How to freak out an Atheist.

[Reverenddel]

Mindflayer,


I quote Buford T Justice, "What the hell does the Germans gotta do with anything?" -"Smokey and the Bandit"

My POINT, if Atheists are going to push for a removal of any form of religion in relations to government, the government needs to INCLUDE them in the "removal" as well because their "faith in no god" still qualifies it as a RELIGION!

IN other words, the guv'mit should stop trying to kow-tow to everybody, and just let it go.

[FiremanBob]

The .gov isn't kowtowing to anybody. It demands that everybody kowtow to it. Because in the "Progressive" era, as I said above, government thinks that it is God.

[Kreutz]

My POINT, if Atheists are going to push for a removal of any form of religion in relations to government

They' don't have a hive mind. Most genuine atheists don't give a seconds thought to religion. The "militant atheist" branch is vastly greater in decibels than adherents, just like these nefarious right-wing Christian terrorists I've been hearing about for the last 20 years, they simply exist more on paper (and in Hollywood script-writers heads) than reality.

The vast majority of people just want to be left alone.

[SpazSoldier]

Mind blown. I'm going to start using this against my atheist friends.

[MrJog]

When has the US government ever pushed atheism on any of you?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Reverenddel]

By pushing out religion, in effect? They are...

[MrJog]

That's too stupid to even argue with. You win!

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[ratherfish]

I don't hire lawyers and form orginizations to purge every place I inhabit of all who are faithless and dare to show and shout it!

Atheists do.

Freedom of religion IS NOT freedom from reigion as the progressives/atheists believe.

I'm not offended when others voice their faithlessness... I'm sad.
Too bad my faith offends them so much that it is not to be tolerated...

You're right Rev. Your REAL proof is in the vile unwaivering malace and hatred you recieve when you say it.

[MrJog]

I don't hire lawyers and form orginizations to purge every place I inhabit of all who are faithless and dare to show and shout it!

Atheists do.

Cite your sources please.

You must have a big ego if you think many atheists give a damn about your religious beliefs.

[Reverenddel]

First off, Do not call me "stupid" that is rude, and unacceptable. This isn't "other" sites. We value polite debate, not name calling.

Second, When the government prevents people from expressing their religious views because it conflicts with an interpretation of "Separation of Church and State" that goes directly against the Founding Fathers intent. In some cases, removing prayers from city council meetings, or requiring multiple expressions during holidays when there isn't an "official" holiday for that season (IE: CHRISTMAS)

Third, the fact the government has pushed a secular-humanist agenda in the role of "education", while removing any references to religion in the formation of this country, the motivation in the factors of others, and/or the creation of ideas (IE: Art, Music, etc) THAT is a removal of religion.

Finally as stated, the views that God is an "imaginary being" requires is a "belief", and a grouping of "beliefs" is a "faith", and a "Faith" is a RELIGION! SO in effect, as stated, THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOW SANCTION AN OFFICIAL RELIGION BY REMOVING EVERY OTHER REFERENCE TO CHRISTIANITY FROM EDUCATION, AND GOVERNMENTAL PROCESSES!

So there is the status that GOVERNMENT has REMOVED religion from it's process, thereby CHOOSING a religion!

Nez pas?

[dusterdude]

Im still wondering about the "separation of church and state",my copy of the constitution doesnt have that.can someone help me find one that does?

[FiremanBob]

Methinks perhaps Ken lives under a bridge and was sent here by the DNC. Certainly seems like he's trying to start a fight.

"Cite your sources..." is one of the lamest tactics in the Left-wing Guide to Dishonest Discussion. Ken, I hope you can do better than that. Why just this week there was a news story about a charity that works with at-risk youth, which was ordered by the DOJ to sign a pledge not to mention religion or God in any as a condition of receiving program funding. And two weeks ago there was the valedictorian who thanked God in his graduation address, resulting in a threat from his principal to spoil his acceptance at a military academy. These stories hit the headlines almost as frequently as stories about violent criminals shooting people in Chicago. But perhaps Ken is one of those "low-information voters".

[MrJog]

I refuse to waste any more words on the nonsense coming from del.

I will discuss the matter of tax dollars being spent where religion is involved. Would you want a charity that was funded by your tax dollars to introduce atheism to at-risk youth? If you are thinking "NO" then that would be hypocrisy.

Tell me how you would feel about a graduation speech that started out "I'd like to thank myself, since there is no god..." I would consider it awfully rude. There would be no good reason for that person to go out of their way to offend other people. And that is exactly what some of you guys are refusing to acknowledge.

The government isn't supporting atheism. It is merely attempting to stay neutral in religious matters.If this were the other way around, where the government was out right supporting only Christianity, then someone would have already come here and suggested that if I didn't like it to move somewhere else. Anyone who has browsed this forum for any amount of time knows this to be true. I would not say that to you. I'm sorry if you are scared that your religion is falling out of popularity. I would agree with you, if you claimed that our society could use a good dose of Christian morals. But I will not share your bias in the matter of religion being involved our government.

[FiremanBob]

Yup, definitely a troll. Perhaps from the Terry Mac campaign.

[ShotgunBlast]

As an Atheist, I'm not freaked out. I think it's a bit of a stretch on the definitions of the words "faith", "religion", and church and somehow trying to apply those words most-often used in a religious context to somehow apply to a concept devoid of religion, but that's just me. That's not to offend Rev or anyone else who agrees with the sentiment of the original post; y'all think what you want. Of course like Kreutz mentioned of many Atheists, I don't have a hive mind, congregate with other Atheists, don't plot and scheme on how I can piss off religious people, don't really think about me being an Atheist until it gets pointed out to me, and don't think about religion in general. I don't care if you practice what you practice, just leave me be. Can't we just go to the range and shoot stuff?

As far as nativity decorations or 10 commandments and such on government property, I don't have a problem with that as long as there's a star of David and Koran scripture right next to it. Fair treatment and all. Since most people tend not to be able to agree on that, I usually settle for not having anything there at all.

Im still wondering about the "separation of church and state",my copy of the constitution doesnt have that.can someone help me find one that does?

Your copy must not have the 1st amendment then that states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." I reckon your copy does have that, but you're just not understanding it correctly. As understood by Jefferson and upheld many times by the SCOTUS, there will be no official government religion. Like others have said "freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion" and I agree with that. So put everyone's religious decorations on government property and there's no official endorsement from the government, but like I said earlier most people can't agree to have everyone's decorations on the property so no decorations end up on the property.

I personally don't understand what the big fuss is about religion on government property. If I wanted my kids to have religious teachings, I'd send them to a private school that teaches them about religion or home school them. If I were a religious person I figure I'd want to promote my beliefs and not rely on the government to do it for me. As inept as the government is in just about everything, I wouldn't rely on them to be the ones championing my religious beliefs. I'd rather save the religious decorations for a place I'd LIKE to go to and congregate with like-minded people, not a location that is dreadful to be at and filled with people that may not even believe in what the decorations mean.

As long as someone's internal belief system has no harm to living and breathing persons as part of it's core, it's no better or no worse than others.

Out of the two pages in this thread, I can identify with this the most.

[dorminWS]

I think Shotgun is pretty well on target here. With all due respect to my buddy daRev, it is a little bit of a stretch to say atheism is a religion. I think it is clearly a "belief system", but as I see it they are not necessarily the same thing.

And I also agree that the Constitutional language does NOT justify the current fashion of forbidding even the mention of God or the discussion of a religion on public property. So in that way, I agree that the atheists ARE practicing their analog for proselytization, and as such are doing at more damage to the spirit of the First Amendment than are the folks who advocate displaying the Ten Commandments at the Courthouse. And it is important to remember, as Kreutz noted, that most atheists probably don't support spending all that money and energy to meddle in other people's business. Most of them probably just don't care. So it is important to remember that you can be an atheist and still be a good person.

My approach to this for a long time now has been that matters of faith are just that; and are so inherently subjective that no person should question the faith of another since each person's truth is sui generis. And of course, reason, good faith and basic respect for our fellow man dictate that this reinforces and is circumscribed by what SpanishInquisition wrote; to-wit: "As long as someone's internal belief system has no harm to living and breathing persons as part of it's core, it's no better or no worse than others". Live and let live. Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. No religious creed has a monopoly on these notions. Most endorse them.

Comments like "I'm sorry if you are scared that your religion is falling out of popularity." are divisive, intolerant, and juvenile; and I really feel they are not (at least in this sort of discussion) typical of this forum. So I think it wouldn't be out of line for us to collectively urge MrJog to either grow up or shut up.

Just my opinion, and OALA.

[Reverenddel]

And I'm not saying that I don't think Atheists aren't entitled to their opinions/"faith".

What I'm saying is that the guv'mint has "chosen" a "religion", and that is supposedly int their view "unconstitutional".

Hey! If you want to worship a spaghetti monster! Rock on! Pass the Parmesan! But don't use the government against faith, when your belief system mimicks a religion (at least in my opinion)

I have no issues with honest debate, but name calling, and inflamed insults aren't acceptable. SB and I agree on most issues, doesn't change just because we disagree on this one!

[MrJog]

As far as nativity decorations or 10 commandments and such on government property, I don't have a problem with that as long as there's a star of David and Koran scripture right next to it. Fair treatment and all. Since most people tend not to be able to agree on that, I usually settle for not having anything there at all.

He gets it.

[SHMIV]

I reckon that we ought to edit the Declaration of Independence to conform with this new and modern way of thinking.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[dorminWS]

I reckon that we ought to edit the Declaration of Independence to conform with this new and modern way of thinking.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I guess it's too late to turn this new and modern generation upside down and edit their way of thinking, but that's what NEEDED doing...............