that the racists tend to be a bit less underground. People here do not generally "wish back" Jim Crow. Rather, people who lived in that time tend to simply have a falsely rosy picture of the past, much as you have a falsely rosy picture of the present. When I say you are like those people, I say so because you are like those people. I don't mean that as an insult, merely an observation.
 
Gawdzilla said:
it's your efforts to denigrate the people who are willing to do something about this that makes you look puerile.
Click to expand...
I said he can get the ruling reversed on appeal. That's not denigrating the people who are willing to do something about this, which (unless you're donating time or money to the appeal) obviously doesn't include you.
 
Irony said:
. From my experience the South today is no more racist than the North...
Click to expand...

Not in my experience. I travel for work and have been in plenty of workplaces down south where the "good ol' boy talk" starts as soon as the darker skinned people leave. That's never happened on a work-site in the northern states in my presence.
 
Uh...

You know, I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest the following

1. When you use the term Uncle Tom, just stop there.
2. Subsequent to 1) if you push your ideas on anyone, you're a jerk.
3. yes, congrats, Judges can be as biased as anyone.
4. And finally, the plural of ancedote is not data.

ETA: For a last note because man this thread isn't really worth even thinking about: Those *actions* are in fact wrong. I don't disagree. But I do not think the beliefs of anyone are really fair game to attack, merely the actions.
 
Last edited:
I'm with Gawdzilla on this and think that some of the criticism of his position is flat out wrong.
Back when I thought that it was good to become an eagle scout, I was told that I had to swear to god. Nope.
I got crap when they changed the pledge to "under god" and refused to say it. I got crap from my inlaws for not baptizing my kids. I got crap from dorks who were saying grace at meals and said, "Boy, you don't say Grace,you don't eat." I left.
So fook off.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Not in my experience. I travel for work and have been in plenty of workplaces down south where the "good ol' boy talk" starts as soon as the darker skinned people leave. That's never happened on a work-site in the northern states in my presence.
Click to expand...

That's what I meant by it being less underground. In my experience racism in the North is more subtle, like Landlords favoring "certain types of people" when renting rooms and the like.
 
Rika said:
Uh...

You know, I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest the following

1. When you use the term Uncle Tom, just stop there.
2. Subsequent to 1) if you push your ideas on anyone, you're a jerk.
3. yes, congrats, Judges can be as biased as anyone.
4. And finally, the plural of ancedote is not data.

ETA: For a last note because man this thread isn't really worth even thinking about: Those *actions* are in fact wrong. I don't disagree. But I do not think the beliefs of anyone are really fair game to attack, merely the actions.
Click to expand...

I don't agree that pushing ideas on anyone makes one a jerk. It depends on how you do it and what the idea is.

Also, anecdotes are data, just not reliable.
 
Irony said:
That's what I meant by it being less underground. In my experience racism in the North is more subtle, like Landlords favoring "certain types of people" when renting rooms and the like.
Click to expand...

I doubt it. I'm sure it happens, but I don't think the racism is nearly as prevalent or widespread.
 
Irony said:
Jim Crow was not a set of laws, it was a state of being. The law forbid certain behavior (like forbidding black people to vote) and Jim Crow broke those laws by pretending the laws had other purposes. It also manifested itself in laws being applied unevenly, which is more relevant to this discussion. It was not "The Law" that allowed lynchings. It was not "The Law" that forbid non-whites from living in certain neighborhoods (usually). It also did not end when the laws did. It died an extremely slow death, and while it's fairly well dead today, it still twitches on occasion.
Click to expand...
You are correct that it was not the law that allowed lynchings. Just about everything else you wrote is mistaken. It was the law that prevented non-whites from living in certain neighborhoods.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_Laws

Irony said:
I'll forgive the issue of your obvious view of Southerners as "bigots" and assume it's merely a case of unbigoted ignorance.
Click to expand...
You're the one who said "I grew up in Montgomery. I still hear people like you saying the EXACT same things about Jim Crow," so forgive yourself.

Irony said:
People here do not generally "wish back" Jim Crow. Rather, people who lived in that time tend to simply have a falsely rosy picture of the past, much as you have a falsely rosy picture of the present. When I say you are like those people, I say so because you are like those people. I don't mean that as an insult, merely an observation.
Click to expand...
I'm living life as an atheist in the present, and have never been fired from a job, not hired for a job, denied housing, or made to sit in the back of the bus because I don't believe in a deity. Other people may have different experiences, but if anything is falsely rosy, it's my life.
 
Irony said:
That's what I meant by it being less underground. In my experience racism in the North is more subtle, like Landlords favoring "certain types of people" when renting rooms and the like.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it was subtle. When I went to frigging Delaware in 1961, blacks couldn't eat in public restaurants in Newark. In the state of Connecticut, that was so subtle as to be homoeopathic. At least Delaware was more subtle about the lynching thing than Missssippi.
 
Jeff Corey said:
I'm with Gawdzilla on this and think that some of the criticism of his position is flat out wrong.
Back when I thought that it was good to become an eagle scout, I was told that I had to swear to god. Nope.
I got crap when they changed the pledge to "under god" and refused to say it. I got crap from my inlaws for not baptizing my kids. I got crap from dorks who were saying grace at meals and said, "Boy, you don't say Grace,you don't eat." I left.
So fook off.
Click to expand...

You are not a good atheist. I would have sworn to God if I wanted to be an Eagle scout. And why not? It means as much and as little as spelling Mxyzptlk backwards.

Here, watch this: "Dear Jesus, I love you and want you to come into my heart." See? No sky falling, no magic, no conversion.

Religion is nonsense but it isn't a special kind of nonsense. You educate the ignorant, not rise up and stomp it out by yelling louder. We've got the best ace up the sleeve we could have -- no-God works. Medicine works, science works, a whole basketful of what it means to be a modern human -- and it all works without prayer or God.

I dig nudism as well, but I abide by the "no shirt, no shoes, no service" signs because it really doesn't mean that much. How is it that a segment of atheists want to be as overbearing and reactionary as any fundamentalist? Isn't there a better way?
 
I don't do prayers or say "under God" when I recite the pledge because... I'm honest.
 
bokonon said:
I'm living life as an atheist in the present, and have never been fired from a job, not hired for a job, denied housing, or made to sit in the back of the bus because I don't believe in a deity. Other people may have different experiences, but if anything is falsely rosy, it's my life.
Click to expand...

That's nice that it's never happened to you, but how exactly does that make the people it has happened to not count?
 
thaiboxerken said:
I don't do prayers or say "under God" when I recite the pledge because... I'm honest.
Click to expand...

But you are not dishonest when you say the rest of it?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Click to expand...

For instance, wouldn't not saying "under God" sort of make you a bit disingenuous when you get to the "justice for all" part? If I wanted to be pedantically honest about it, I'd have to take out the flag bit and pledge allegiance to the United States directly.
 
marplots said:
But you are not dishonest when you say the rest of it?



For instance, wouldn't not saying "under God" sort of make you a bit disingenuous when you get to the "justice for all" part? If I wanted to be pedantically honest about it, I'd have to take out the flag bit and pledge allegiance to the United States directly.
Click to expand...

Wha?

So by not saying the completely superfluous and recently added "under God" piece you are somehow denying justice to someone?
 
Irony said:
Wha?

So by not saying the completely superfluous and recently added "under God" piece you are somehow denying justice to someone?
Click to expand...

Yourself. You are being asked to include a phrase that, as far as I can tell, you deem dishonest -- hence unjust.
 
bokonon said:
I said he can get the ruling reversed on appeal. That's not denigrating the people who are willing to do something about this, which (unless you're donating time or money to the appeal) obviously doesn't include you.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking one individual post, I'm talking your overall efforts to paint activist atheists as poisonous, danger, and "just as bad". Why do you do that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom