fundie atheist?

[WildCat]

It's tough to avoid being a fundamental atheist when there's only one fundament in atheism

Rob Sherman is a bitter asshat who uses his kids for his own purposes. IIRC, his son no longer will even talk to him after he was used for similar things in his childhood.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Rob Sherman is a bitter asshat who uses his kids for his own purposes. IIRC, his son no longer will even talk to him after he was used for similar things in his childhood.

No doubt. I merely object to the misappropriation of fundamentalist to mean radical. The only tenet of atheism is not to believe in gods. That's the limit to how fundamental one can get because that is the limit of the belief system (or lack-of-belief more accurately). The reason fundamentalist religion is bad is because so many of the tenets of the religion are evil that the only way it can be socially workable is if people ignore them.

 

[tsg]

I didn't suggest that you suggested it.

I just have trouble understanding why people's outrage is so strong.

While I wouldn't call mine "outrage", my displeasure with this law and laws like it is that, while they go out of their way to say it isn't advocating prayer, prayer is always mentioned, usually first, in the list of things the students are supposed to be doing during this moment, while the others are along the lines of "whatever will make it constitutional" the way intelligent design proponents say it doesn't have to be god, but none of them believes it isn't.

The reason for the law is to encourage prayer. Period. In the case I linked to above, there were proposed changes to the legislation that would have removed the word "prayer" that were struck down. Coupled with the language used in the public statements made by the legislators about the law makes it obvious what the real intent is. And while some will argue that as long as it doesn't advocate one particular religion it isn't a breech of the First Amendment, my position is that it should be. Government should not be in the business of promoting religion, even if it is only over no religion.

Kids who want to pray will find time to do it. Setting aside a certain time "allowing those who wish" to pray is nothing short of saying "you should all be doing it". "Meditation", "silent reflection" and whatever else they claim is a thin coat of whitewash to keep it just legal enough to stand. And after reading the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision on the Virginia case, it will probably stand in Illinois as well. They found "accommodating religion", what everyone else would call "pandering", a legitimate secular purpose. I also disagree with them that because it doesn't advocate a particular religion means it doesn't fail the second prong of the Lemon Test ("The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion"). It is clearly advancing religion, even if it isn't a particular religion.

In short, the outrage is caused by the religious making yet another attempt to force their beliefs on everyone else. I can't make you care about it, but please stop belittling those who do simply because you don't understand why they do.

 

[tsg]

Rob Sherman is a bitter asshat who uses his kids for his own purposes. IIRC, his son no longer will even talk to him after he was used for similar things in his childhood.

Ad hominem.

 

[WildCat]

Ad hominem.

Maybe, but true. We in the Chicago area have been dealing with this nut for years. He does nothing but give a bad name to atheists with his endless crusades and lawsuits, often using his children as his tool.

 

[tsg]

Maybe, but true. We in the Chicago area have been dealing with this nut for years. He does nothing but give a bad name to atheists with his endless crusades and lawsuits, often using his children as his tool.

That doesn't make him wrong.

 

[KingMerv00]

In short, the outrage is caused by the religious making yet another attempt to force their beliefs on everyone else. I can't make you care about it, but please stop belittling those who do simply because you don't understand why they do.

Did I belittle someone?

 

[Tokenconservative]

A 14 year old girl and her father are filing a federal lawsuit challenging a mandated period of silence at the beginning of the day in Illinois public schools.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2007-10-26-moment-of-silence_N.htm

Personally (and as another proud atheist), I disagree with the suit. I don't see the harm in a brief moment of silence, where you can pray to Jesus, Allah, Buddha or (*gasp*) not pray at all. We observed a moment of silence at my school and somehow, they failed to indoctrinate me and several of my fellow students. No doubt it is also a relief for the teachers to get the kids to be quiet for a minute or two.

I also fail to see why this complaint should take it up with the federal government. No specific religion or sect is given preference here. And his whining to the contrary, he and other nonbelievers in the state of Illinois are not relegated to second class citizenship.

I think this lawsuit is a stunt and brings the wrong kind of attention to the nonreligious among us. Aren't we supposed to be more open minded and tolerant than everyone else?

The reality is that many atheists are like this guy...they are zealously religious, proselytizing atheists.

Why is it so...offensive to atheists that other find comfort in belief?

Tokie

 

[KingMerv00]

Why is it so...offensive to atheists that other find comfort in belief?

Tokie

I don't think he filed suit on the basis of being offended by the comfort of others.

 

[Tokenconservative]

I don't think he filed suit on the basis of being offended by the comfort of others.

Really?

And I don't think I said he did, but it's a nice little bit of begging the question!

Bravo!

Tokie

 

[KingMerv00]

Really?

Yes really. He filed on the grounds that 1st Amendment of the US Constitution was violated.

And I don't think I said he did, but it's a nice little bit of begging the question!

Bravo!

Tokie

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?

 

[tsg]

Did I belittle someone?

This law is unconstitutional in the same way that driving 55.6mph in a 55mph zone is illegal.

I'm not sure how to feel.

This, to me, suggests that allowing the religious to force their beliefs on schoolchildren is as harmless as going a half-mile per hour over an arbitrary speed limit and thus, not worthy of concern and those who are concerned are overreacting.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

This, to me, suggests that allowing the religious to force their beliefs on schoolchildren is as harmless as going a half-mile per hour over an arbitrary speed limit and thus, not worthy of concern and those who are concerned are overreacting.

What it suggests is that in the realm of "forc[ing]...beliefs on schoolchildren", a mandatory moment of silence is a rather minor manner. It does not suggest that no such forcing is unworthy of concern, just as the ignoring a half-mph over the limit does not suggest one believes all speeding is all right.

 

[tsg]

What it suggests is that in the realm of "forc[ing]...beliefs on schoolchildren", a mandatory moment of silence is a rather minor manner.

That doesn't mean it isn't worth fighting.

It does not suggest that no such forcing is unworthy of concern, just as the ignoring a half-mph over the limit does not suggest one believes all speeding is all right.

That isn't what I said. What I said was that comparing a mandatory moment of silence for the purposes of encouraging prayer to an insignificant infraction of a law is suggesting that it isn't worthy of concern.

 

[KingMerv00]

This, to me, suggests that allowing the religious to force their beliefs on schoolchildren is as harmless as going a half-mile per hour over an arbitrary speed limit and thus, not worthy of concern and those who are concerned are overreacting.

My speed limit reference was immediately followed by "I'm not sure how to feel." Doesn't that suggest I am somewhat sympathetic to you position?

 

[KingMerv00]

That doesn't mean it isn't worth fighting.

I'm not so sure about that. I worry this type of suit could lead to backlash against the church/state separation. Taking the bullet out may cause more damage than leaving it in.

That isn't what I said. What I said was that comparing a mandatory moment of silence for the purposes of encouraging prayer to an insignificant infraction of a law is suggesting that it isn't worthy of concern.

Concern, maybe. Lawsuit, I don't think so.

 

[tsg]

My speed limit reference was immediately followed by "I'm not sure how to feel." Doesn't that suggest I am somewhat sympathetic to you position?

It suggested that your inability to come to a conclusion was the result of unimportance of the situation.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

That isn't what I said. What I said was that comparing a mandatory moment of silence for the purposes of encouraging prayer to an insignificant infraction of a law is suggesting that it isn't worthy of concern.

What you said was "allowing the religious to force their beliefs on schoolchildren", which is a general range of actions of which the mandatory moment of silence (debateably) falls within. It reads as if you interpreted the intended comparison to a slight breach of speed limits to be this entire range of action rather than merely the specific instance.

 

[tsg]

What you said was "allowing the religious to force their beliefs on schoolchildren", which is a general range of actions of which the mandatory moment of silence (debateably) falls within. It reads as if you interpreted the intended comparison to a slight breach of speed limits to be this entire range of action rather than merely the specific instance.

It isn't how I meant it.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

It isn't how I meant it.

Thanks for clarifying.