No matter what the decision by the courts, the constitution still says the same thing. If dishonest polititians bring pressure to bear on cowardly judges, that doesn’t change the constitution. Some states refused to ratify the 13th ammendment until the 1990s, does that make slavery constitutional?
kevlaw wrote:
Brian: “Excuse me. Are you the Judean People’s Front?”
Reg: “F*ck off! We’re the People’s Front of Judea!”
And I’m still waiting for quotes from those sites that show that the evil atheists are plotting to crush the poor Christian martyrs.
Y’know, it seems to me like some Christians would rather use baseless rumors to fan the flames of hatred than do just a little reading at the sites provided and find out the truth.
WV_Woman and dreamer, have either one of you gone to any of these sites yet, and if not, why not?
Splitters !
Start a new thread and I’ll give it a shot. Not really relevant to this thread, I would’ve thought.
You have a ready made title…
(Side-question: so you are including me in the people who are not seeking to understand his point of view?)
The question in the OP was about why would religious fundamentalists would have these fears, and call me crazy, but I hoped to hear the opinions of some genuine religious fundamentalists. Of course, one person cannot represent a whole religious viewpoint, but they can be one representative of that viewpoint. Kevlaw says he’s not of this viewpoint himself, so why should he have a special insight into how it comes to be, any moreso than myself? Why should I give any credit to what he’s saying?
It’s like a straight person trying to say why they think gay people are gay; they have a valid opinion as a straight person looking in, but they can’t claim to have any insight on the issue. Same with this issue. I can say why I think some religious people might fear a rise in atheism, but if I attempt to say that as a religious person, well then I’m lying. As was Kevlaw in this thread.
That’s a strong accusation,QueenAl. Care to show me the bit where I lied ?
Grendel:
You’re a bit confused here. Once the requisite majority of states ratified the amendment, it applied to all states. The fact that a particular state did not ratify it has no bearing on the issue of whether the amendment has legal force.
Moreover, your post suggests that you know what the Constitution requires on this point, regardless of what any judge might say. That is also incorrect. The final arbiter of the Constitution’s meaning is the Supreme Court, and what they say it means is what it means. Of course, this meaning may change over time. In 1960, to use one of my favorite examples, illegally-obtained evidence could constitutionally be used against defendents in state court trials. After 1961, it could not. The meaning of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments was changed by the Supreme Court. State court trials prior to 1960 were not “wrong”, any more than state court trials after 1960 were “right”. They simply applied a different standard.
As things stand right now, the “under God” act of Congress, for example, is presumtively Constitutional. You may disagree that it SHOULD be; you cannot disagree that it is.
- Rick
kevlaw: you posted views as if they were your own, and when several posters asked if they were your own opinions, you prevaricated. You know what lying by omission is, and that’s what you were doing.
Can someone link to GW saying atheists should leave the country? The senators too. I’d really like to see the anti-atheist rhetoric coming from our bitch-ass cultish leaders. I wonder if they really believe all this idiotic hogwash (such as the idea that one particular god should be backed by our government). I suspect that they mostly just recognise that the majority of the country is wrapped up in superstition, fear, and hatred (of those with differing views), and that the quickest way to power is to take advantage of these prejudices, weaknesses, and inherant ignorance. If 80% of the population worshiped the sun, I’m sure we’d have 99 idiotic senators on the steps saying “One nation, under the sun. . .” California might be happy with such a change.
Thanks in advance for the links.
Oh and dreamer, I’m glad you have come to realize that the government forcing one god on a populace is not a good idea. I hope you have reached this conclusion because you see it is inherantly unfair, and that we atheists/agnostics are SUPPOSED to be protected from such a thing (just as you should be protected from seeing “Satan is the bomb-diggity” printed on money), and not because you just want people to stop arguing. As the system stands, we A & A’s are being discriminated against. Discrimination is an awful thing and should be rallied up against, especially by those who fear they themselves will be future targets of discrimination.
DaLovin’ Dj
—there are growing numbers of non-believers in this and many other western countries—
True, I think, though to be fair, many new relgious movements are growing as well. Christianity actually has more to fear in losing ground to Buddhism and New Age religions than it does non-believers in general.
—The non-believers are starting to organize and coordinate their actions—
You’d have to have a pretty poor grasp of history to think that this was a recent phenomenon. Atheist Organizations have been around for some time.
—there is a fine, gray line between freedom to practice religion and freedom to impose one’s religions on others—
I don’t agree: the line is pretty clear, because it involves primarily a distinction between private and government action.
—atheist leaders have come to power in several modern, pluralistic arguments—
???
—some of those atheist leaders have restricted religious freedoms—
But the problem is that this is as pointless and insane as saying “some theists have come to power and restricted religious freedoms.” Granted, the concept that “atheism” is an extremely broad negative definition is hard to grasp, but hopefully people aren’t SO silly as to think that atheists are anything other than people, as diverse as anyone else.
—the PofA (with ONUG) is constitutional if congress and SCOTUS pronounce it so—
And then unconsitutional 20 years later when they reverse their decision, and then constitutional again when the reverse that decision… and so on. You shouldn’t confuse yourself here between the current body of law and the correctness of an argument. If there weren’t such a distinction: well there wouldn’t need to BE a Supreme Court in the first place.
There will always be fanatics on either side of … well … just about anything who are quite willing to ram their opinion down everybody elses throat, religion being but one. Listening to those types just gives them credence they do not deserve. Personally I do not like religion, any religion, but I am not going to tell anybody else what they should believe. I object to door-knockers pushing religion (especially when the first thing they ask is have I a job and do I own the house I live in). I think religion has had a place in human development, but now it is time it faded out. While it seems to bring individuals personal benefit (which I also feel they can gain just as readily if they trust in themselves), I cannot see it helping in the advancement of Humanity. For Humans to develop further they need to do so without relying on what is little more than a crutch. By advancement I do not mean in science but in social and mental growth, science too but humans with advanced science is like given a child a loaded gun.
In the end though people must be given the choice to believe or not WITHOUT interference from any source.
Senator Robert Byrd entered his comments into the congressional record for 26 June
First, he demonstrates his complete lack of knowledge regarding the application of the constitution and the Declaration of Independence
He then constructs a nice little straw man:
Err…I’m sorry, I didn’t realize the judge in that case had declared himself so…
And finally, he suggests that no atheist should be elected to public office, but they are free to leave the country:
Actually you stood out more for your generous admission wrt Neil Kinnock. I thought kevlaw was sort of a jerk in his initial response to you on that.
Hmm, somehow I don’t see a board dedicated to getting to the truth of matters attracting that sort of crowd.
First, I don’t think that is a valid comparison. I haven’t heard any arguements for a biological basis to religion. (Putting aside Dawkins’s point about religion being inherited.)
Second, I actually think it is likely that an outsider can have a better insight into a group’s psychology than an insider. There is a huge gap between why people do things and why they believe they do things. (I recently read Cialdini’s Influence: They Psychology of Persuasion and it had some marvelous examples)
I guess it depends on how you read his posts. I never read them has claiming to be an insider on the topic, and in fact his phrasing lead me to the opposite conclusion. Even his responses to the posters who took offense, believing he had claimed that they are not patriotic, had the feel of discussion more than belief to them.
Could he have clarified for the offended that he wasn’t calling them unpatriotic? Sure.
But failing to do that, asking them instead to acknowledge his claim that others might feel that way, hardly felt like lying to me.
I suppose it is a question of intent. If kevlaw intended that readers would be misled to see him as a GFPA, then I’d agree he was lying. I didn’t have that impression at the time, though of course I don’t know what was really on his mind.
But apart from his intent, apart from if he was lying or not, I found many of the responses to be surprisingly closed minded, unwilling to consider how or why other people might think differently than they do. And I was a bit saddened by that.