fundie atheist?

tsg said:
It suggested that your inability to come to a conclusion was the result of unimportance of the situation.
Click to expand...

I guess I don't feel it is very important but I'm torn. It might be good for the country that someone goes to court just to annoy people like Pat Robertson but I don't think I will ever understand the fear or anger driving them.

Maybe it is because I've never lived in the south.
 
KingMerv00 said:
I guess I don't feel it is very important but I'm torn. It might be good for the country that someone goes to court just to annoy people like Pat Robertson but I don't think I will ever understand the fear or anger driving them.
Click to expand...

It's not just to annoy the fundies. It's about having the freedom to choose your beliefs, even if that is none at all, without having elected officials use their positions to push their own beliefs on you. Mandatory moments of silence are motivated by religion for religious purposes. They are a constant reminder to young children who do not yet have the ability to make decisions for themselves that prayer is not only a good thing, but expected and approved of by the government. And while I will agree there are far more egregious examples of religious intolerance, that doesn't mean this should be tolerated.
 
tsg said:
It's not just to annoy the fundies. It's about having the freedom to choose your beliefs, even if that is none at all, without having elected officials use their positions to push their own beliefs on you.
Click to expand...

I still have the freedom to choose my beliefs and if those elected officials are trying to push their own beliefs on me then they are doing an inept job. I do not feel threatened and I do not feel afraid for "the children".

They are a constant reminder to young children who do not yet have the ability to make decisions for themselves that prayer is not only a good thing, but expected and approved of by the government. And while I will agree there are far more egregious examples of religious intolerance, that doesn't mean this should be tolerated.
Click to expand...

If a child converts to Christianity or some other religion because of a moment of silence then I am sure they would have converted on their own at a later date anyway. "Under God" was added to the pledge of allegiance in 1954 but was immediately followed by the Hippie movement.

I am more afraid that moderate Christians in America will think atheists shout "FIRE!" whenever someone strikes a match and dull their senses to real church/state problems like same-sex marriage.
 
KingMerv00 said:
I still have the freedom to choose my beliefs and if those elected officials are trying to push their own beliefs on me then they are doing an inept job. I do not feel threatened and I do not feel afraid for "the children".
Click to expand...

Like I said, that doesn't mean nobody should. And I object to the sweeping generalization that it is automatically an unwarranted concern that quoting "for the children" implies. It's not only dismissing the argument out of hand, but refusing to acknowledge that there's even one being made. If you don't want to understand, just say so and I won't waste anymore of either of our time.

If a child converts to Christianity or some other religion because of a moment of silence then I am sure they would have converted on their own at a later date anyway. "Under God" was added to the pledge of allegiance in 1954 but was immediately followed by the Hippie movement.
Click to expand...

The concern isn't that kids are going to convert to Christianity. The concern is that those who aren't religious are going to be made to feel inferior for not being religious. Oppression comes in a great many forms. Some of them can be very subtle. None should be tolerated.

I am more afraid that moderate Christians in America will think atheists shout "FIRE!" whenever someone strikes a match and dull their senses to real church/state problems like same-sex marriage.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid that letting the small offenses slip by unchallenged will send the message that all the fundamentalists have to do to get what they really want is to give us something more outrageous to distract us.
 
Will schools require students to bow their heads in reverence to nothing in particular, or will they instead be allowed to read, study, or finish their homework while the other students don't pray to nothing in particular?

If there's any chance that kids will be required to share in the "spirit" of the moment, I'll say this law is unconstitutional.
 
Perhaps the question shouldn't be "why not a moment of silence?" but "why a moment of silence?" Why is the burden on those arguing against it? What are the justifications for it?

The only real purpose seems to be "to allow prayer". Again, why in school? Can these kids not pray on their own time? They require special accomodation of public institutions to pray?
 
What is so complicated about keeping religion out of school? Why a "moment of silence"? Two minutes of stretching before the first class in the morning would be helpful, too. Or a minute of relaxing music? Others feel really good after singing in the morning. Or doing some speech practices. And when we are done with all the helpful things students could do in the morning, the first hour is over before it has begun.
 
KingMerv00 said:
Yes really. He filed on the grounds that 1st Amendment of the US Constitution was violated.



You didn't say it directly but you implied that this lawsuit springs from his hatred of other people finding comfort. I seriously doubt that.

Where did I beg the question?
Click to expand...

I didn't say he brought his lawsuit on the basis of his hatred for those who find comfort in faith. Your suggesting I did, is begging the question.

He DOES hate those who find comfort in faith, but he brought his lawsuit on 1st Amdmt grounds. Of course, in a non-biased court (like the 1st Circus Court of Appeals) he'll be found to be entirely correct. But time and again the Supreme Court has ruled that the public display of religion, even on the public tit, is not inherently anti-Constitutional...and no, I don't have a link--LIIIINNNKKKKKKKKKK!!!

Nor do I have one demonstrating how as the sun rises in the east each and ever' morn.

Tokie
 
wahrheit said:
What is so complicated about keeping religion out of school? Why a "moment of silence"? Two minutes of stretching before the first class in the morning would be helpful, too. Or a minute of relaxing music? Others feel really good after singing in the morning. Or doing some speech practices. And when we are done with all the helpful things students could do in the morning, the first hour is over before it has begun.
Click to expand...

We could knock off all the "diversity" crap and save 2-3 hours out of each day and dedicate that saved time to oh, I dunno...teaching and learnin'?

Tokie
 
tsg said:
Like I said, that doesn't

I'm afraid that letting the small offenses slip by unchallenged will send the message that all the fundamentalists have to do to get what they really want is to give us something more outrageous to distract us.
Click to expand...

LOL!

Sucks when your enemy learns your tricks of the trade and uses them agin' ya, huh?

As someone else noted, this is PRECISELY what "others" have done; it's the boiling frog analogy: you throw a frog into a pot of boiling water he will jump out. You put him in room temp water and slowly turn up the heat, he'll sit there until he become frog soup.

This is what has been done in our culture with virtually EVERYthing the secularist leftists have wanted: sexualization of children, gay (special) rights, feminization of our culture, and the general breaking down of traditional American cultural standards, mores and ethics as a means of destroying our society so it can be re-made in the left's image of Stalinist perfection.

Kudos to them (you) by the way: you have done yeomanlike work toward that end and if we elect Hillary in 2008, it'll be like October, 1917 all over again!

Tokie
 
Tokenconservative said:
This is what has been done in our culture with virtually EVERYthing the secularist leftists have wanted: sexualization of children, gay (special) rights, feminization of our culture, and the general breaking down of traditional American cultural standards, mores and ethics as a means of destroying our society so it can be re-made in the left's image of Stalinist perfection.
Click to expand...


Sexualization of children and feminization of culture is Stalinist? Words, words, words, words. Do you ever use words with any concern for what they mean?
 
hgc said:
Sexualization of children and feminization of culture is Stalinist? Words, words, words, words. Do you ever use words with any concern for what they mean?
Click to expand...

I try not to.

Yes, they are all part 'n parcel of the same thing. Given, Stalinism is the far end of the spectrum, but it's all covered under the same umbrella.

Do you disagree that in America, culturally, the morality of the past has been (for whatever reasons) eroded? Now mind you...this is a question. You can tell by my having added that "?" at the end, so it requires an ANSWER, not another question.

See how this works?

Let's give 'er a try!

Tokie
 
Tokenconservative said:
I try not to.

Yes, they are all part 'n parcel of the same thing. Given, Stalinism is the far end of the spectrum, but it's all covered under the same umbrella.

Do you disagree that in America, culturally, the morality of the past has been (for whatever reasons) eroded? Now mind you...this is a question. You can tell by my having added that "?" at the end, so it requires an ANSWER, not another question.

See how this works?

Let's give 'er a try!

Tokie
Click to expand...


Yes, I disagree.

Does this spectrum Stalinism you speak of have anything to do with the Stalin of the USSR? Or is it some other Stalin I've never heard of? You see, Stalinism is a word in common use already, and I can't for the life of me link it in any other context to sexualization of children and feminization of culture. Edumacate me.
 
Tokenconservative said:
... the boiling frog analogy: you throw a frog into a pot of boiling water he will jump out. You put him in room temp water and slowly turn up the heat, he'll sit there until he become frog soup.
Click to expand...
That won't work. Look it up on Snopes. Not that it makes any difference, but I thought I'd mention it.
 
Adrian Lopez said:
That won't work. Look it up on Snopes. Not that it makes any difference, but I thought I'd mention it.
Click to expand...

Not that I'm defending TC, but even if it doesn't work it real life, it's still a good analogy for some situations.
 
tsg said:
Not that I'm defending TC, but even if it doesn't work it real life, it's still a good analogy for some situations.
Click to expand...

Although it seems to be used exclusively by people attempting to convert their moral panic into a slippery slope argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom