I don’t see why it would be a bad thing if an atheist wants to see a world without religion.
If you asked a random Christian if he thought it’d be a positive thing if every person on earth found Christ and went to heaven, of course he’d say “yes”.
A buddhist would think it’d be positive if every soul in the world reached Nirvana.
Assuming that any of the three would want to ban all other religions is… well, stupid. No offense.
Dieter wrote:
Sadly, “holy land” is merely an excuse to fight a war over “land,” period. Consider:
Leader says: “We want to take over this land because we want to expand our empire.”
Other countries respond: “You’re a big land-grubbing poopy head!”
Leader says: “We want to take over this land because some of our empire used to be there and we want it back now.”
Other countries respond: “You’re a big land-grubbing poopy head!”
Leader says: “We want to take over this land because it’s holy land.”
Other countries respond: “Ooh! Holy land! That’s different.”
If you take away the “holy land” excuse, the only difference would be that the warmongers would become slightly more honest as to their motivations.
Makes perfect sense to me.
If dreamer was alive back in the day I’m sure she would have fought against people who said the world was round. Popular majority being so important to her and all. Obviously if alot of americans are Christians then we should force it down everybody else’s throat on the money and in the courts.
Suppose the majority turns, december. Suppose in 10 or 20 years 80% of Americans no longer believe in any one god. How are you going to feel when they put “There is no God who cares” on the money? Will you feel violated? Will you feel that the government has persecuted you unjustly? What if we had a big sign in a courthouse that said “Thous shall not believe in any creator” when you went to court?
I suspect you would not like it one bit, and that you would rail against such sentiments. Can you not see that the laws are supposed to protect us both form this type of discrimination and they do not as the current situation stands?
DaLovin’ Dj
DJ-that’s not really quite fair-it’s also a straw man.
I’ll second that sentiment. dreamer has been unfailingly polite in these threads and has thoroughly explained her position in response to other posters’ inquiries. That you disagree with her position is not sufficient basis to set her up as a defeder of ignorance.
Not really. I’m not saying that she is a flat earther and attacking that position. I’m merely pointing out that by her logic, just cause the majority of people believe a certain thing for a given period of time, it is given more merit, and other positions are discriminated against. I’m pointing out that in the past this type of thinking has turned out to be a big mistake. Therefore, as flat earthers discriminated against those who thought the world was round (by killing them in some cases), so to does the government discriminate against people who don’t believe those ancient myths.
Here are her own words:
So, somehow, because alot of Americans are Christians who WANT their religion tied into the government - that makes it OK. But it is only OK if they endorse YOUR (her) view of things. In reality, the only fair thing to do is to endorse neither, regardless of the majority opinion.
Thus my example: If atheists take over the majority, by her logic, their position on gods should be officially supported by the government - both on money and in the courthouse. She doesn’t seem to realize that the laws that protect her against such a situation should protect us from the situation we have now.
Politeness and smileys don’t make up for defending positions which discriminate against other people. The idea that because there are alot of christians they should be able to tie up there rhetoric in government procedures is foolish at best, and prejudiced at worst.
Also, if she can make reference to what will happen in the end of times without proof, then surely I can state my position that what she believes is false, and therefore a form of ignorance, even if I cannot prove it with absolute surety. In my book, she is a defender of ignorance and wants the system to be unfairly slanted towards like minded folks, when we are supposde to be protected from such a situation. Polite or no, I’ll attack that position every time I have the time.
DaLovin’ Dj
Oh, I agree.
It’s just, the news now is always so horrid. You can’t watch it now without hearing of “holy wars” and the like.
I just think the news would be more fun if they replaced food with religion.
*Tension erupted again in the middle east over the Great Oreo cookie. Protesters lined the streets waving banners chanting “Chocolate Na-Na’s are the only true snack treat”. *
There are certainly some very prominent historic precedents for atheists wanting to outlaw religion. Stalin & Mao come immeditaely to mind.
I don’t think it’s great leap for a god-fearing, patriotic christian american to assume that
a) atheists are not patriotic and
b) atheists would want religion banned.
Off the top of my head, I can’t think of a famous atheist government leader who didn’t try to ban religion.
(Googling now …)
I only found one - Francois Mitterrand. I don’t know if he made any attempt to ban religion though. Anyone ?
Google till you’re blue, kevlaw, the suggestion taken to task in the OP was that “atheists” (as in all atheists") won’t be happy until religion is banned and it’s illegal to mention god in your own home. Given the current uproar over two words, it’s dishonest of you to prop up WV_Woman’s straw man with Satalin and Mao. And as you pointed out, famous atheist leaders (usurpers is more like it) wanted to outlaw religion. But who has been successful? Immediately after the breakup of the Soviet Union, which by 1989 had repressed religion for longer than most Soviet citizens had been alive, Churches began opening again and a priesthood sprang phoenix-like from the ashes of the revolution.
I haven’t talked to any Communist Chinese lately. Have you? But it’s likely that many varieties of Chinese religious observance have survived as well, even amid continued repression.
Arguing that atheists might actually take away your right to god, or even try to, is not a real argument. Unless you are a complete fool you know that.
As for atheists not being patriotic, you can shove you head up G.H.W. Bush’s ass, since you obviously see America through his eyes anyway. Fucking moron!
There is absolutely no reason for you top posit either (a) or (b). That would appear to be simply a personal belief that has no foundation. I realize that you said people would “assume” that, but without having a genuine reason for those assumptions, they appear to be just mean-spirited ignorance on the face of them.
Regarding your last point, try Salvador Allende. However, the general accuracy of your observatios is simply an accident of history. While there have been religiously pluralistic societies in history, there have not been societies that recognized a totally secular state or existence prior to this century. Even the religiously pluralistic or tolerant societies have gnerally had a de facto religion or primary religion. Therefore, there has never been a national leader who has arisen who could have achieved a position of leadership without acknowledging a religious belief. (There may have been a few Stoic Roman emperors, but even they had to do token obeisance to the religion of ancient Rome.)
In Europe, it was not until the eighteenth century that a very few philosophers could speak openly about the possibility of atheism. It was not until the nineteenth century that Marx widely publicized the notion of an a-theistic society. (He was preceded in some of his thoughts toward religion by a number of the Founding Fathers of the U.S. along with some European philosophers, but that is separate from the attitudes toward a god.)
So, the first governments created in which an atheist could be in control happened to be governments created in rebellion against the existing order–including that of religious belief. Given that utterly silly beliefs such as those you expressed as points (a) and (b) are widely held in the U.S.–and held to a lesser degree throughout much of the world–you will be unable to find an atheist leader who led a religious country simply because no religious country will select an atheist leader. (Or, if they choose one, such as Chile did, some “Christian” nation will see that he is overthrown and killed–good Christians that they are.)
Thanks for your considered reply DesertGeezer. I just went back to look at the OP and I can’t find the bit where WV_Woman says *all *atheists. I can imagine a situation where a minority of atheists assume power and attempt to ban religion. I cited two already. I imagine I could probably find more if I tried.
The fact that the communist government in the former Soviet Union did not succeed in supressing religion seems to have little bearing on whether or not they tried to supress it. Same with China.
Hmm… felt like one to me… more than this anyway …
Dreamer said, “There are plenty of people who wanted the Ten Commandments removed from courthouses (government), and now the Pledge of Allegiance issue (schools), and the IGWT issue on currency. Am I seeing something different than you guys? Is that not the opposite of Christians trying to keep that stuff in place?”
No, it is NOT the opposite of Christians trying to keep that stuff in place. It is an attempt to remove religion from government, which is one of the most important founding principles of this country. They are not opposites, but the way it stands currently, it IS unpatriotic and unconstitutional. It makes everyone else less important to our government than the believers. Bush has made it very clear that he thinks athiests are something less than true citizens (I don’t know how to link, but it has been discussed in other threads). His perpetual spouting of “god bless America” every time he opens his mouth is beyond offensive. In effect, he is saying, “god bless everyone but EchoKitty and those other heathens on the SDMB. They can just burn in hell.” I don’t understand how you can think “one nation under god” is fair to all Americans.
Thanks I will. I don’t know enough about Latin American politics to answer without a little research.
The UK came very close in 1992 with Neil Kinnock. That would have put an atheist in charge of selecting the spiritual leader of the Church of England. Wonder who he would have chosen ?
That’s precisely why I don’t think it’s a great leap for a god-fearing christian to worry about atheists taking away their rights to worship.
The prevailing order in the USA includes a pledge to one nation under God. A challenge to that order could be seen as the start of a slippery slope.
The statement was “atheists”…not some atheists.
You may very well “imagine” winning the lottery twice in a row, but that imagining is not any less realistic than the idea that a minority atheist candidate could get nominated, much less elected, in this country (or was the country you refer to imaginary as well?).
Tom is to be commended for his even-handed and rational response (even in the Pit). I wish I had his control. I try not to let emotion get the better of me, but in the face of being told I can’t be patriotic because I’m an atheist, the viscera take over. kevlaw, you ARE a fucking moron…GOODBYE!
Well, you’re right about the slippery slope. As a paranoid reaction against the perception that “godless communism” was going to take over the world, the U.S. Congress in the 1950s began to destroy the separation between church and state, adding “under God” to the Pledge of allegiance in 1954 and changing the unifying motto “E Pluribus Unum” to the divisive “In God We Trust” in 1956. Slippery slope, indeed.
Your logic appears to be a bit weak regarding atheist leaders, however. Those athiest leaders who tried to stifle religion were part and parcel with a specific movement, one of the tenets of which was that religion was a burden to the people. Any atheists elected in a predominately Christian country could personally believe religion was evil, or neutral, or good, but they would have no political program that depended on a portrayal of religion as evil. In fact, to get elected, they would have to prove to a nation that is overwhelmingly Christian (with substantial populations of other religions) that they would not harm religion, otherwise they could not get elected. Multiply that by majorities of 435 Representatives and 100 Senators (since the President could hardly “declare” religion illegal) and you have an insurmountable barrier to imposing an anti-religious movement on the U.S. (Heck, just 40 years ago, John Kennedy had problems getting elected simply because he was the wrong religion, to say nothing of being opposed to religion.) Two years ago the Congress blocked a Catholic from becoming the chaplain–apparently based on his Catholicism. How is that group going to embrace an anti-religious stance?
On what grounds would anyone believe that an atheist could not be a patriot–recalling that Thomas Paine wrote some of the most stirring arguments for the independence of this country, only to be reviled as an “atheist” (although the charge was somewhat hyperbolic)?
I am still not following your logic, DesertGeezer, the OP questioned whether there were atheist movements that wished to outlaw Christianity…
… I cited two. I don’t think I imagined them. Apart from Francois Mitterrand and Salvador Allende, every atheist leader that I can think of has persecuted religion.
My argument is that a god-fearing patriotic American has at least circumstantial evidence that athiests, should they come to power, would repeat history (even if it is accidental history).
So far, your argument has been along the lines of
Are there any atheists here who believe that religion is not a burden to the people. Some ? Most ? All ?
(I’d probably guess at some - but it only takes some despite DesertGeezers well considered logic)
So, given that historical precedence shows that most atheist governments have persecuted religion and that some atheists consider religion a burden to the people, I’d stand behind my assertion that it is not a great leap for god-fearing patriotic americans to think that atheists would want to ban religion.
Granted - it is unlikely that an atheist would be elected to government in the current political climate - but they have to start somewhere right ? Like removing “under God” from the PoA ?
On the grounds that an atheist has (so far) successfully challenged the right to recite a patriotic pledge.
Wrong. Absolutely, completely, wholly and entirely wrong. You may continue to recite anything you feel like. All the Ninth Circuit opinion says is that the government cannot officially sanction the words “under God.”