General US Attitude To Atheist Leader

[tdn]

@Mr.Moto

But it’s not just communism, is it?

I think he just used that as an example, not as a broad brush. No one said that the French Revolution was a Marxist movement, after all.

The point is that in many of these oppressive atheist states, atheism itself is not really the point.

[njtt]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Communism is just another religion. The meme that it ever had anything to do with atheism qua atheism is specious. Communism is “atheist” only to the extent that it wants to eradicate competing religions.

Well, and to the extent that denies the existence of any gods, of course.

[Onomatopoeia]

@Mr.Moto

Sorry - can’t let you off the hook here. Just as there are a wide array of Christians and some of them have a bad track record, there also are a wide array of atheists and some of them have a bad track record.

You can’t just make a blanket statement about the Christian track record and ignore the track record of the atheists. I would never say religious liberty in the US is threatened by the actions of Kim Jong-Il - but religious liberty in North Korea sure is. And Kim is an atheist - North Korea is an officially atheist state.

And North Korea isn’t the only example here - the French Revolution, Mexico under Calles, the Khmer Rouge, and others all persecuted the religious in the name of an officially promoted atheism. Now, these atheists were different than the tolerant American variety - just as the Inquisition was different from the tolerant dominant American strains of Christianity. But if you want to talk of track records on one side, you have to accept that the other side has one as well, and frankly to me it looks worse.

Nothing in this tells us anything about the truth or falsehood of either claim - after all I (and you) can do terrible things while convinced of the truth or perfect facts. We all ought to remember that.

I would say it is incidental that Kim Jong Il is an atheist to how and why North Korea is governed the way it is, it being a dictatorship and all the baggage that comes with that. One cannot say the same about America, which is not a dictatorship but which drafts legislation and enacts policy in consideration of Christianity and, in some cases, directly to appease its adherents. It’s gotten so bad in the US that candidates for president have to bend over backward proclaiming their Christianity to hope to have any shot whatsoever of being elected, and that’s just sick.

[Sattua]

@Czarcasm

The existence of the universe and the maintenance of the rules of physics are proof enough of “Space Ghost” if you use the words loosely enough. If you are letting them assume that you are referring to the same “God” as they are, are you being intellectually honest with them or with yourself?

Do we care about being intellectually honest with people who care about the issue so much?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Mr.Moto

But it’s not just communism, is it? Calles wasn’t a communist - and in fact suppressed the Communist Party in Mexico toward the tail end of his years in power. The French Revolution was anti-clerical, anti-religious and predated Communism by some years, right?

Yeah, it is pretty much just Communism. I don’t know what you think the Fench Revolution has to do with anything. It was anti-Catholic (with good reason at the time), but it was a reaction against church abuses, not just an unproked anti-religious ideology. The Reign of Terror (which started as specifically a campaign against the RCC, then became an effort at secularization of the state) was still not an effort to wipe out religion, but to eradicate the church from the government.

And once again, those sentiments were provoked by a long history of church abuses against the people. They didn’t come out of nowhere, and it wasn’t really a theological conflict but a political one.

[Mr.Moto]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

The Reign of Terror (which started as specifically a campaign against the RCC, then became an effort at secularization of the state) was still not an effort to wipe out religion, but to eradicate the church from the government.

Cite?

[Ellen_Cherry]

@rachelellogram

And I feel comfortable stating that a vast minority of religious people are compelled to physically harm atheists.

I have to question this statement. A defining point of being “religious” to me is following a belief system which promotes a life characterized by good works, kindness to others and a morally strict code of behavior; physically harming people is the opposite of being religious! Priests? Nuns? Monks? Saints? All religious people. The vast majority of them want to physically harm other human beings?

I am sorry people who identify as atheists feel the world at large is hostile to them, I really am. But to characterize people — the “vast majority” of people — who use the teachings of their faith to live in a way which considers human life, kindness to others and adherence to a moral code of conduct paramount as people who are compelled to physically harm others … ? I don’t think you understand the term “religious.”

[Czarcasm]

@Sattua

Do we care about being intellectually honest with people who care about the issue so much?

I care about being intellectually honest with myself at the very least, and lying to others bothers me.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Mr.Moto

Cite?

Wiki it, dude. They tried to replace Christianity with a new state religion. They were divided over a purely secular one or a Deist one. The Deists won.

[Czarcasm]

@Ellen_Cherry

I have to question this statement. A defining point of being “religious” to me is following a belief system which promotes a life characterized by good works, kindness to others and a morally strict code of behavior; physically harming people is the opposite of being religious! Priests? Nuns? Monks? Saints? All religious people. The vast majority of them want to physically harm other human beings?

I am sorry people who identify as atheists feel the world at large is hostile to them, I really am. But to characterize people — the “vast majority” of people — who use the teachings of their faith to live in a way which considers human life, kindness to others and adherence to a moral code of conduct paramount as people who are compelled to physically harm others … ? I don’t think you understand the term “religious.”

If the laws currently on the books didn’t restrict how the religious could act towards atheists, what changes could you see happening?

[tdn]

@Ellen_Cherry

The vast majority of them want to physically harm other human beings?

She said minority, not majority. I’m not sure if that was a typo, though.

And I can’t say that I agree with you that kindness to others is what defines reliousness. There are plenty of people who are highly religious yet openly hostile to others.

[Ellen_Cherry]

Oh she said minority? A vast minority? :dubious:

And I know people are plenty nasty to each other, despite whatever labels they apply to themselves. I just object to using the term “religious” to equal “violent,” which is how I read the initial statement.

[Onomatopoeia]

@Ellen_Cherry

Oh she said minority? A vast minority? :dubious:

And I know people are plenty nasty to each other, despite whatever labels they apply to themselves. I just object to using the term “religious” to equal “violent,” which is how I read the initial statement.

You are, of course, correct that religious doesn’t equal violent, however there is a history in America of violence, continuing to this very day, perpetrated against gays, blacks, Hispanics, women, Muslims, and interracial couples, by religious Christians for which their faith is cited as the reason. As I stated earlier, if atheists could be discerned by sight, I have no doubt there would be an increase in violence targeting atheists by Christians, and that the perpetrators would admit it, probably proudly. Christianity in America today has much less to do with love and respect than authoritarianism anyway, in my opinion.

[Noone_Special]

@tdn

She said minority, not majority. I’m not sure if that was a typo, though.

From the tenor of the rest of her post, I don’t think it was a type. Methinks some people here were inadvertently whooshed by a smart-ass sentence construction…

[tdn]

@Noone_Special

From the tenor of the rest of her post, I don’t think it was a type. Methinks some people here were inadvertently whooshed by a smart-ass sentence construction…

Yeah, probably.

[Noone_Special]

WTF? This was supposed to be an edit…

[Skald_the_Rhymer]

@Der_Trihs

That he’s a Satanist/Communist/the Antichrist/Muslim. And yes, I’ve run into people who think that atheists are Satanists.

Polls have shown that atheists are deeply distrusted in America; we are assumed to be morally corrupt, no one wants their children to marry an atheist, that sort of thing. She’d be hated and feared and despised, and I’d be surprised if she lived through her first term if she was a US politician and somehow got elected President. And most Americans would cheer her assassination.

I’m with you on the first paragraphs and part of the second. The last is simple bullshit. Most people are not that bloodthirsty.

[YogSothoth]

@Ellen_Cherry

Oh she said minority? A vast minority? :dubious:

And I know people are plenty nasty to each other, despite whatever labels they apply to themselves. I just object to using the term “religious” to equal “violent,” which is how I read the initial statement.

Actually I was confused as well. From her post, it seems like she’s pick the option that distrusts the religious rather than not. Here’s her post:

@rachelellogram

The religious people I’ve known who distrusted atheists were the ones who were uneducated in a certain… way. As in, they never took it upon themselves to investigate that atheists can and frequently DO still subscribe to upstanding moral/philosophical frameworks (see: Sartre). We are just internally motivated, and don’t require fear of a father figure to do what’s right. There are religious people with degrees (see: tea party) who do not understand this. And there are people without any college at all who do. It is unfortunately possible to go through one’s entire life without exposure to basic philosophy, or even the realization that one is close-minded.

This does likely constitute a majority of religious people, though I’m not particularly concerned with their thoughts on atheism unless they’re driven to, say, kill or maim atheists. And I feel comfortable stating that a vast **minority **of religious people are compelled to physically harm atheists.

Emphasis mine. From her tone, it seemed like she meant “majority”, seeing as that supports her prior paragraph somewhat more than what she actually wrote. Or maybe she meant to say minority and simply omitted a word, like “And I don’t feel comfortable stating that…”

@Skald_the_Rhymer

I’m with you on the first paragraphs and part of the second. The last is simple bullshit. Most people are not that bloodthirsty.

Most people are not. Most religious people are. Witness the right’s reaction towards Dr. Tiller, the doctor who performed late-term abortions. He was basically served up as a target by O’Reilly to his retarded followers.

[Acid_Lamp]

Here in the sunshine state, most people don’t seem to care, but if you get into the rural areas it does indeed become quite a big deal. I can’t say that I’ve ever felt afraid or reluctant to state my position, but there have been a few times when peoples attitudes toward me got considerably frostier.

[Skald_the_Rhymer]

@YogSosoth

Most people are not. Most religious people are. Witness the right’s reaction towards Dr. Tiller, the doctor who performed late-term abortions. He was basically served up as a target by O’Reilly to his retarded followers.

Most religious people are not that bloodthirsty either. I know plenty of people, even anti-abortion types, who were horrified by that murder.