tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post192573093922118636..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: Why Won't Atheists Defend Themselves?Alonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-24869939264822313852013-07-29T19:03:50.614-06:002013-07-29T19:03:50.614-06:00I think it's simply a matter of not being afra...I think it's simply a matter of not being afraid. If we aren't afraid of our "oppressors" and don't care about what they do, then there's no reason to defend ourselves, because, really, all that stuff is irrelevant. It seems like no more of a problem than people asserting that the Padres (a baseball team) are terrible and saying their fans are foolish. It's inconsequential noise.<br /><br />Why fight, when we've already won? Every generation, more and more people leave the religions behind because they realize that belief in god is meaningless. I'm surrounded by people who have left religion. So, I ignore the shouting and crying and accusations of the religious, because I know it's just the meaningless, empty, and fearful whining of a group that knows it's losing.<br /><br />All we have to do, is protect and spread critical thinking. Only when they attack critical thinking and education, is there an actual threat worth fighting against.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-42423486817226377082008-04-24T13:37:00.000-06:002008-04-24T13:37:00.000-06:00charles m.You think that just because young childr...charles m.<BR/>You think that just because young children are not being forced to say the Pledge makes it OK for the government to use it to preach a religious position to them on a daily basis? Tell me how exactly is it that you think sitting in silence and "taking it" while others stand to voice their religious beliefs is not oppressive to an elementary school child? <BR/><BR/>How would Christian children feel if they were made to sit and listen every day to <I><B>"one nation, indivisible, under no gods"? </B></I> Really, no Christians would take offense? You wouldn't feel oppressed?<BR/><BR/>In the interest of one nation, indivisible, wouldn't it be better to leave the Pledge neutral as to whether or not there are gods?<BR/><BR/>As a Christian and a patriot who believes government should not oppress religious expression, you should be as offended as anyone to realize that the government has set up the Pledge practice in the schools in such a way that my kids NEVER get to stand and in the hearing of all of their peers offer a contrary view. In what possible sense is that not a criminal violation of their equal rights under the law.<BR/><BR/>Tell you what, you support all kids being allowed equal religious expression in the classroom, not just Christians and Jews, and we have no problem here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-7992199572276063042008-04-23T03:45:00.000-06:002008-04-23T03:45:00.000-06:00Charles MIt is interesting that you say you would ...Charles M<BR/>It is interesting that you say you would prefer the America of the late 40's in the context of this disscussion as at that time neither "one nation under God" nor "In God we trust" where part of the pledge or had been accepted as an additional motto.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-4934981574809134802008-04-23T01:12:00.000-06:002008-04-23T01:12:00.000-06:00Charles M.In reply Eneasz's "Would those inalienab...Charles M.<BR/><BR/>In reply Eneasz's "Would those inalienable rights include the right to fair and equal treatment by the law? Including the right to not be singled out and ostracized based on personal (un)religious beliefs?"<BR/><BR/>You said:<I>Yes. No one should be treated poorly for any reason. Unfortunately that is difficult to put into practice since being "mean" is not properly a crime. But it is still wrong.</I><BR/><BR/>This looks like a dodge to me over "mean" and crime. The issue is about institutionalized bigotry, and if one wants live in a civilized society one should be against this. <BR/><BR/>It is in your own interest too since by allowing, directly or complicity, such principles to persist, there is always the danger that, if demographics change, you could end up being the victim of such bigotry. <BR/><BR/>Anyway if god is so great why does it need these practices that encourage bigotry to help it? Surely it should be robust to stand on a level playing field and show its superiority by example instead? (Indeed religious support or "not seeing what the problem is" of the pledge and other such institutionalized practices is surely indicative evidence of the weakness of the case for god).<BR/><BR/>PS I do not think there is such a thing as "inalienable rights" at least not fundamentally. However rights are derivable from DU, as restatements of universal aversions it is in our interests to encourage others to have.Martin Freedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16952072422175870627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-80317999419165890612008-04-22T23:38:00.000-06:002008-04-22T23:38:00.000-06:00Charles M -Huzzah!!I'll not ask you to join us in ...Charles M -<BR/><BR/>Huzzah!!<BR/><BR/>I'll not ask you to join us in any direct way, as you seem to be already occupied with other efforts to help who you can. And, on top of that, working for equality for the non-religious has certain social costs that I doubt the religious are willing to bear.<BR/><BR/>However I do ask this. Please, next time someone asks to you support them in efforts to uphold the bigotry currently enshrined in our pledge and our system, think of me (and all of us). Refuse them. If you could go so far as to tell them that you won't support their effort to oppress the non-religious and the reasons why, we would all greatly appreciate it. But even if you don't, at the very least, please don't give them your support.<BR/><BR/>Many thanks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-78544853603334267882008-04-22T11:27:00.000-06:002008-04-22T11:27:00.000-06:00Eneasz,"Would those inalienable rights include the...Eneasz,<BR/><BR/>"Would those inalienable rights include the right to fair and equal treatment by the law? Including the right to not be singled out and ostracized based on personal (un)religious beliefs?"<BR/><BR/>Yes. No one should be treated poorly for any reason. Unfortunately that is difficult to put into practice since being "mean" is not properly a crime. But it is still wrong.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-26441736179115468672008-04-22T11:17:00.000-06:002008-04-22T11:17:00.000-06:00Hi Charles M.What I (and I would imagine Ben Stein...Hi Charles M.<BR/><BR/><I>What I (and I would imagine Ben Stein too) fear is someone who is an atheist or secularist who, in addition to laying out the facts and theories, will suggest in subtle (or not so subtle) ways that science has made God obsolete - that religion is worthy of scorn - that we don't need religion to explain things any more.</I><BR/>Yes well this is outside the topic of teaching science in the classroom. I would not endorse such a view as I would not endorse someone forcing their religion on pupils either. One's religious views are at best a topic for a religion class not a science class. <BR/><BR/>However if this were all the case what is the justification for the dishonest methods that Ben Stein has used to make his case? Why did he not instead focus on the issues that you and I agree on here. I can only conclude that this was not his intention, given the false arguments over people being fired for their ID beliefs when they were not, and when they were, at best if at all, abusing their position in exactly the way you expressed your fears over hypothesized science teachers. Why do you not fear this too? Or are you applying double standards?<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>I really have no problems with teaching science as we know it. But I have chided some of those here for not recognizing their biases - and I suspect that someone who holds such a bias would be less than charitable to the religious sensibilities of those in class who might be believers. I recall an incident in one of my physiology classes in which a book (which was informally referred to as the "bible" of physiology) contained an error. The teacher quipped, "well it wouldn't be the first time the bible was wrong now would it..."</I><BR/>Wow this is the best you can do? An innocent joke? That is it? Well I do not endorse such behavior but, really, what is wrong with a sense of humor one way or another?<BR/><BR/><I>As I said I have taught and do still teach biochemistry and physiology on a postgraduate level - and I have never allowed my faith to color any of my presentation of the material. If you were teaching my children science I would expect that you leave your distaste for Christianity and the idea of intelligent design at the door and not allow it to color your teaching of the facts.</I><BR/>And that is why neither should be topics in a science class, the opposite of what Ben Stein was arguing for, I believe.Martin Freedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16952072422175870627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-48491558134020987032008-04-22T11:07:00.000-06:002008-04-22T11:07:00.000-06:00:) I believe we've reached an accord! I can only ...:) I believe we've reached an accord! I can only say that I hope more people believe as you do, given the sentements of your last post. The few disagreements I still have with you are minor enough that I would rather call you a friend than a foe.<BR/><BR/>I do have a question though. When you say:<BR/><I><BR/>I do however think that if I, and a majority of others, desire society to be a certain way then that is OK - as long as that society does not violate the inalienable rights of others.</I><BR/><BR/>Would those inalienable rights include the right to fair and equal treatment by the law? Including the right to not be singled out and ostracized based on personal (un)religious beliefs?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-43225121458831845712008-04-22T10:34:00.000-06:002008-04-22T10:34:00.000-06:00Eneasz,I do not offer evidence for the veracity of...Eneasz,<BR/><BR/><BR/>I do not offer evidence for the veracity of my faith. If people believed in Jesus because he came down and shot lightning out of his fingers that would not be faith - it would be belief out of fear. <BR/><BR/>And regarding society and imposing my will - I would never vote for a candidate who would strip anyone of rights or force them to practice a religion. And I do not claim that society must be based on my opinion (although it seems to me that the secularists do just that). I do however think that if I, and a majority of others, desire society to be a certain way then that is OK - as long as that society does not violate the inalienable rights of others. For instance - the majority does NOT have a right to make you worship God. But it does, in my opinion, have the right to make a society in which worship is accomodated.<BR/><BR/>As far as ID goes - I do not support teaching Christianity in science class. I do not support actual lessons on 6 day creation either.<BR/><BR/>What I would like to see, given the "charged" nature of this topic, is an explanation to students that in science class there will be discussion of what science has taught us (which will include a heavy dose of material containing and consitent with evolutionary processes) - and not discussions of whether God created the universe. If I were teaching biology class I would admit that, in truth, the origin of the earth is still in the realm of theory - but that we do have a good deal of experimental knowledge suggesting that the earth is old. <BR/><BR/>What I (and I would imagine Ben Stein too) fear is someone who is an atheist or secularist who, in addition to laying out the facts and theories, will suggest in subtle (or not so subtle) ways that science has made God obsolete - that religion is worthy of scorn - that we don't need religion to explain things any more.<BR/><BR/>I really have no problems with teaching science as we know it. But I have chided some of those here for not recognizing their biases - and I suspect that someone who holds such a bias would be less than charitable to the religious sensibilities of those in class who might be believers. I recall an incident in one of my physiology classes in which a book (which was informally referred to as the "bible" of physiology) contained an error. The teacher quipped, "well it wouldn't be the first time the bible was wrong now would it..."<BR/><BR/>As I said I have taught and do still teach biochemistry and physiology on a postgraduate level - and I have never allowed my faith to color any of my presentation of the material. If you were teaching my children science I would expect that you leave your distaste for Christianity and the idea of intelligent design at the door and not allow it to color your teaching of the facts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-18888398185247492872008-04-22T09:29:00.000-06:002008-04-22T09:29:00.000-06:00But you are correct that my stance does not come f...<I><BR/>But you are correct that my stance does not come from "evidence"<BR/>...<BR/>We both have ideas about how we would like the world to be. I admit that mine has implicit bias<BR/></I><BR/>So if you have no evidence, then what is your stance supported by? A biased opinion and the military power to force it on others? What happened to the claims of an objective standard? If you have nothing but biased opinions, how can you claim that you have the objective standard society must be based on?<BR/><BR/><I>Is it OK when a department head says that an ID proponent is not fit to be a teacher?</I><BR/><BR/>If that teacher is a teacher of science, and is trying to teach this in a science classroom, then yes. If it's a belief they talk about outside of the classroom then they're free to talk however they wish. My high school physics teacher was a very devout christian, he ran an after-school bible group. But he never once invoked god in the classroom, and I have much respect for him for that.<BR/><BR/><I>Was it OK when Brian Fleming made his movie about religion and its adherents?</I><BR/><BR/>I can't say, I've never seen it.<BR/><BR/><I>Was it OK when Sam harris basically blamed religionists for 9/11?</I><BR/><BR/>No. That is also bigotry, and Harris should retract that statement and apologize. This has been discussed a number of times in this blog.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-62833434046324813912008-04-21T18:29:00.000-06:002008-04-21T18:29:00.000-06:00Eneasz,I'm sorry if I upset you. But you are corr...Eneasz,<BR/><BR/>I'm sorry if I upset you. But you are correct that my stance does not come from "evidence" (which would have been gathered by those who assume religion IS bad I would say - but rather from belief that God can mandate right and wrong. <BR/><BR/>And consider what Alonzo said in the opening post:<BR/><BR/>"You will pay with your job if you should declare that atheists are not qualified to be judges or have no right to offer testimony before a state legislature. If you produce a movie that tries to blame atheists for the holocaust you will be met with a cry that will ensure that everybody in the country hears how bigoted your claims are. And if you ever again try to blame us for a school shooting, hurricane, terrorist attack, or anything similar you will be met with a storm of protest that will bury your career."<BR/><BR/>Is it OK when a department head says that an ID proponent is not fit to be a teacher?<BR/><BR/>Was it OK when Brian Fleming made his movie about religion and its adherents?<BR/><BR/>Was it OK when Sam harris basically blamed religionists for 9/11?<BR/><BR/>We both have ideas about how we would like the world to be. I admit that mine has implicit bias (ie based on belief in the Christian God) - you dress yours up so as to make it neutral when it is anything but that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-9944899653205605062008-04-21T17:06:00.000-06:002008-04-21T17:06:00.000-06:00I just differ with you on what would be the ultima...<I><BR/>I just differ with you on what would be the ultimate society. Given what I see of human nature I think that without God any semblance of "society" is a fiction.</I><BR/><BR/>Which is the equivilent of saying "atheists cannot have a functional society". That's bigotted in it's own right, and it's no wonder that people who think that way would tell atheists they have no right to speak with their representatives in congress and children shouldn't be allowed to know they exist.<BR/><BR/>It is obviously simple bigotry because there are counter-examples in the world right now. Saying that a society without god is a fiction is simply denying that such states exist around the world today.<BR/><BR/>And since it was obviously not the evidence that led you to this conclusion that society without god is fiction it had to be something else. Perhaps a national motto that has been telling you that atheists are not part of this society? Perhaps a national pledge of allegiance that has been drilled into all our heads from before we could even understand what it meant (regardless of whether we were forced to recite it or not) that told us all that being without god is equivilent to being for injustice, slavery, and tyrany? It's no wonder you feel that a society without a god is a fiction. And this ingrained and government-supported bigotry is EXACTLY what we are trying to stop!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-39574761654872119102008-04-21T15:56:00.000-06:002008-04-21T15:56:00.000-06:00Eneasz,I agree.I just think that there is a big di...Eneasz,<BR/><BR/>I agree.<BR/><BR/>I just think that there is a big difference in having "under God" in the pledge and forcing someone to utter those words. The second is oppression and the first is not in my opinion.<BR/><BR/>Please don't misunderstand me. Your arguments are well founded and make plenty of sense. I just differ with you on what would be the ultimate society. Given what I see of human nature I think that without God any semblance of "society" is a fiction.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-47322608173840248742008-04-21T15:48:00.000-06:002008-04-21T15:48:00.000-06:00I think we're talking in circles. I have no proble...I think we're talking in circles. I have no problem with anyone practicing their religion, as long as it doesn't do harm to people who aren't part of that religion. I'm assuming you agree?<BR/><BR/>A national policy of denigrating and demeaning those who are free of god-beliefs DOES do harm to others. That is what I protest.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-4256165392166954222008-04-21T15:21:00.000-06:002008-04-21T15:21:00.000-06:00Eneasz,I would not equate a greater preponderance ...Eneasz,<BR/><BR/>I would not equate a greater preponderance of fundamentalism with the goodness of a society. <BR/><BR/>And as a Christian I have no intention of defending the influence of another religion on a society - since any ethic divorced from Jesus is of human invention.<BR/><BR/>If you would come to my church you would meet very kind people who would treat you well. You would meet people who spend their time having Bible studies on Friday nights instead of killing liver hepatocytes and neurons with drugs and alcohol, who try to remember to be patient with the Taco Bell drive-in guy who just completely botched your order on a busy day, who give large amounts to missionaries who preach and set up medical missions in poor countries.<BR/><BR/>Now all of these qualities could easily be found in a non-church environment. But in my perception the influence of Christianity and of our local church in the lives of our congragation is 100% positive. I also know that the assurance of salvation I have is better than any economic or intellectaul satisfaction I have ever had (and I have been blessed to have had a good deal of those things).<BR/><BR/>I am relating this to you so that you might get an idea of the mindset behind Christian belief. Many atheists with whom I blog are just indignant when they offer a nice cogent humanist argument like yours - and find that I disagree with it.<BR/><BR/>As I said before - I am a theist! As such I am not a humanist! Asking me to lay aside devotion to God in order to promote a "strong society" is about equivalent to asking me to, out of respect for your beliefs, revere your mother as much as my own! <BR/><BR/>Again - I am saying this not to "preach" to you - but rather so you might consider what underlays me devotion to Christianity. And I am confident that this would be echoed by most who consider themselves evangelical Christians. <BR/><BR/>Really. I am not stupid (actually I happen to be pretty smart). I am just devoted to God through Jesus. And please believe me I DO respect your views and understand your arguements. I just disagree with them.<BR/><BR/>And as I said I think that we also differ on freedom of religion. I have described what I believe - and what I am entitled to believe. But I often get the feeling that secularists think that freedome of religion means freedom to practice any religion, as long as that religion is a form of humanism and has humanistic priorities.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-19457653833471982632008-04-21T14:34:00.000-06:002008-04-21T14:34:00.000-06:00Charles:You may see taking down monuments with the...Charles:<BR/><BR/><I>You may see taking down monuments with the 10 commandments or the Bible as being a good thing and something that is more neutral. I see it as decreasing a positive, nay the most positive, potential influence on society.<BR/><BR/>I certainly do not think that atheists should be compelled to participate in my religion. But I am not going to support changes in society which I think will have a destructive effect on the society in which my kids will be growing up. </I><BR/><BR/>Well then, you have to ask yourself - what is more important to you? That your religious beliefs are propagated regardless of their effects... or that society is made better and strong, instead of being weakened, degraded, and corrupted? If it's the former, then there's not much use arguing from facts and evidence, as you don't care how destructive or constructive a religion may be on society (the society you and your children will have to live in) as long as that religion is yours.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, if you prefer and strong, just, and responsible society that encourages the best in all of us, then you probably also want to make sure that you are helping society rather than harming it. After all, giving the wrong medication to a sick patient can not only fail to cure him, it can actualy make him worse. So how do you determine if what you are propoing is beneficial or harmful?<BR/><BR/>The only method we humans have discovered to make such a determination is to try various approaches in different areas and then compare results. If putting up religious icons and strengthening religious convictions is a good thing in a society, those areas of the nation and world which do this should be demonstrably better.<BR/><BR/>I would ask you to present such evidence for your claims that religion is such a great thing for society.<BR/><BR/>Because from what few studies there have been on the subject, it seems that the opposite is true. The more fundamentalist and religious an area is, the worse off it tends to be (measured in social ills such as crime, sexually transmitted diseases, teen pregnancy, abortion, poverty, etc). And conversely, the more secular an area is, the better off it tends to be.<BR/><BR/>This may not show that religion necessarily makes a society worse. But it does *at least* demonstrate that religion does NOT make a society better. And if we are sacraficing such things as equality before the law, fair representation, and just treatment, we shouldn't do so for something which has no benefits.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-21786601955400308502008-04-21T13:03:00.000-06:002008-04-21T13:03:00.000-06:00Alonzo,Remember I am a theist! More than the eart...Alonzo,<BR/><BR/>Remember I am a theist! More than the earthly futures of my children I value their souls. I would rather they be Christian ditch-diggers than atheist judges. I do not mean that as an insult to you. But I think you are forgetting the the belief that drives Christianity to begin with. <BR/><BR/>Hifi,<BR/><BR/>Of your choices I would choose the pre-1954 USA, where most folks would not think of removing monuments of the 10 commandments, where many businesses were not even open on Sunday mornings, where jesus was not considered politically incorrect.<BR/><BR/>I remind you that no kids are being forced to say the pledge - or if they are they should not be. <BR/><BR/>And as for what Madison (or Jefferson for that matter) said what allegiance do I owe him? The bill of rights guarantees the protection of minorities from oppression. It does not mandate that the majority abandon its preferences and surrender completely to the will of the minorities.<BR/><BR/>And the Barnett case (which I know from living in WV!) protects kids from being forced to say the pledge - just as it protects my kids from being forbidden to pray before school or at a graduation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-48651783266014994102008-04-21T12:41:00.000-06:002008-04-21T12:41:00.000-06:00Also, it is helpful to understand that there is mo...Also, it is helpful to understand that there is more to the Supreme Court ruling that applies here than just declaring it unconstitutional to force kids to say the Pledge.<BR/><BR/>The majority opinion in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, written by Justice Robert Jackson in 1943, became one of the great statements in American constitutional law and history. <BR/> "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that <I>no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion</I> or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."<BR/><BR/>The true legacy of Barnette is less its jurisprudence than its defense of the principles of freedom. The opinion's eloquent closing has been cited in both religious and secular contexts. Thus, it said, in part: <BR/> 'The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. <B>One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; <I>they depend on the outcome of no elections ."</I></B>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-67545177487010219022008-04-21T12:30:00.000-06:002008-04-21T12:30:00.000-06:00Charles,First, let's not forget that the issue ove...Charles,<BR/>First, let's not forget that the issue over the Pledge is whether kids should be on the front lines of the culture wars. If your argument is about why the government should be able to use the public schools to promote religion to young children with the Pledge, then besides being a bully, it displays your fundamental ignorance about the history and principles of our constitutional republic - where a bill of rights advocates for the validity of minority positions as to guard against the whims and prejudices of the majority. <BR/><BR/>So that we can be clear as to where you stand, here's a list of government types. Please, choose one that applies to you.<BR/><BR/>- One nation under God (examples Iran, Saudi Arabia): majority controls expression of religion. <BR/>- One nation without God (example, China, Soviet Union): government controls expression religion .<BR/>- One nation, regardless of belief (pre-1954 USA): all viewpoints welcome, government is out of the picture, shows preference to no viewpoints either by statement or law.<BR/><BR/>Indeed, America was founded as a nation dedicated to civil liberties with the specific mandate to protect and promote minority belief. The difference, you see, between the US and other countries with state religions (or no religion) is that here a political majority may not, in any way, dictate belief. If it had been otherwise, we'd all be Anglicans now.<BR/><BR/>In fact, we need look no further for insight into the intent of the establishment clause than James Madison, “father of the Constitution,” it's author. He adamantly opposed all use of “religion as an engine of civil policy."<BR/><BR/>“Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise” (letter to William Bradford, April 1, 1774). <BR/><BR/>“During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution” (Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, Section 7, 1785).<BR/><BR/>He also wrote: "We should be grateful that the Founding Fathers--whatever they believed--were so intent on making religious liberty a right for those of us who do subscribe to the Apostles' Creed and those who don't. Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity in exclusion of all other religions may establish, with the same ease, any particular sect of Christians in exclusion of all other sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute threepence only of his property for the support of any one establishment may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-77964090105294813202008-04-21T11:54:00.000-06:002008-04-21T11:54:00.000-06:00Charles M.Does your interest in this future you de...<B>Charles M.</B><BR/><BR/>Does your interest in this future you describe consider the possibility of a child or grandchild being an atheist and, nonetheless, wanting to be a judge, to run for public office, to have the respect of his or her classmates in school?<BR/><BR/>Does it consider the value of promoting the principle of justice that your neighbors have the same interest in the welfare of their children as you have in yours, and that there is value in adhering to the principle that you should treat the atheist children of other parents the way that you would want them to treat your child if you child was an atheist.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-71429133145228491002008-04-21T11:22:00.000-06:002008-04-21T11:22:00.000-06:00Eneasz,That sounds fine. I promise I'll never com...Eneasz,<BR/><BR/>That sounds fine. I promise I'll never come to your home and say such things.<BR/><BR/>But in a large society things are more complex. I think most atheists would see American society as way slanted in favor of religion. But given my agreement with the tenets of Christianity I am likely to find such a situation to be beneicial effects on the societal milieu. <BR/><BR/>You may see taking down monuments with the 10 commandments or the Bible as being a good thing and something that is more neutral. I see it as decreasing a positive, nay the most positive, potential influence on society.<BR/><BR/>I certainly do not think that atheists should be compelled to participate in my religion. But I am not going to support changes in society which I think will have a destructive effect on the society in which my kids will be growing up.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-35653491893742158112008-04-21T08:37:00.000-06:002008-04-21T08:37:00.000-06:00Charles-You are more than welcome to keep god in y...Charles-<BR/><BR/>You are more than welcome to keep god in your equation. No one is trying to remove him from your equation, or your religion, or your life. We simply ask that you do not force him into the lives of others, and stop telling every man, woman, and child in the nation that those who don't hold to god beliefs are immoral, unjust, tyrannical, and destructive.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-79649929392622922672008-04-20T10:27:00.000-06:002008-04-20T10:27:00.000-06:00I think you fail to see the perspective of the the...<I>I think you fail to see the perspective of the theist. For a Christian theist God is the highest entity of all and the sole arbiter of truth. By definition removing Him from the equation would mean destruction of the theist's very conception of existence. And that is the very nature of my religion!</I><BR/><BR/>I think the phrase "<B>perspective</B> of the theist" hits the nail on the head. God is NOT the "sole arbiter of truth." Theists will use God and religion to justify any view they want to justify. And this has happened throughout history.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-53983960492331991312008-04-20T06:15:00.000-06:002008-04-20T06:15:00.000-06:00Alonzo,You say that only a person "filled with pre...Alonzo,<BR/><BR/>You say that only a person "filled with prejudice" would say that atheism is a "philosophy of destruction". <BR/><BR/>I think you fail to see the perspective of the theist. For a Christian theist God is the highest entity of all and the sole arbiter of truth. By definition removing Him from the equation would mean destruction of the theist's very conception of existence. And that is the very nature of my religion!<BR/><BR/>It would seem that your argument would lead to a position that freedom of religion means freedom to practice any religion, as long as it is a humanism. But theism is not humanism and it cannot be made to conform to it. <BR/><BR/>My main problem with your position here is that it seems to assume that you know what is right and what is best for the country. And I just plain ol' disagree with you. In a democratic nation my views are as viable as yours. And we both know that equating Christianity in the US with jihadists is a large straw man.<BR/><BR/>I resent the idea that those of the "intellectual aristocracy" think they should be able to tell all of us what we need - all the while still calling this a democracy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-2927768185090204002008-04-19T21:40:00.000-06:002008-04-19T21:40:00.000-06:00Charles M.The question at issue here is not what y...<B>Charles M.</B><BR/><BR/>The question at issue here is not what you are <I>comfortable</I> with. It is what is right.<BR/><BR/>Many southerners were comfortable with slavery and Jim Crowe laws. Many Crusaders and Jihadists are comfortable with the slaughter of infidels. The Inquisitors were comfortable with the torture of heretics. That is irrelevant to the question of whether these policies were right or wrong.<BR/><BR/>And the slave owner, inquisitor, crusader, jihadist, all had the option of saying, "You have the right to use your freedom of speech to criticize these actions, but this is my opinion and I will act on it.<BR/><BR/>This still does not give the slave owner, inquisitor, crusader, or jihadist the slightest measure of virtue.<BR/><BR/>The fact is, declaring that "the official government position is that those who do not favor one nation under God are to be viewed like those who do not favor liberty and justice for all," is a malicious statement that aims to promote hostility towards people who do not deserve it.<BR/><BR/>And that is wrong.<BR/><BR/>Regardless of how 'comfortable' the unjust are in their acts of injustice, it is still wrong.<BR/><BR/>The government has no right to say such things about me, about my father, and about a great many (millions) of citizens.<BR/><BR/>Only a bigot will say that no atheist is qualified to be a judge. Only a person filled with prejudice will say that atheism is a philosophy of destruction. None of these are the actions of a moral and just individual.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.com