Well, we in Canada believe in keeping all sorts of stuff for essentially symbolic purposes, not because we really believe in it or even care for it much.
Like a monarch, also enshrined in our Constitution.
The fact is, the inclusion of the term “God” in the preamble of the Charter is of zero practical effect. It is mere verbiage.
This isn’t just my opinion, it is legal fact. From R. v. Sharpe:
Note that the decision was appealed, but not on this point.
If this is the best you can come up with of an anti-Atheist “outrage”, colour me unimpressed.
It is outrage over some words tacked into a preamble that are officially and legally considered a “dead letter”, of no import. Our national motto is derived from the Psalms; our country founded by people who were, generally speaking, religious; but neither the use of “A Mari usque ad Mare” (from “He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth”: Psalm 72:8) or the passing mention of God in the preamble to the Charter really matter a rat’s ass in terms of “imposing” anything on anyone.
A little perspective: As recently as the '70s it was a truism that gays were sick and corrupt, and only a negligent fool would allow them around innocent children. It’s unfair if your neighbors hate you for being an atheist, but social pressure isn’t in the same ballpark as being arrested, or given electric shocks till you change your ways. And granted, I’m posting from Godless Fagsachusetts, but most people I know don’t care if you’re an atheist or not. The OP seems like a Wiccan comparing the Holocaust with the Burning Times.
Go ahead, take it out, if it is so unimportant! I dare you! It is symbolic of the theists imposing themselves on atheists, and theists are never going to give up that point. For something that you contend is unimportant, I submit that the religious in this country would fight you tooth and nail.
Well why does it need to be a movement? Why don’t individual atheists just suck it up and tell intolerant theists to fuck off?
I would vote for an atheist if he sufficiently demonstrated a sense of shared ethics. Hell I have never even thought to ask about the religious leanings of candidates. I never thought about the religious life of the Clintons for instance.
*And that’s what it is , the Atheist’s Restaurant Anti-Discrimination Movement, and all you got to do to join is sing it the next time it come’s around on the
guitar and wear this cool little design around your neck!
With feeling. So we’ll wait for it to come around on the guitar, here and
sing it when it does. Here it comes.
You can get anything you want, at Atheist’s Restaurant
You can get anything you want, at Atheist’s Restaurant
Walk right in it’s around the back
Just a half a mile from the railroad track
You can get anything you want, at Atheist’s Restaurant*
Sorry. Re-reading the thread and the **Movement **part jumped out at me and started singing…
Being gay and 60, I have pretty much lived through the whole development of the gay rights movement since the 50s and 60s. And do you know what the initial reaction of people to gay rights protests was? Pretty much the same line you are feeding me right now.
The typical opponent of gay rights in the 60s would say: “You people are not really oppressed. Sure the laws criminalizing your behaviour are harsh, but they are not really applied much unless you step out of line and go after little kids.” (This was said to me in almost exactly those words by a psychiatrist who was a devout Roman Catholic in the 1960s. I told her to take her St. Joseph statue off her desk and use it as a dildo and left her office.)
“Keep quiet and live a good life and nobody will hate you. Raising hell and protesting will only bring the majority to crack down on you.”
Or the favourite line of closet cases in the 60s: “Nobody minds as long as you don’t flaunt it.”
Trivializing or denying the oppression of despised minorities as if their complaints were meaningless is probably the cruelest form of oppression.
I am put in mind of the line in the novel “Kingsblood Royal” by Sinclair Lewis (which deals with racial discrimination in post-war America, not gays or atheists, btw).
A group of smug whites are discussing those ever-complaining darkies. A lot of bigotry is passed around under guise of common sense, but the final comment is one person who says that he would say to blacks that there has just been a war in Europe, and America has other problems to deal with, so now is not the time.
And, says the novelist, the hero of the book, Neil Kingsblood, instinctively knew that this was the most vicious thing that had been said all evening.
Find out more about how atheists feel and what they experience before you trivialize their complaints, will you?
Not sure that it would be successful or even helpful, but I’d like to see a (non-militant) organization of non-religious become more prominent. The only thing I miss about organized religion was the community that came with it and atheists don’t have much of that. A symbol would be nice too, although I don’t much care for the one Der Trihs pointed out.
You realize, of course, what the Supreme Court of Canada was saying in the case quoted above?
“The principles that recognize the “rule of law” are more readily understood and applied than the principles that recognize the “supremacy of God”. However, the complexity of understanding and applying the principles that follow from the recognition of the supremacy of God should not cause it to be discarded as vague or unhelpful. Both concepts point toward our philosophical and legal tradition, which upholds objective truth and moral standards.”
In other words, the Court is upholding the theistic conceit that morality comes from God. In that case, why are our prisons not filled with every agnostic and atheist in the country, who, having no access to God, would be incapable of acting morally or refraining from acting immorally? Why are atheists LESS likely to commit crimes, statistically speaking?
And something I have always wondered about the 10 Commandments. Perhaps someone can explain it to me. Moses and the Hebrews were coming out of Egypt, a multi-millenial and civilized society with the rule of law. They had no inkling that murder and theft were wrong before their God gave Moses the 10 commandments on Mount Sinai?
Can you give an example of “strongly asserting your non-belief” that’s not more-or-less claiming religion does more harm than good?
Would you not be suspicious of someone “strongly asserting their heterosexuality”? A “White Pride” spokesperson: really into their white heritage or trying to put a spin on racism?
Valteron It is not illegal to be an atheist, nor is there governmental oppression. They don’t often hold political office, but it’s just silly in a Democracy to say that people not voting for people who do not represent their interests is somehow oppressive. Yes, there are a lot of assholes. There are a lot of abusive atheists on this board, but they aren’t oppressing anyone in the same way theists are not oppressing them. They can believe what they want to believe. I think many atheists might benefit from a communal culture that cultivated shared ethics, it’d be a good thing for society, but another whiny special interest that acts as though every act of disagreement is a form of oppression is something I sincerely hope we outgrow very soon.
Besides an Atheist pride parade would be a lot less interesting than a gay pride one. A bunch of dreary intellectuals in twede. ;p
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again that aggressive atheists are as idiotic as aggressive evangelists.
You’re proud of not believing in something? Or is it more like you want people to recognize how intellectual and rational you are for your non-belief? Are you really being oppressed for your non-beliefs in this day and age? Do you really think anyone gives a shit what you believe or don’t believe?
Religious movements that promote specific causes have an effect on the cultural and political landscape, and there is plenty of reason to criticize and protest them. Wanting to aggressively champion your own non-belief and thus non-cause is just as ridiculous an exercise as wafting up your own farts.
To self-proclaimed atheists everywhere: nobody gives a shit, get over yourselves.
I understand the concern about whiny special interests groups, but I think it would be Good Thing™ if atheists are accepted to the point where they could speak their mind in public without being run out of town on a rail. Any efforts that help with atheist acceptance are worthwhile.
Where the hell are atheists “run out of town on a rail” if they “speak their mind”? By the very definition, wouldn’t an atheist be concerned with secular matters, since, you know, that’s the only kind of matter there is? And in discussing such secular matters like I dunno, how to budget funds for public transportation, or how to best stimulate the economy, your belief or non-belief in a supreme being just doesn’t factor into it.
I see atheists all over the internet who just won’t shut up and are never run out of town, they must live somewhere and they must talk about religion sometimes, at least some of them.
If atheists organized themselves to have communal settings where they provided community service and impressed upon each other shared ethical values, that would do more for the cause than any group whining would.
‘Atheists are godless sinners.’
‘I don’t know nothin about that but they was shore nice to me at their soup kitchen. They gave me hummus and pita.’
I’d go if there was some interesting philosophical discourse and it wasn’t just a parody of Evangelical churches where they just griped about those damned religionists.
I suppose. Atheists don’t organise in that way because, as a general rule, a shared nonbelief doesn’t seem to provide much to organise around. Like the way I don’t make a point of associating with other people who aren’t fans of the NFL.
Perhaps Secular Humanists could do such things as soup kitchens. For all I know they already do. But I suspect that most atheists who help the hungry or whatever just do it - they don’t make a point of proclaiming their lack of faith in the process. So most of those who are helped won’t know that atheists were involved.
As to the OP, I dunno. I’d like to be able to say that the whole idea is preposterous, that there’s no reason at all why those of us who have nothing in common except the fact that we don’t believe in deities should feel any need to organise in groups to proclaim this.
I can’t help feeling the OP has a point, though, in the USA at least.
(emphasis added)
You are somewhat glossing over the reality of bare-naked bigotry, I fear, mswas. Is that the same reason there were no black sentors between 1880 and 1960, even though blacks were 20 to 40% of the population of some states? “Because, gosh darn it, they jus’ couldn’t fand one what represented their interests? Found one young buck nigra that seemed mighty clever, but the Klan got to him first.”
Or was it blatant racism that kept blacks out of public office in most of the US for most of that century?
What interests (other than a desire to violate the separation of church and state) would an atheist politician fail to represent? And how is it that a majority of Americans can say to a pollster that they would not vote for an atheist even without knowing the name, record or platform of the hypothetical politician?
Are they afraid he would take a godless view of municipal water works? That his atheism would infect his administration of the state finances. That he would adopt godless policies on farm subsidies?
That is what “prejudice” means, mswas. Pre-judging someone you have never met.
Indeed. Religious bodies, for millenia, have imposed taxes or in some other way received money to supported a central religious body who have nothing else to do as a job than organize events and perform ceremonies.
Someone could start a non-religious charity organization, but religions have the advantage of already having a governing body in place that verifies the sanity of their leaders and minions. Some random atheist out asking for money is just any other dude asking you for money. He doesn’t have anyone there to guarantee he’s a decent and trustworthy guy.
That said, I don’t know if Bill Gates or William Buffet or anyone is an atheist, but certainly they are both philanthropists who, besides giving money to charity, also raise and distribute it as totally secular activities. When people do trust you, you can go out collecting money for charity, secular or non. Eventually the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation might turn into something akin to the Red Cross.
Right but you could build a community around shared ideals one of which happens to be a lack of belief in God/Supernatural/IPUs or whatever. A place where people can go and get involved with mental training a la meditation/prayer, community services, philosophy classes that sort of thing.
