I don’t recall saying anything about the Mt. Soledad Cross. And according to Wikipedia, “militant atheists” are perfectly fine with keeping the Cross as long as it’s not on public land (there’s even an Episcopal church that’s just several hundred feet away who’d be glad to have it).
Maybe if the “religious militants” weren’t putting them in to begin with…
Nothing wrong with believing in something, being firm about it, being pissed when attacked or smeared, and fighting all out to defend yourself. You say it like I am saying it is a bad thing.
I mean that most people is either religious or atheist without having given it much thought. At some point we think about it, get to a quick conclusion and repeat the same answer every time we are asked without ever revising our position. That doesn’t make the indifferents better or worse persons, just not interested in the topic.
For an analogy, the typical stupid question “Do you prefer blondes or brunettes?” Some people might have a strong preference, but many others will just think of whatever latest starlet crush they have had and reply accordingly. Some might even continue to repeat the same answer even if their 5 latest crushes have been from the opposite camp.
As for whether you are one or not, that is for you to decide, of course. You don’t look like one from here, but what do I know?
I am saying that we should all be free to believe what we want. Not free to impose our view on others, but still free to believe whatever harmless delusion we might chose. Still, this beliefs are no basis for law, even if they are the beliefs of a majority. I was basically agreeing with you.
You keep mentioning that type of fallacy. I looked it up and I don’t see how it applies here. I don’t think I am underhandedly changing my initial statement to cover for exceptions.
Religion is at fault for what religion has done. The inquisition is a good example of an evil 100% on the shoulders of the church.
The pushing of the creationist agenda is another, but it is not their fault that they succeed. There are several lobbies out there with interests contrary to the well being of the nation, and all lobbies, good or bad, will tug in their direction. It is the government’s responsibility to listen to them all and choose in the interest of the nation.
I am sorry, and I know you don’t see it this way, but I do believe that when the religious right manages to push an issue (gay rights, abortion, creationism, christian value and symbols on public matters) over the rights of the rest of the nation, it is a failure of the government. My proof of that is the secularization of Europe, a traditionally christian territory where secular law has trumped christian values.
Did you read the Wired article that I linked and that inspired my OP?
Actually, I am very public in my criticism of religion. And even more so of religious meddling with government. My problem is with being broadbrushed myself and getting bundled with the religious when I have a set of beliefs that harm nobody.
My problem is when people call me religious (which I am most certainly not) because I believe in God (which I most certainly do).
Atheists, militant or not, are more than welcome to voice their opinions in whatever medium they consider most effective. As long as they respect my right to believe in God in the same manner I respect theirs not to.
And being obnoxious in a MB is as valid an offense as making racist jokes. Racist jokes don’t kill anyone or deny anyone their right to vote, but they perpetuate a culture of divide, of polarization, of hatred and contempt.
I don’t mind theist-atheist debate, quite the contrary. Mock threads, on the other hand, speak very little of the intelligence of the OPers. Just as gays, feminists, muslims, blacks, get all worked up at slights to their group, the theists and religious have the same right, I would think
The terms ‘creator’ and ‘nature’s god’ do appear in the Declaration of Independence, but I am not sure where you found the word ‘god’ in the Preamble to the Constitution. It’s not in there.
That’s the entire thing, and there’s no mention of a ‘god’ or a ‘creator’ or a ‘supreme being’.
Supporting a claim that this is a christian country by falsely stating that the Preamble references god is either ignorant or dishonest. For most people, it’s probably ignorant, and underscores the need for every kid in every school in the country to actually read the Constitution in their social studies classes.
No, I say it like it’s an inaccurate thing that demonstrates a poor understanding of something and invites further confusion.
On a subject that no one ever disputed and I never brought up, and in lieu of the actual subject being discussed.
It’s just that none of this translates into evidence of militancy.
ok, so, what was the question again? 
To the best of my knowledge, almost nobody, including Harris, Dawkins, and Dennett from the Wired article, is asking to have religion abolished. In the United States that would require violating the first amendment, which virtually all atheists favor. I have known many atheists and read many articles by atheists and don’t recall seeing any of them recommending that religion be outlawed, so if this is your concern, there is no real problem.
However, I expect by militant atheists you include anyone who, like me, thinks that humanity would be better off without religion and therefore feel that it would be worthwhile to point out to people why religious beliefs aren’t (in our opinion) valid.
We agree, I think, that militant religious people are, in fact, a problem. So why don’t we just challenge them and leave the moderates alone? The reason, for me at least, is that the best strategy is to point out that their beliefs are totally unjustified by the evidence. However, that undermines moderate religion as well. I know of no good way to show radical religion is false that doesn’t also show moderate religion is false.
I do think that promoting atheism ought to be done using thoughtful discussion rather than insults and ridicule, and I am sometimes unhappy with what I hear from “militant” atheists. But as long as we promote our ideas honestly, that should not be a problem
Sigh. It’s Chinatown.
The idea of removing religion from public offices and schools is not anti religion. It is religion neutral. It simply is a stance that favoring one religion over another is not fair to the ones not being allowed to publically profess their faiths.
It also opens up a can of worms. In Dearborn there are schools with a majority of students are Muslims. Would you think it right for all the students to obey the call to prayer? All of a sudden the Catholics would feel discriminated against. The proper thing is for you to keep your religion personal and at home…
What happens if a religion has lightbulbs as a holy symbol? Would they all work in the dark at the courthouse, to avoid having those darned churchy lightbulbs?
Since light bulbs actually have a function and provide a needed resource (light) I don’t see how comparing them to religious items that provide nothing that is actually necessary to the ability of a courthouse to serve the people, I don’t see why this comparison is valid.
Perhaps if you could point out what about religious items makes them necessary to the function of a working courthouse, your analogy would make sense.
The claim that I’ve seen is that it appears in the date - AD, year of our Lord. Feeble? You betcha.
But the KKK and Neo-Nazism are absolutely not banned in the United States – that’s the entire point of the free speech protections in the First Amendment. That’s why everyone quotes, or misquotes, Voltaire’s formualtion (I do not approve of …but will defend to the death your right to do it"). They are held at arm’s length by the community, they are frowned upon, they must undergo permit review to march, but they are NOT banned.
Tossing off a statement that they are, while on your way to making another point, simply isn’t going to fly here.
Sailboat
Are you absolutely sure of this assertion?
When religious leaders under the umbrella of Shia or Wahabsim call for suicide bombing, it’s not being asked by a major religion? Since it’s clearly being asked by a religious leader, are you just defining them as “not major”? Heh, they’d probably hate to hear that.
What about Shinto kamikaze pilots with the religious scarf tied around their heads, diving into American carriers for the honor of the ancestors – a very Shinto concept?
I don’t think the line is quite as clear as you would draw it.
Sailboat
If you ask such a question, I guess you’d challenge the usual two candidtes, the Crusades and the ex[pansion of Islam. So how about the Hugenot wars?
Sailboat
Questions for the religious. Would you support:
A sign on public property that said: “There is no God”?
Time set aside at graduation for a representative of the Atheist community to talk about the inspiration he feels by knowing there is no God?
Changing the Pledge of Allegiance to say “one Nation, without God”?
A school sponsored event each day where students and teachers gather around the flag pole to celebrate the fact there is no God?
Tax breaks for Atheist clubs, but none for religious ones?
Organizations that exclude the religious (or require them to acknowledge there is no higher power) having access to public buildings?
And in a related vein, how would pro-religion-in-the-public-sphere Christians(*) feel if their icons were replaced with Islamic, Buddhist, or Hindu ones instead?
In Ganesha we Trust?
The Mt. Soledad Star and Crescent?
Copies of the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path in front of public courthouses?
(* = Seems to me that the biggest advocates of putting religion in public places tend to be Christian fundamentalists. At least, they’re the folks who pop up most often on the news…)
I’m a bit late for the thread but…
What is the motivation of one child to inform another that Santa Claus doesn’t exist? True, probably to be a jerk but still, why shouldn’t he?
I agree with the rest of your post, but I would like to hear your reasoning as to how humanity would be better off without religion. More importantly, how do you propose we work towards that goal.
I will wholeheartedly agree with you that we would be better off if religion had never existed, in the first place. Not a whole lot we can do about that, at this point.
No, serioulsy. I think my tone throughout this thread (and most other threads, for that matter) is mostly conciliatory. For that reason, I am very confused when you try to make an issue of a minor detail. If you think a particular detail of my position is wrong, help me understand what you mean. Chances are that I will start walking in your direction, even if I don’t get all the way to where you are. If you just blow me off, then my ignorance stands unfought, ready to step on your toes the next time we cross paths.
You can hang at least two coats and a hat on a medium sized cross. 
Say octagonal floor tiles, or wood panels, or metal desks, or blue lamp shades. Anything that is not necessarily functional. The greenshadarians could come and say they are being discriminated because the lampshades at the city council are blue. Do we have to go and change them all to yellow?
I am really all against religious symbols in public places. If a new courthouse is built, there should be no crosses, or crescents or eleven-toed panthers.
Spending money to remove existing ones? sorry, not worth the hassle. If we ever need to change those floor tiles, the statue of the bleeding prophet doesn’t get put back; until then, it waits. They are there as a part of history. Reality is, that there is a strong christian tradition in the US. Moving away from it is not only a noble, but an urgent task. History, though, cannot be rewritten.