We’re not talking about a minority decision here kevlaw, we’re talking about an anti-majority decision. The various religious groups would be united against any attempt to outlaw religion, so we’re not talking about 30% vs a bunch of factions.
Actually I think we’re talking about fear, not a decision.
Only when the majority was either helped equally or at least not harmed by the legislation.
Reparations to Japanese interned during WWII? Well under a penny on the dollar of existing taxes.
Civil Rights legislation in the 1960s? The then 10% of the population who were black were concentrated in cities and the South, while the overwhelming majority of white people were safely ensconced in their suburbs.
Americans with Disabilities Act? Only CEOs, CFOs, and HR department managers (a fairly tiny minority of people, themselves), perceived it as a huge cost as opposed to the majority of people who thought “Yeah, cousin Alice should get a break when going to work or shopping.”
A rabidly anti-religious movement is hardly going to succeed in persuading a 50% religious population to outlaw themselves. (And we still have no evidence that the non-religious are actively anti-religious outside the minds (if you can call them that) of Wildmon and Falwell.)
kevlaw wrote:
Hard to imagine. Non-belief is hardly a unifying principle, and I think that while the religious right will provoke a response from the mainstream it will be more anti-right than anti-religion.
kevlaw wrote:
The existence of a web site shows they are becoming organized?
Google says:
Searched the web for atheist. Results 1 - 10 of about 308,000
Searched the web for christian. Results 1 - 10 of about 19,900,000
Apparently they’ve got a ways to go…
kevlaw wrote:
Tom replied:
That seems like wishful thinking – special interest legislation is passed all the time. I was going to say this is what gives teeth to the claim that the US is more an oligarchy than a democracy, but it seems I’m behind on my definitions: http://www.bartleby.com/65/ol/oligarch.html
Tom continued:
No need. Just remove the remaining institutional props and allow our secular humanist culture to do the rest. In time christianity will be right in there with palm reading, astrology and voting for the green party.
Many christian groups understand the trends if not the cause and thus are primed to feel as though they are under seige.
Its funny how WV_Woman would probably support the action described in this statement was about Smoking.
insert “if it” where necessary.
kevlaw, it would take far more than a simple majority of militant atheists to outlaw religious expression. Since the constitution provides for freedom of religion as one of its fundamental tenets, nothing less than a constitutional amendment would provide what you fear. Any legislation short of this would be tossed out as unconstitutional. So all of this blubbering about atheists outlawing religion is entirely irrational.
And, to add to hardcore’s response, a Constitutional amendment requires ratification not only by the Congress, but by 3/4 of the state legislatures.
Kevlaw:
Certainly. But, the question of why you (TPY) believe this would threaten christianity is not sufficiently answered.
Throughout history, the desire of the minority to be considered equal to the majority has NOT been articulated by the desire of the minority to oppress the majority. This is as true now as it has been. Several comparisons have been made already (equality of race, equality of sexual orientation, etc). The evidence that is available suggests the same in this case. The minority that are non-believers wish to be considered equal to the majority who are beleivers.
Not one example of an atheist movement to outlaw religion in the United States has been presented. The one current day example of state-sanctioned atheism (China) is not fully atheist. Not even a fringe group comparable to the KKK (ie, recognized as extremist wackos) can be cited.
So, to be a little more specific than my OP, in the United States today, what rational justification is there for believing that atheists in general wish to have christianity outlawed? If anything, the available evidence seems to indicate the reverse may be true (if the statements of certain senators are to be believed, as well as the idea of a constitutional ammendment instituting the ONUG clause), while atheists are simply asking christians not to discriminate against them on the basis of religion.
Well, given that the context of the discussion is general support for or opposition to groups as groups, I don’t think that farm subsidies or steel tarriffs are actually germane.
As to the drift to secular humanism: the hallmark of that “movement” (much decried by the Religious Right) is its “excessive” willingness to tolerate just about anything–such as palm reading, astrology and voting for the Pat Robertson. To then claim that the this excessive tolerance will be used to outlaw the majority religion is stretching things just a bit.
Because Christian Scripture explicitly states, at more than one point, “Your faith will cause you to be ostracized, marginalized, and persecuted.” Back in the day, when Christians were a distinct minority, this made perfect sense. But in today’s United States, where Christians make up something like eighty percent of the population and no halfway intelligent person legitimately believes there’s a chance of the movement being banned, they don’t know what to do with themselves. That’s why every tiny movement toward getting God out of official government functioning is blown so far out of proportion.
[Michael Palin]
“We’re bein’ oppressed!”
[/MP]
Atheists in general ? Why the stress on atheists in general ? It didn’t take atheists in general to challenge the PofA. It took one.
You’re right. I don’t listen to talk radio. And people will believe what they want to, whether it’s pointed out to them to be stupid or not. I was actually trying to call kevlaw’s argument stupid without coming out and calling him/her stupid. I really don’t understand how someone, unless they really are mentally deficient, can think that Christianity is in jeopardy from some conspiracy of atheists.
I think this supposed fear on the Christians’ part is so absolutely hypocritical (surely the atheists and non-Christians should be the ones who are afraid of Christians imposing their iconography upon them) that it’s hard to believe anyone actually takes it seriously. As I said before, these people need to look inside their own groups and root out the evil and hypocricy that exists there before trying impose their supposed “right way of living” on the rest of us. How can they say theirs is the right way and we should all trust in God and this is a Christian country when “their way” has resulted in a great deal of evil, destroyed lives, torture and death. Christians seem to turn a blind eye to the evidence of Chhristianity as a destructive, divisive force. They can’t seem to face the reality of the history of Christianity, that it hasn’t been all “love thy neighbor” and “give to the poor.” If they actually acted in the “ideal” Jesus-like way, maybe I wouldn’t have such a problem with them wanting their little pictures and icons and words all over the place.
Exactly! They need a different cause to keep themselves busy. How about something completely new: humility, self-awareness, and tolerance.
And Kevlaw, it’s AlaItalia.
There is at least one person who believes that
Who would want to restrict such a divisive force ?
Ooops… that should be …
Who wouldn’t want to restrict such a divisive force ?
I’ve decided that even though I don’t believe atheists will or even want to become organized as a group (they can probably much more effectively align themselves with an already established organized group that supports their political views), I’m going to join any group of “atheists” that will have me. I’m not sure what the platform would be, either moderate “get the Christian God out of government,” or extreme “eradicate religion,” or even “end all littering,” but if it panics Christians, makes them fear a Godless society is in the making, and therefore feel they have the right to commit violence if necessary (like the doctor killers) to preserve their peaceful, loving way of life, thus showing everyone their true colors and agenda, I’m in. Shake 'em up 'til they can’t stand it, I say!
Up with Atheism! Up with frightened Christians! Down the slippery slope (I’ll even butter it up so the slide is even quicker)!
Yes, I guess I would like to “restrict” Christianity so it’s not a state-sactioned religion. That or let us non-Christians off from paying taxes, then you can put crosses and words and all that stuff wherever you want.
So, AlaItalia, can I put you down as someone who thinks Christian Americans have something to fear from atheism ?
Anyone else ?
No, it took an existing law which was written into the constitution 200 years ago, and one person who felt his rights were being violated, to challenge the pledge.
The pledge is a question of existing law. The question at hand is about finding a group who favors creating a new set of laws to restrict the freedoms currently enjoyed in this country. You are either being intentionally dense, or you simply can not see the line between a minority (a single individual who happened, in the judges view, to have the law on his side) being concerned with their rights being violated vs. the same minority mandating to all via new legislation that theirs is the only way.
So, I’ll ask again, in yet another way. How, does one individual sueing to have his rights protected threaten established religion and the practice thereof by the majority of the population? What people, if any, support the position of outlawing, or even placing significant restrictions on, organized religion?
And yet, on that wonderful cornucopia of ideas that is the internet, we see so little evidence in the way of anyone who advocates such an opinion. Indeed, my search on Google only turned up one link on the first 5 pages where some one rationalized outlawing religion. Even in this case, the author denies supporting that position, he simply rationalizes it. I do not think you have the facts on your side.
I wasn’t thinking quite so narrow as steel tarriffs, more along the lines of the communications decency act, extending copyright, telecom deregulation, prohibition, various tax cuts, etc. You had the very broad statement that laws are passed “Only when the majority was either helped equally or at least not harmed by the legislation” and that seemed a tad naive.
And even when I consider the clarification of legislation aimed at groups I think it is important to amend your statement that the legislation needs to be perceived as “helped equally or at least not harmed”. I think we’ve had plenty of legislation that is passed in a war on X that ends up harming the majority.
Exactly – toleration is the most effective weapon against religion. There’s plenty of historical evidence that repression isn’t exactly the best way to stamp out christianity.
Of course they do, though they have more to fear from agnostics and cynics.
It isn’t their fear for their lives or their freedom to worship but rather the future of their cult.