tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post4721049301609471864..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: Accidentally Deleted Comments - In God We TrustAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-9339732850705460422011-02-21T07:35:52.170-07:002011-02-21T07:35:52.170-07:00Marking out IGWT on money just seems like a way to...Marking out IGWT on money just seems like a way to stay on the outside. <br /><br />The mint's presses are faster than your Sharpie. <br /><br />Putting on makeup to cover a black eye doesn't stop the bully.dbonfittohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08787420987976232701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-10895959311950007692011-02-20T08:14:48.664-07:002011-02-20T08:14:48.664-07:00I propose civil disobedience as an apt response to...I propose civil disobedience as an apt response to IGWT. If all atheists and freethinkers marked out the motto on our paper currency with a Sharpie, perhaps the issue would get more attention.Violence B. Gawnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13902507295777646361noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-76656178316420486542011-02-16T13:43:06.223-07:002011-02-16T13:43:06.223-07:00I was called a Punk and blamed for the 'downfa...I was called a Punk and blamed for the 'downfall of America' by a History teacher\Basketball coach for silently refusing to stand and put my hand over my heart and say the Pledge... Because making me say a pledge including 'Under god' (which was added in '54 NOT IN THE AUTHORS WRITING) is unconstitutional in a public school...<br /><br />Don't try to tell me it doesn't affect people... AND YES THIS WAS IN TEXAS. You're lack of negative attention does not mean that none exists... (Speaking to the other Mike)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-3991373391676891202011-02-14T15:45:31.275-07:002011-02-14T15:45:31.275-07:00Just a few points to clarify my earlier comment:
...Just a few points to clarify my earlier comment:<br /><br />I understand the difference between ethics and sociology, my point is simply that if you want to work towards real change, facts on the ground are more important than pie in the sky.<br />No "free" society will ever be perfect to every person and people in the minority have to be at least as willing to compromise as the majority they're trying to influence. You continually bring up the lack of open representation and inclusion in gov't. I agree. <br />Perhaps the reason for that is the only time the average person hears the word atheist it's in a news report about some group trying to take down a memorial that honors the self-sacrifice of "heroes"....or trying to change strongly-held American tradition.<br />Ethics strategy and sociology have to go hand-in-hand if we want to actually do something instead of daydreaming about a fantasy land.<br /><br />I didn't accuse you of making a straw man argument, you did. Had you made the bomb/sun comparison, there would have been some truth to it. If you are saying the only difference between the way atheists in the U.S. are treated and the holocaust is size and scope, I'll maintain my objection.<br /><br />The problem with your argument hangs out in the pesky realm of reality. A Muslim who gleefully agrees that we should be a nation under god has about as much of a shot in a heavily Christian district as an atheist. 'God' isn't a defacto religious test to most American Christians, it's a moral qualifier that they can understand without doing any work....and, when taken with my earlier statement regarding our public image, they don't need to hear any more to believe that our moral structure doesn't resemble theirs. Politicians understand this and pay lip service.<br /><br />As far as your challenge to show you a society with an 'under god pledge where an atheist has as much chance as the average theist, I think you'd agree that we have one of (if not) the most religiously ambiguous presidents in history. Huge chunks of the country believe him to be Muslim, similar numbers don't know what, if any, affiliations he really has.<br />I think an atheist candidate, who is 100% honest about his/her beliefs, has as much chance as any candidate who is 100% honest about their beliefs and intentions...zero.<br />And, yes, I'm saying they should (and do) lie just like the rest of them.Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13094885571314866604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-35970614781052152362011-02-14T09:03:03.268-07:002011-02-14T09:03:03.268-07:00I'm puzzled that a fellow who goes by GingerBa...I'm puzzled that a fellow who goes by GingerBaker would let Mike (a different Mike) get away with comparing Eddie Van Halen to the divine without mentioning Eric Clapton.<br /><br />Mike Gantt, you know it wasn't very long ago that Congress did vote to put the God bits into the pledge. There's just a certain haze in collective human memory that fogs in sometime during the lifetime of your grandparents. If it was like this before your parents were around, it was "always like this."<br /><br />Also, we've never been at war with Eurasia.dbonfittohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08787420987976232701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-75219043312787417642011-02-12T12:26:46.472-07:002011-02-12T12:26:46.472-07:00An "attitude testes"? Wow, you got cajo...An "attitude testes"? Wow, you got cajones....hee hee<br /><br />Seriously, Mike in Texas needs to look at the state constitution. Although it is unconstitutional, he (and I) would be banned from running since we do not believe in a god. <br /><br />I find the "it means so little, but removing it would mean so much" type of argument bizarre - if it means nothing in the pledge, then removing it should also mean nothing.Badger3khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04008838430274720250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-11330307453677938982011-02-12T06:06:32.579-07:002011-02-12T06:06:32.579-07:00Alonzo, as I've said before, I think you are p...Alonzo, as I've said before, I think you are perfectly within your rights to agitate for the change you want, especially in a democracy.<br /><br />As for your racism analogy, however, I don't think it does justice to your opponents' best arguments and is therefore likely only to hurt your cause. This is because, with some exceptions, theists do not regard the God clause in the Pledge as saying theists are better citizens than atheists.<br /><br />As for your view of children and the inferences they take from such things, most of your theistic opponents will be in complete agreement with you...and therefore will be as motivated for the fight as you are.<br /><br />This is why I originally said that in a democracy, the majority will (ultimately) rule. As you pointed out, this doesn't mean that the majority is always right or that it should not be resisted. Ultimately, however, the majority will rule - even if it allows minority rights as an expression of that rule. Change doesn't happen instantly, of course. For example, there's always a significant hurdle in overturning precedent. That's probably the only reason the God clause stays in the Pledge or on the coins right now. If they were not already there, I can't imagine Congress voting in our day to put them there, nor can I imagine the Supreme Court allowing it even if they did. <br /><br />As for me, I am a theist and deeply committed to Jesus Christ - though I distance myself from Christians for the reason that I don't think God cares about Christian, atheist, or any other such distinctions. Rather, He cares about morality (which is one of the reasons I like your writing). Thus, I'm far less worried about what's on the coin or in the pledge than I am what's in the heart (which is why I don't campaign for the Christians' argument on these issues). The coin and pledge are political issues; I'm more concerned with spiritual and moral issues.Mike Gantthttp://blogforthelordjesuscurrentevents.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com