Hypothetically, if I wanted to restrict a right that appears to be supported by the constitution, say religious practices or the right to bear arms or the right to remain silent I’d be pretty foolish to put up a web site that says “Lets get together and restrict a constitutional right”.
No. What I’d probably do is start with the low-hanging fruit … “under God”; “mandatory registration for guns”; “ban assault weapons”; “detaining terrorists without trial” et al.
Then when my organization had picked up a little momentum, I’d move on to something a little more substantial - but still in the gray area.
And I expect those atheists are a pretty smart bunch of folks. I have already listed a bunch of rights that religious people have now that would probably be challenged. In this forum, people might claim that those rights are clearly not protected by the constitution. But another forum, the US Senate for example, might claim the opposite. That puts them in the gray area, IMO.
I recognize that I am making a slippery slope argument - but slippery slopes are exactly what people fear. I am not arguing that the slippery slope is necessarily logical and inevitable. I am arguing that real people justifiably fear the slippery slope.
But go ahead - call me intentionally dense again. It makes me reconsider my whole argument.
Not yet, but just wait 'til I get my Atheist World Domination movement going.
Seriously, I don’t think Christian Americans have anything to fear from anyone unless they’re complete hypocrites. Shouldn’t their understanding of God, his omniscience, power, and ultimate judgment, Jesus’ teachings, their own confidence in their beliefs, and the promise of the afterlife keep Christians free from fear? Christians who are afraid of people with alternative viewpoints not just gaining power, but also using the power to eradicate their reigion, must be on shaky ground in their faith to begin with. They are saying they don’t trust in God or the power of their religion. You can’t have it both ways, Christians.
And how would you go about defending one of your rights which you felt was being violated?
**
I don’t have to. It seems more likely that 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. "
**
Stating that people really fear something does not justify the fear. You are inferring a vast conspiracy from one man who felt he wanted to be included as a citizen whether or not he believed in God.
The senate rushed to unanimously decry the verdict, senators have gone so far as to suggest those of differing views should leave the country, and there is talk of an ammendment to the constitution to add recognition of the Christian deity into the government. And yet, somehow, in all this you see a justifiable fear of conspiracy to outlaw religion?
Once again, I do not think you have the facts on your side.
I believe kevlaw has successfully constructed an unfalsifiable hypothesis:
Some atheists, who are not organizing themselves in any way that could be detected by an outside observer, want to outlaw religion, and they may be successful in the future, unless they aren’t.
Congratuations. Completely unassailable by logic or evidence.
Just because it is unfalsifiable, doesn’t mean it is not true
Your pithy observation would be even funnier though, if I had argued that. I have in fact presented a planned march on Washington as evidence that atheists are organizing.
He believed that his daughter’s (and everyone’s) rights are being stepped on and took a bold step to right that wrong. The president is dead wrong on this, and the senate is just a bunch of suck-up pussies who don’t want to work for a living. Standing on the steps shouting “UNDER GOD” like some fuckin’ Stepford senate…the audacity of them to claim they represent the nation under the constitution. THEY (and the Supreme Court) are who we ALL should fear. They are dangerous zealots.
Because you’ve included a smilie, I assume that you realize that an any hypothesis is useless unless it makes testable predictions (i.e. the hypothesis must be falsifiable.) One can spin elaborate conspiracy theories all day long, carefully explaining away any evidence against the theory and one’s inability to find any support for the theory, but one will simply be laughed at.
Organizing to march on Washington to stand up for their Constitutional right to freedom of religion; not organizing to outlaw religion. No one ever contended that it was impossible for any group atheists to organize for a particular purpose, only that there is no widespread atheist movement to outlaw religion.
Heck, no one can find even an isolated atheist movement to outlaw religion.
Podkayne, that “no one can find even an isolated atheist movement to outlaw religion” is just plain wrong. Didn’t you get the memo? The next meeting of the Hotheaded Atheists Raging Heretically Against Religion (HARHAR) is only two days away!
Oh, darn it. Wouldn’t you know . . . my Society of Neighborhood Inifidels Council for Knitting and Eradicating Religion meeting is having a decorative doiley and letter-writing round-robin that night.
Sorry, AlaItalia! I’ll be with you in spirit. Er, I mean . . . .
kevlaw: “Fundie porn,” as the term is usually used (at least on these boards), is defined as that which reinforces the insulated beliefs of Fundamentalist Christians.
The best example, probably, can be found in the tracts of Jack Chick. In this world, evildoers have pointy heads and willingly and knowingly engage in “evil” acts. And whenever a humble Christian witnesses to a misguided soul, citing scripture and recounting parables, that misguided person always breaks down in tears and accepts Jesus.
It doesn’t actually happen that way in real life, which is why “fundie porn” exists, as an alternate fantasy reality. It serves much the same purpose as sexual porn, which is to say, when I go to the library, I’m not going to be led back into the storage room by the hot-to-fellate supermodel behind the checkout counter. As much as I may want that to happen, it isn’t at all likely, so porn goes toward fulfilling that desire. And ditto for “fundie porn.”
rjung is suggesting that, because you seem hell-bent on seeing the Great Atheist Conspiracy lurking outside your door and waiting for the opportunity to rip your Bible from your hands, you’re misperceiving the world around you, including the content of this thread, in order to reinforce your belief.
Apologies if this shows up more than once. I’ve waited several minutes and re-displayed the thread twice since my first attempt got an error message, but with board these days. . . .
Given that kevlaw has displayed no Fundamentalist Christian rhetoric and has, indeed, denied any particular involvement with or belief in religion, it seems more likely to me that he is simply playing Devil’s Advocate (so to speak) than that he is pushing an agenda for the Religious Right.
While I do not agree with his arguments and, as a member of the Overwhelming Christain Majority in good standing, I find the notion that various disparate collections of non-religious people in this country will successfully move to outlaw religion to be implausible, I still see no reason to impugn his motives or to attempt to rebut his statements by associating him with the likes of Wildmon, Falwell, or (sadly) Bush in ad hominem portrayals of his position.
My American Brothers and Sisters, would any of your organisations be interested in linking with mine? The British Atheists Legal Loophole Society is growing in numbers every day. Soon we hope to reach double figures, and some of us even attend the meetings!
Thank you, Tomndebb. I was indeed taking a position that was contrary to my usual position on this issue. But I did so using arguments that I believe to be true …
For example I believe, contrary to many of the assertions made in this thread, that
there are growing numbers of non-believers in this and many other western countries
The non-believers are starting to organize and coordinate their actions
there is a fine, gray line between freedom to practice religion and freedom to impose one’s religions on others
atheist leaders have come to power in several modern, pluralistic arguments
some of those atheist leaders have restricted religious freedoms
the PofA (with ONUG) is constitutional if congress and SCOTUS pronounce it so
For these and other reasons, I also believe that many christian americans do fear that atheists would want to restrict their religious freedom (present company excluded of course). Many of them are being dishonest in their mock-outrage, but I believe many of them are genuinely afraid - and while they are afraid, it will be hard to convince them otherwise. Fearful people are rarely open minded.
To make progress in this and other arguments like it, I think it makes sense to listen to the other side’s fears and concerns. Otherwise the whole thing descends into a yes-it-is, no-it-isn’t, we’ve got more votes/swearwords/guns than you shouting match/war.