The LW deserves to win the "Culture War" all the way, once and for all

[Der_Trihs]

@ITR_champion

The voters.

In other words, the majority religion should be allowed to ram itself down everyone else’s throats. After all, that can’t POSSIBLY lead to any problems.

@ITR_champion

To the vast majority of people, Christian displays in a courthouse announce that they can expect fairness and decency. Many see the absence of such displays as an announcement that they can expect an assault on freedom and dignity. This is hardly surprising, given that our rights can be traced back to Christian societies, while societies that militantly oppose religion typically also oppose human freedom and dignity. (Just anyone who fled for their life from China, Cuba, North Korea, the former Soviet block, …)

Garbage, and in more than one way. The people who support it expect the courts to be unfair in their favor. And the people who see “the absence of such displays as an announcement that they can expect an assault on freedom and dignity” are the sort who think it’s “oppressive” for the government to keep them from beating gays for Christ. And historically, Christianity has been a relentless enemy of “freedom and dignity”, right up to the Christian support of the fascists, because they opposed the Ultimate Evil of atheism. The advancement of “freedom and dignity” has more to do with Christianity losing power than any efforts on it’s part; theocracy isn’t an example of "“freedom and dignity”.

@ITR_champion

It is not “just a way for schools to single out children that are different from the rest”. It is a way for schools to offer what many parents want to be part of their children’s education. Many parents want their kids to be raised fully in a religious environment. If we force children to take part in public schools where any endorsement of religion by any adult is forbidden, we make that impossible.

And are those Christians ( and of course it’s Christians ) willing to let non-Christian teachers express their views ? Or non-religious people ?

And are they willing to let scientists lecture people on scientific fact in church ?

@ITR_champion

As for children being “singled out” for not taking religious classes, that wouldn’t happen.

Of course it would. Just as kids in schools that defy the ban on school prayer tend to get systematically harassed and abused by teachers and kids alike if the don’t join in the prayers.

Hatred and bigotry are core values to Christianity, inherent in it’s basic worldview; they are enlightened, and everyone who disagrees MUST be punished. That’s what Christianity DOES.

[XT]

@Der Trihs

Hatred and bigotry are core values to Christianity, inherent in it’s basic worldview; they are enlightened, and everyone who disagrees MUST be punished. That’s what Christianity DOES.

You know, it’s always uncomfortable being even nominally on your side in any issue. Why you allow your good points to be poisoned by your BS rhetoric is beyond me.

-XT

[Der_Trihs]

@xtisme

You know, it’s always uncomfortable being even nominally on your side in any issue. Why you allow your good points to be poisoned by your BS rhetoric is beyond me.

Because I think they are true ? And I don’t especially like being on your side either; I ignore the feeling.

And if pointing out the obvious offends people - too bad.

[begbert2]

@Der_Trihs

Because I think they are true ? And I don’t especially like being on your side either; I ignore the feeling.

And if pointing out the obvious offends people - too bad.

You shout so loudly that you just make people complain about the noise, thus defeating your own points.

Though in that post I thought you were doing okay, if charmingly abrasive, until your closing remark, which was the standard all-purpose divisive lambast. Of course, I’m easily annoyed by religion myself, so I’m probably no judge.

(I hope you didn’t mind my using you as a protypical dislikes-religion atheist earlier in the thread, by the way.)

[XT]

@Der Trihs

Because I think they are true ?

‘True’ in in the eyes of the beholder. The point though is that you make good points…and then throw gas on the fire with an unneeded spiteful ending comment.

And I don’t especially like being on your side either; I ignore the feeling.

To be sure.

And if pointing out the obvious offends people - too bad.

shrug Well, it’s your posts obviously. If you want to ensure that people don’t take your comments seriously (despite the fact that some of your comments are worthy of thought and consideration), that’s your look out.

-XT

[Evil_Captor]

@xtisme

There is some level of risk that any individual or society has to be willing to take…and policy shouldn’t be set because of some improbable event where my not having a seat belt on actually caused you harm. Shit happens. Besides, I’m fairly sure that the reason there are seat belt laws have almost nothing to do with the scenario you are describing, and everything to do with saving me from my own folly.

Oh…and ftr? I always wear my seat belt. Not because the government tells me to, but because it’s the smart thing to do. It should still be my choice though.

-XT

I would assume you also oppose mandatory auto insurance?

[XT]

@Evil Captor

I would assume you also oppose mandatory auto insurance?

You would assume incorrectly. I only take libertarianism to a certain point…and I freely concede that there is a need for SOME regulation and some mandatory action for the public good. The lines I draw are often fuzzy…as are where I draw them.

-XT

[Evil_Captor]

@xtisme

You would assume incorrectly. I only take libertarianism to a certain point…and I freely concede that there is a need for SOME regulation and some mandatory action for the public good. The lines I draw are often fuzzy…as are where I draw them.

-XT

I thought so. Libertarian conservatives have a way of dumping their principles when they start to cost them money.

[Der_Trihs]

@begbert2

(I hope you didn’t mind my using you as a protypical dislikes-religion atheist earlier in the thread, by the way.)

Eh. Not really; although I’d like to point out that I’ve never called for religion to be forcibly suppressed. That would be hypocritical; counterproductive, and unlike some people I’m bright enough to realize that what can be done to others can be done to me.

@xtisme

‘True’ in in the eyes of the beholder. The point though is that you make good points…and then throw gas on the fire with an unneeded spiteful ending comment.

And why is that “spiteful”, and constantly harping on how Christianity is the source of “freedom and dignity” NOT spiteful ? Or saying that a non-religious courtroom or school is oppressive ?

Ah, let me guess; this is one of those situations where atheists are supposed to just take it and not dish it out in return.

@xtisme

If you want to ensure that people don’t take your comments seriously (despite the fact that some of your comments are worthy of thought and consideration), that’s your look out.

They wouldn’t do so anyway. I’m an evil, evil atheist. And a liberal. And not patriotic.

[XT]

@Evil Captor

I thought so. Libertarian conservatives have a way of dumping their principles when they start to cost them money.

:rolleyes: There are certain things that are in the public’s best interest. Car insurance is one of them because the probability of getting into an accident is high…and people should have some kind of safety net in the event this happens.

The probability of me losing control of my vehicle because I’m not wearing a seat belt or otherwise harming someone else because I’m not wearing a seat belt is pretty low.

I’m sure the difference will be lost on you, however.

-XT

[XT]

@Der Trihs

Ah, let me guess; this is one of those situations where atheists are supposed to just take it and not dish it out in return.

Did a theist come into this thread and dish out an attack when I wasn’t looking? I didn’t notice one.

They wouldn’t do so anyway. I’m an evil, evil atheist. And a liberal. And not patriotic.

Horseshit. You can’t swing a dead cat around here without hitting an atheist/liberal. Taking someones posts seriously has less to do with their political or theological stance and more to do with what they say. Content of their speech rather than the color of their skin (or their theistic or political views), and all that…

-XT

[Miller]

@ITR_champion

No, the Supreme Court granted itself the power. Power means the ability to make decisions and enforce them on others. When the Supreme Court says, for instance, that there will be no manger scene in a public park, it is the Supreme Court that is making that decision. It is not the taxpayers. At least in most cases, the majority of taxpayers want the manger scene to remain. That majority of taxpayers now has its power eliminated.

The taxpayers still have their power. If they don’t like the laws, they are free to ammend or repeal them. The Supreme Court can’t prevent them from doing this. All the Supreme Court can do is rule on the laws under which we’ve all agreed to live. And one of those laws is the first ammendment to the Constitution. If you don’t like that ammendment, you are free to advocate for it’s change or even elimination.

The people I know who support pornography on free speech grounds generally don’t want to live next door to porn shops or strip clubs. Rather, they’re okay with a status quo that restricts such businesses to poor neighborhoods. So the result is that poor people have to put up with that filth, while the rich and the middle class do not.

The porn shop I usually frequent (which, admitedly, is not that often - I’ve got the internet, and all, so I don’t need to go shopping for porn) is in the middle of downtown San Rafael, a well-to-do commercial district in one of the nicer towns in Marin County. It’s housed in an unassuming, red-brick building with a single neon “Open” sign. Inside, it’s clean and brightly lit, with friendly employees. Very tasteful in all regards. They even offer free giftwrap during the holidays. I’d have no problem with more such stores opening in my neighborhood. Sure beats another fucking Starbucks, that’s for sure.

[Rubystreak]

@ITR_champion

It is not “just a way for schools to single out children that are different from the rest”. It is a way for schools to offer what many parents want to be part of their children’s education. Many parents want their kids to be raised fully in a religious environment. If we force children to take part in public schools where any endorsement of religion by any adult is forbidden, we make that impossible.

You know, education can and should take place outside the school as well. Parents can also educate their children at home and bring them to other institutions of their choosing for teaching in areas that are not covered by the public school curriculum, such as religion. Why the strident insistence that it has to happen in public school? Also, who is going to fund all this extra education? There’s barely room in the school day for lunch, and barely enough teachers to teach what we are already mandated to deliver.

Religion does not belong in public schools. It is the province of the parents to provide that aspect of their children’s upbringing. Why would you entrust that to me? Better that you do it yourself. It’s cheaper and more efficient, believe me.

[Rubystreak]

@Miller

The porn shop I usually frequent (which, admitedly, is not that often - I’ve got the internet, and all, so I don’t need to go shopping for porn) is in the middle of downtown San Rafael, a well-to-do commercial district in one of the nicer towns in Marin County.

The one here is part of the biggest outdoor shopping area in town. It says “Adult Video” outside and is painted bright pink. Otherwise, it is unobtrusive and has been there for at least 2 decades without incident.

[El_DeLuxo]

My take on the matter is informed by my views being anti-authoritarian and pro-individual rights to a degree that the unsympathetic have characterized as fanatical or unrealistic. Thus, I tend to find find both the left’s (restriction for ‘the common benefit’) and right 's (restriction from moralistic ideals either derived directly from religion or a standard of ‘decency’ that might as well be) approaches to the issues unpalatably repressive. That being said:

I am totally in favor of the progressive views on the abortion cotroversy, glbt-etc rights and separation of church and state; if anything, they don’t go far enough.

Similarly, I’m very much in favor of artistic subsidies going to artists whose work is seen as transgressive or offensive, because that is precisely the kind of art which needs to be defended against majority opposition.

I’m against all censorship of so-called obscenity, seditionary materials and even hate literature; everyone should be allowed to express their opinions no matter how ludicrous, wrong or offensive and it is not the place of outside authority to regulate this. On a related note, I feel that hate crime legislation is an exact parallell to the concept of “thoughtcrime” in 1984; officialdom has absolutely no business legislating what goes on in anyone’s head and that includes those who commit felonies.

My feelings on private ownership of firearms are a lot closer to the rightward end of the continuum than the leftward.

Default environmental stances by fiat have been mentioned; I’m a fence sitter on this one and think it should be apprached on a case by case basis, mainly because they often boil down to an individual’s right to do what s/he desires with his/her own property, and hard consideration should be given to that freedom vs real harms in every case.

@ITR_champion

I would concede to the right on the following issues.

• Religious displays should be permitted on government property.

• Public schools should be allowed to offer voluntary religious education.

…- Cities and counties should be allowed to make their own pornography laws.

I couldn’t agree less. The first two will invariably enable the promotion of the religious views of the majority to the detriment of those who are excluded, and the last gives censorship powers to localities which will most likely veer more towards restriction.

• Businesses should have free reign to permit smoking on their own property.

…- And when the government starts outlawing some types of food in order to combat obesity, that will be wrong.

I couldn’t agree more. Smoking and diet are matters of individual choice which shouldn’t be restricted “for our own good” by outside forces.

Finally, I’m against any legal restriction of private sexual behaviour between consenting adults and victimless crimes such as sex work, and in favor of total legalization of recreational drugs; neither the left nor right are anywhere near my position on these matters as far as I am concerned.

To sum up my convictions in keeping with the OP, then – both sides approach the best position on some issues but hardly all of them, and neither side goes far enough IMNAAHO.

[DianaG]

@ITR_champion

At least in most cases, the majority of taxpayers want the manger scene to remain. That majority of taxpayers now has its power eliminated.

So your position is a simple “majority rules”? Do you believe that you would still feel that way if you were not a part of the majority?

@ITR Champion

No I don’t, because I don’t live exclusively in my home. Few people do.

Actually, we all do. We live in our homes. That is *our *space. The rest of the world is a space that we have to share with *other *people. Not all of them agree with you, and sometimes you won’t get your way. Life’s tough like that.

@ITR Champion

And, frankly, I think everyone understands the point perfectly well. The people I know who support pornography on free speech grounds generally don’t want to live next door to porn shops or strip clubs. Rather, they’re okay with a status quo that restricts such businesses to poor neighborhoods. So the result is that poor people have to put up with that filth, while the rich and the middle class do not.

I’m fine with a porn shop next door, but I don’t want a cross in my local park. Why does your right to free speech supersede my right to a cross-free park, but mine doesn’t supersede your right to a porn-free neighborhood?

[Evil_Captor]

@xtisme

You can’t swing a dead cat around here without hitting an atheist/liberal.

I know I’d post to the Dope a lot more frequently if I didn’t have to keep dodging dead cats.

[tomndebb]

@ITR_champion

It is not “just a way for schools to single out children that are different from the rest”. It is a way for schools to offer what many parents want to be part of their children’s education. Many parents want their kids to be raised fully in a religious environment. If we force children to take part in public schools where any endorsement of religion by any adult is forbidden, we make that impossible.

We do not force anyone to take part in public schools.
The government does mandate that parents arrange for children to achieve a certain level of education. To that purpose, the government also provides one means for the parents to accomplish that task: public schools. However, private schools, home schooling, and supplemental schools are all options of which parentsa may take advantage and the government does not curtail those choices.

@ITR_champion

As for children being “singled out” for not taking religious classes, that wouldn’t happen. I doubt that there’s any school where those parents who choose not to enroll their kids would be in short supply.

This is completely wrong. Utterly.
Every single case in which the Supreme Court has found itself adjudicating the limits to which schools may impose or permit the intermixing of religion and school programs or policies has been brought to court specifically because some child or another has been compelled to engage in religious activities or has been harrassed for choosing to not engage in such activities. And there are dozens of similar cases that have never made it to the Supreme Court. There is very definitely a segment of the religious-oriented population that is quite willing to impose their beliefs on all others and are willing to resort to harrassment and even violence when they perceive that they are being thwarted from imposing their beliefs.

[BrainGlutton]

Related thread from two years ago.

[Der_Trihs]

@xtisme

Did a theist come into this thread and dish out an attack when I wasn’t looking? I didn’t notice one.

Then you didn’t bother reading the thread - or even bother reading my line directly above the one you quoted. As in :

@Der Trihs

And why is that “spiteful”, and constantly harping on how Christianity is the source of “freedom and dignity” NOT spiteful ? Or saying that a non-religious courtroom or school is oppressive ?

@xtisme

Horseshit. You can’t swing a dead cat around here without hitting an atheist/liberal.

And you can’t swing a dead mosquito without hitting a believer.

@tomndebb

This is completely wrong. Utterly.
Every single case in which the Supreme Court has found itself adjudicating the limits to which schools may impose or permit the intermixing of religion and school programs or policies has been brought to court specifically because some child or another has been compelled to engage in religious activities or has been harrassed for choosing to not engage in such activities.

And since ITR champion seems to be of the view that not having teachers push religion in the classroom is part of an anti-religion movement, I’d like to point out that such court cases are typically brought not by atheists, but by members of a religion that happens to be unpopular in the region in question. Prayer in schools and such are basically a technique for singling out such kids as targets for harassment and abuse, and intimidating them in the process.

Such ideas as the separation of church and state weren’t invented by atheists to eliminate religion; they were created by people who had recent historical memories of religious persecution and warfare rampaging across Europe and not a small amount of religious tension here.