Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
skyth wrote: The reason 'Christians' are targetted is that most of the rules and laws (basically most of the power) in the western world (primarily the US) lies in Christian hands and benefits Christianity.
I don't really see any athiests here trying to remove all religion, but rather getting rid of the special privileges that Christianity has that turns people of other or no faith to second-class citizens.
Really. People of other on no faith second class citizens? Lets examine that.
- Jews are not second class citizens in the US. In fact if any religious group should be logically labeled as privileged it would be the Jews. Jews enjoy vastly disproportionate power to their demographics. Heard of 'J Street'.
- Laws that protect Christians also protect other faiths, and have done so from the outset. Back in 1776 having a singular state religion was normal, the US could easily have followed suit, yet was founded with freedom of worship as a core principle.
- As for Christians, which Christians? Denominational bias also has to be taken into consideration. Is America Protestant or Catholic, you could argue it is Protestant as a follow on from the UK and because religious freedom works out better in reality than it does in Catholic countries. Catholic and Protestant don't see eye to eye sadly enough. America rose above that because it had freedom of worship without a denominational bias. Also America has cultivated a milieu that allows Amish to remain, in a way that would be impossible in another nation with a specific denominational bias.
The USA doesn't have a denominational bias because it had a secular state, with the strongest religious culture within being non-sectarian.
- Scientologists, like them or not - have successfully tapped into their religious rights. No second class citizenry for them, at least in terms of external pressure.
Actually Jews are less catered to than Christians in this country, but the faith is close enough that they get some privelege as well. They would be first and a half class citizens
There are multiple ways not being Christian in the US turns you into a second class citizen.
Let's start with holidays. Christian holidays are considered 'generic' holidays that everyone gets off. Ask off for Samhaine and people will look at you weird. You might be able to force the issue, but there's a chance it could cost you your job or a promotion. This is besides the fact that they have to ask for it off. A Christian does not.
Go to a public gathering or even government meeting and there's a decent chance you'll have to sit through a Christian prayer.
Christian churches are a lot less likely to be vandalized and vandalism against Christian churches is taken a lot morr seriously than genetic vandalism.
Not being Christian hurts your chances of being elected to a public office.
Not being Christian hurts your chances of keeping custody of your children when parents separate.
Christianity is seen as the default stance in the US and if you are anything else, you are weird and an outsider.
- It is arguable that Christians are the injured party. Atheists made an 'us vs them' fight by targeting Christians exclusively with regards to their battle against religion; as nobody wants to be seen targeting Jews, and they are collectively litigious if you do, and targeting Moslems is outright dangerous. The fact that Christians are on the firing line indicate where the shots are coming from, it's not like Islam doesnt want to pick a fight, and despises atheism, but is curiously out of this one.
Christians are most definitely NOT the injured party. We have the 1st amendment in the US, which, for some reason a fairly significant number of Christians thinks applies only to them. I mean, look at school districts in the bible belt that are continuing to teach biblical creationism as science, counter to SCOTUS rulings. Look at the horribly written text books for "history" classes in Texas, claiming that Moses (of the 10 commandments) was "instrumental in the founding of the US".... Then, there's this whole thing of there having been around 40 something Christian presidents.
We can also look to Christians at political rallies with signs exclaiming that Muslims need to get out of the country, or expressing a desire to outlaw the religion from the country, despite that same 1st amendment.
Yes, a lot of us atheists have problems with Islam, but when it comes to public policy and domestic governance, in the US, the power is held almost exclusively by Christians. Therefore, that is the "exclusive" target.
First a lot of the extremism you are talking about comes from fringe churches, including Moses helped found America (like sources for that actually), and those who want to expel all Moslems. That being said there are a lot of other people who want Moslems out.
As for power in Christian hands. There isn't a lot of defacto Christian power in the US. Some big evangelical ministries, Catholic church. But they are separate from the state. A lot of causal middle Americans identify as Christian, as in they get married in a church and have baptisms. UK is similar. That isn't Christian though.
The 'Christian' presidents have also been nominal mostly. Lincoln being the notable exception he didn't just talk the talk, but then he was unelectable right up until the time when everything went to gak and he was the only man still standing. Partly because he was a firm Christian.
You admit to exclusive targeting Christianity though, which proves my point. The atheist movement is initiating the struggle, and the people doing so are not disowned by the rest. Wheras most Christians, indeed whole denominations will turn around and say the things you are complaining about are not in their name. Not every atheist is like that, but its a mainstream agenda.
Actually Jews are less catered to than Christians in this country, but the faith is close enough that they get some privelege as well. They would be first and a half class citizens .
Senior positioning in pivotal organisations such as the Federal Reserve are the preserve of Jews. Some are so secure in this they have only recently promoted token gentiles to senior visible positions.
Being Jewish is a big step up in much of the media industry, and those who critique this are often frozen out of the industry.
I cannot critique Jewish companies for favouring their own kind, it is normal, but the demographics are way out of proportion. There aren't that many Jews in the US as a percentage of the population, yet they form a strong power majority in Holywood and in some industries.
Criticising Israel is political suicide in the US, even when Israel is clearly deserving of critique.
Let's start with holidays. Christian holidays are considered 'generic' holidays that everyone gets off. Ask off for Samhaine and people will look at you weird. You might be able to force the issue, but there's a chance it could cost you your job or a promotion. This is besides the fact that they have to ask for it off. A Christian does not.
So generic are these holidays that they are de-Christianised. Christmas is the retail season, and has a lot of secular iconography. Santa Claus is not Christian. Christmas = snow and Santa.
Christmas is a universal festival anyway. Much the iconography is non-Christian, unsuprising as it was orginally Yule anyway. There is also strong and generic iconography an elements of the festival unique to Christmas. It is fairly labelled as generic because it IS generic as part of public celebration.
Easter is not a public holiday. Thankgiving is a public festival and is Christian in origin but it is more properly an American cultural festival linked to the Pilgrim fathers. Thanksgiving has no meaning outside the US, it is not on the list of religious celebrations of any christian denomination in Europe. It has links to harvest festival, which in Europe is in September at the end of the summer harvest.
That is it actually. Surprised to see Easter is not a public festival, (except in ten states) neither is Pentecost. In fact the only holiday on the public calender is th highly commercialised and genericised Christmas.
I don't know where you are getting the idea that you are having to stop for Christian festivals. Good Friday is the only actual case I see here, and only in a fifth of the states of the union.
If you want Samhaine and you will have to get personal time. Ash Wednesday looks like its no different.
Christian churches are a lot less likely to be vandalized and vandalism against Christian churches is taken a lot morr seriously than genetic vandalism.
I think vandalism of a mosque, temple or synagogue would be taken seriously. More seriously than generic vandalism because these are cultural buildings of import to people.
Vandalise a house and thats thuggery. Vandalise a memorial, or a historical building or a church or a cemetery and that is thuggery with an additional harm of cultural shock.
If someone daubs rude words on your house you will be upset, as will your friends and neighbours. Daub rude words on a mosque and lots of people will be upset, not all of them Moslems.
Also generic vandalism is just senseless destruction.
Target a memorial or a religious building and its not necessarily senseless, except my happenstance. It becomes vandalism plus hatecrime. There is a logical distinction.
A humanist centre vandalised this way would qualify.
Not being Christian hurts your chances of being elected to a public office.
That means nothing. In the UK very anti-Christian politicians appear in churches at election time. and claim to be Christian, yet are the same people directly responsible for fething over the churches.
Christianity is seen as the default stance in the US and if you are anything else, you are weird and an outsider.
It is ok to have a default. But you are hardly an outsider for not being Christian. Jews more than do ok and are able to openly discriminater against the presumed power elite, meaning they arent really a power elite.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/08/05 17:45:09
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Go to a public gathering or even government meeting and there's a decent chance you'll have to sit through a Christian prayer.
Get over it.
Why? It's not needed there. I mean, depends on the type of "public gathering" but unless it's a specifically religious gathering, why are we subjected to it?
This response really kills your points. I mean, a lot of what I've read from you in this thread seems hand-wavey to me, but I accept that as difference of opinions. But a couple of times like this when you just totally dismiss issues people have, it's not good.
Plus, for the "default being Christianity" points, you can say we're "hardly outsider[s]" for being non-Christian, but my experience paints a very different reality. And anecdotal evidence is all we really have for this kind of thing. You can't exactly fact-check a "feeling like an outsider" meter.
So 'get over' being treated as a second class citizen. What a nice statement that totally tried to ignore the fact that Christians occupy a position of privelege in this country. I swear some of that rant sounded like it came from neo-nazi talking points.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Here's a better list...
First a lot of the extremism you are talking about comes from fringe churches, including Moses helped found America (like sources for that actually), and those who want to expel all Moslems. That being said there are a lot of other people who want Moslems out.
As for power in Christian hands. There isn't a lot of defacto Christian power in the US. Some big evangelical ministries, Catholic church. But they are separate from the state. A lot of causal middle Americans identify as Christian, as in they get married in a church and have baptisms. UK is similar. That isn't Christian though.
Ted Cruz and his ilk would, in my eyes, definitely fall under the category of "Christian power" with the ideas they fight for constantly. The delusion that America is a Christian nation, despite mountains of records and evidence to the contrary is what I'm talking about.
As for the text book thing, here's a few links I found off a quick google search:
Also, you may or may not be familiar with some spectacularly horrible theater in the forms of "God's Not Dead" (starring Kevin Sorbo) and even worse, "God's Not Dead 2".... well, here's a REAL story that happens to take place in the same place as the gakky sequel:
Go to a public gathering or even government meeting and there's a decent chance you'll have to sit through a Christian prayer.
Get over it.
Why? It's not needed there. I mean, depends on the type of "public gathering" but unless it's a specifically religious gathering, why are we subjected to it?
This response really kills your points. I mean, a lot of what I've read from you in this thread seems hand-wavey to me, but I accept that as difference of opinions. But a couple of times like this when you just totally dismiss issues people have, it's not good.
Plus, for the "default being Christianity" points, you can say we're "hardly outsider[s]" for being non-Christian, but my experience paints a very different reality. And anecdotal evidence is all we really have for this kind of thing. You can't exactly fact-check a "feeling like an outsider" meter.
It's a public meeting and someone says a prayer. You aren't going to shrivel under the power of God like holy water sprinkled on a vampire.
Tolerance goes both ways. You aren't 'subjected' to it, because its not an ordeal. Its a time to be patient with other cultures.
You dont want to sit through it. Fine you dont have to, its intolerant and unfair to expect prayers to be banned.
I said get over it and meant it. The whinging about 'someone wants to pray, we should ban that' . If its traditional to open with prayers why should that tradition be redacted because some intolerent people cant abide anyone else expressing a culture you dont want to be part of.
Just about everyone is entitled to be loud and proud about their culture. Gay Pride, St Patricks Day marches are two good examples. Cant Christians be loud and proud also? They have a tradition, open the meeting giving thanks to God. The meeting is secular but before getting down to secular business people in the old days, when people were mostly at least nominal Christian would be seen to remember God first. Ironically t makes more sense in a separate church and state system actually, especially with a then Christian majority. In Europe because there was no separation there was no need for prayers because everything was under the aegis of church. In America prayers are a way of leaving God at the door, evidently not abandoning Him, but a seperation before getting down to business which has been culturally directed to be secular as a means to be fair to all. Get the religion done first, then everyone can get down to secular business without further religious input
This is a very American way of doing things and has risen that was over centuries, it is part of your culture.
Now some intolerent atheists want to rip it all up because they lack the maturity to accept a cultural continuence.
As for being 'subjected' to the prayers, as if it were an unbearable affront. That reads as very SJW. Do you really want to tread that path?
Nobody shot your dog.
Honestly, get over it.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
See, that's pretty intolerant right there. If I don't believe why should I have my time wasted? Why should I have to be "subjected" to something I don't believe in?
And no one is saying "ban praying" but rather "do it on your own time, not mine."
And as for Gay Pride parades it's because they ARE treated as second class citizens ( that's slowly changing however), so that doesn't really help your case much.
DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+
bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
I said get over it and meant it. The whinging about 'someone wants to pray, we should ban that' . If its traditional to open with prayers why should that tradition be redacted because some intolerent people cant abide anyone else expressing a culture you dont want to be part of.
In other words, cater to my religion and only mine. It's always amusing to see the most intolerant culture accusing others of being intolerant. tell me about being patient with other cultures when muslims can freely start a meeting off with one of their prayers. I'm sure you'd be the picture of being patient then.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/05 18:39:53
Go to a public gathering or even government meeting and there's a decent chance you'll have to sit through a Christian prayer.
Get over it.
Why? It's not needed there. I mean, depends on the type of "public gathering" but unless it's a specifically religious gathering, why are we subjected to it?
This response really kills your points. I mean, a lot of what I've read from you in this thread seems hand-wavey to me, but I accept that as difference of opinions. But a couple of times like this when you just totally dismiss issues people have, it's not good.
Plus, for the "default being Christianity" points, you can say we're "hardly outsider[s]" for being non-Christian, but my experience paints a very different reality. And anecdotal evidence is all we really have for this kind of thing. You can't exactly fact-check a "feeling like an outsider" meter.
It's a public meeting and someone says a prayer. You aren't going to shrivel under the power of God like holy water sprinkled on a vampire. Tolerance goes both ways. You aren't 'subjected' to it, because its not an ordeal. Its a time to be patient with other cultures. You dont want to sit through it. Fine you dont have to, its intolerant and unfair to expect prayers to be banned.
I said get over it and meant it. The whinging about 'someone wants to pray, we should ban that' . If its traditional to open with prayers why should that tradition be redacted because some intolerent people cant abide anyone else expressing a culture you dont want to be part of.
Just about everyone is entitled to be loud and proud about their culture. Gay Pride, St Patricks Day marches are two good examples. Cant Christians be loud and proud also? They have a tradition, open the meeting giving thanks to God. The meeting is secular but before getting down to secular business people in the old days, when people were mostly at least nominal Christian would be seen to remember God first. Ironically t makes more sense in a separate church and state system actually, especially with a then Christian majority. In Europe because there was no separation there was no need for prayers because everything was under the aegis of church. In America prayers are a way of leaving God at the door, evidently not abandoning Him, but a seperation before getting down to business which has been culturally directed to be secular as a means to be fair to all. Get the religion done first, then everyone can get down to secular business without further religious input This is a very American way of doing things and has risen that was over centuries, it is part of your culture. Now some intolerent atheists want to rip it all up because they lack the maturity to accept a cultural continuence.
As for being 'subjected' to the prayers, as if it were an unbearable affront. That reads as very SJW. Do you really want to tread that path?
Nobody shot your dog. Honestly, get over it.
Wow I can tell you're a very tolerant person. "Don't like prayer when there's business to do? There's the door."
Perhaps consideration could be shown that some of us are there to do things and it's quite an affront to waste the time we have.
I "got over it" a long time ago, because I realized that Christians just don't give a gak about anyone's feelings or wants if they go against the theocratic norm. (Anecdotal evidence. Which is apparently valid for truth in this thread.) So I'm very patient about it, because why raise my blood pressure over you?
If you just want to misrepresent what's said and belittle, while giving no thought to "why would they feel this way," and yet expect us to give you that consideration while dismissing almost every issue out of hand, then well, I guess there's nothing more to discuss with you.
I don't care about religious traditions if I'm at a business or government meeting. Open the meeting with relevant things. Open your religious meetings with religious traditions.
By the way, "subjected to" doesn't only mean something would be an ordeal. But hey, that's what misrepresentation is for, eh?
Christians should be allowed to be loud and proud? Yet, atheists should just sit quietly, and get over it? Hm. Sounds less like equality than you might think. But that's SJW culture for you. Oh snap, I can use that acronym too.
One last thing, it IS an affront. An affront to reason.
Now goodbye forever, it seems you're not really contributing so much as you are wanting to tell atheists how their concerns are invalid because "suck it up," so you're going into my "never hear from again" pile
I said get over it and meant it. The whinging about 'someone wants to pray, we should ban that' . If its traditional to open with prayers why should that tradition be redacted because some intolerent people cant abide anyone else expressing a culture you dont want to be part of.
In other words, cater to my religion and only mine. It's always amusing to see the most intolerant culture blaming others for being intolerant. tell me about being patient with other cultures when muslims can freely start a meeting off with one of their prayers. I'm sure you'd be the picture of being patient then.
Oh! There was the time a Satanist recently went to do his prayer/ritual and Christians actively spoke over him.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/05 18:52:52
Thankyou for the links. The problem here is that patheos.com refer to Christianity an an epidemic.
So Christianity is as a disease. That is more than a bit loaded.
I am sure I could find plenty of links of reasons to dislike Islam on Stormfront.
I am sure I could find plenty of links to the evil excesses of atheists on a pro-Taliban website.
As fro the Moses thing.
The sources aren't saying that Moses helped found America. They say that the founding fathers wee heavily influenced by the teachings of Moses.
There is actually some logic to that, at face value. The protestant movement of the time was heavily old testament based
They were going through their own exodus to an expected promised land, and some could well be asking God for delivery through it, or seeing the similarities as aspirational. I would need to know more before I would critique this.
There was a lot of spin in early American history. A larger percentage of the population were loyalist than subsequent history portrays, and there was a need for propaganda, even some cases of gerrymandering to ensure support went the way it did. The similarities of delivery from Egypt would be useful to raise the masses.
Mosaic influence is therefore not unreasonable.
Your link to the New York Times echoes this "some academics say exaggerate the influence of Moses in American democracy". Mosaic influence is reasonable, at what point is it being overegged for revisionism. But then the New York Times is a decent journalistic source.
The Atlantic is more vague about what the problem with Moses and founding America is. Rightwingwatch jumps in with both feet though "suggest Moses influenced the writing of the Constitution". It is ambiguous enough you cant tell what the scare story is. You have to dig for yourself to find its not a pants-on-head theology of Moses returning and leading early American leaders to glory. As it was introduced to the thread. I was thinking/hopeing, surely not even in 'Murica.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wolfblade wrote: See, that's pretty intolerant right there. If I don't believe why should I have my time wasted? Why should I have to be "subjected" to something I don't believe in?
And no one is saying "ban praying" but rather "do it on your own time, not mine."
If an opening prayer is a traditional activity at a public event it is so.
And as for Gay Pride parades it's because they ARE treated as second class citizens ( that's slowly changing however), so that doesn't really help your case much.
And now you are doing same for Christians. Which is why I mentioned that specific example. Gay Pride was necesssry to say we are here and not going to go away. Relgious people might soon need to do same.
I said get over it and meant it. The whinging about 'someone wants to pray, we should ban that' . If its traditional to open with prayers why should that tradition be redacted because some intolerent people cant abide anyone else expressing a culture you dont want to be part of.
In other words, cater to my religion and only mine. It's always amusing to see the most intolerant culture accusing others of being intolerant. tell me about being patient with other cultures when muslims can freely start a meeting off with one of their prayers. I'm sure you'd be the picture of being patient then.
So you made a flat assumption. I never said the prayers at the beginning meetings had to be Christian. You just assumed I said so because you prefer to assume I only ask for one religion to be catered to.
Reality is often different.
Most public prayers before public secular meetings in the current age are inferfaith, and have a focus on unity and tolerance.
It is even increasingly encourafged by secular authorities because of this.
Funny that. So who are the intolerant ones again?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/05 18:52:57
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Funny...local town had only Christian prayers to start the town hall meeting...got sued and won by claiming that they were interfaith and then promptly changed the rules so that only Christians qualified to lead the prayers...
Wow I can tell you're a very tolerant person. "Don't like prayer when there's business to do? There's the door."
Thank you for the unintended complement. It is indeed the act of the tolerent man when faced with a legal activity that he doesnt want to be involved with to remove himself from the qactivity rather than ban it.
Perhaps consideration could be shown that some of us are there to do things and it's quite an affront to waste the time we have.
that consideration is given. This is why the prayers occur at the beginning not during and in many cases the formal start time of the session is business is the time listed for start of meeting.
I "got over it" a long time ago, because I realized that Christians just don't give a gak about anyone's feelings or wants if they go against the theocratic norm. (Anecdotal evidence. Which is apparently valid for truth in this thread.) So I'm very patient about it, because why raise my blood pressure over you?.
So its only them Christians then. Raised blood pressure doesn't imply patience, patience comes from understanding
If you want anecdotal evidence to count quote it and link.
If you just want to misrepresent what's said and belittle, while giving no thought to "why would they feel this way," and yet expect us to give you that consideration while dismissing almost every issue out of hand, then well, I guess there's nothing more to discuss with you.
because its known why you feel this way. There are many atheist movements calling for an outright ban on prayer in public meetings. They beleive that religion should only be practiced behind closed doors, if at all, despite being in an information age where nearly every activity is broadcastable and in a milieu of increased tolerence of public expression of anything legal to be publically expressed.
I don't care about religious traditions if I'm at a business or government meeting. Open the meeting with relevant things. Open your religious meetings with religious traditions.
A tradition means something that is passed down generation to generation and is a continuous cultural link. Once severed of cultural links a society becomes less stable because it has less depth. every society has its traditions and it is a major cultural step to sever one, and it is almost always to the worst.
Sever this one and part of the cultural fabric is torn. Why should that be done just to accommodate your intolerance.
i would say exactly the same about secular traditions and frequently do.
Christians should be allowed to be loud and proud? Yet, atheists should just sit quietly, and get over it? Hm. Sounds less like equality than you might think. But that's SJW culture for you. Oh snap, I can use that acronym too.
If you find an atheist or foreign faith cultural tradition for me to sit through I would do so, or turn up after. I wouldnt demand its removal.
In fact I wouldnt even be offended if I did sit through it. So there is a distinction between you and me. That is why the SJW style intolerence meme works one way only here.
One last thing, it IS an affront. An affront to reason.
Ok. Lets break this down. You dont believe in it, why is not relevant at this point anymore. Others do. Anyway you want to ban it because you insist your own fanatical dogmas take prescedence that others are to be banned from public place.
Lets put these two together: Atheist..... Taliban.
Now goodbye forever, it seems you're not really contributing so much as you are wanting to tell atheists how their concerns are invalid because "suck it up," so you're going into my "never hear from again" pile
Cheerio.
i have given myriad reasons on many posts on this thread.
However when it comes down to atheists demanding the end yo public prayer at meetings. 'Get over it' is a very rational response.
Nowhere have we said you cant practice atheism at a public meeting, if someone tried to shut down the humanists I would consider that a serious affront to civil liberties and would oppose the move.
However there are entire movements in atheist society hell bent on driving a wedge between Christian society in particular, but also other faiths and secular society. Sidelining religion, the right to practice or publically identify with religion.
Oh! There was the time a Satanist recently went to do his prayer/ritual and Christians actively spoke over him.
Turning up to troll. People would talk over Westboro Baptists also.
Also those who would talk over a Satanist need not be Christian.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skyth wrote: Funny...local town had only Christian prayers to start the town hall meeting...got sued and won by claiming that they were interfaith and then promptly changed the rules so that only Christians qualified to lead the prayers...
Source please.
A humanist speaker could ask for time at meetings for 'unity and quiet reflection'.
If an imam turned up it would be hard to refuse him.
Any evidence they have done so?
Prayers can still be interfaith, and if only Christian preachers turn up with any regularity that is what you get.
No reason to ban though.
I would challenge that if I were you, and if it means something to you.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/05 19:27:22
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
You don't "practice" atheism, there's nothing to practice. And no one is stopping you from praying, just do it on your own time, and don't involve others who don't want it, in it (which applies to more than just atheists. I'm sure a Hindu would feel uncomfortable during a Christian prayer i.e.)
DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+
bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
A tradition means something that is passed down generation to generation and is a continuous cultural link. Once severed of cultural links a society becomes less stable because it has less depth. every society has its traditions and it is a major cultural step to sever one, and it is almost always to the worst.
Sever this one and part of the cultural fabric is torn. Why should that be done just to accommodate your intolerance.
i would say exactly the same about secular traditions and frequently do.
traditions is the worst of all reason to do something. It means it's being down with no thought as to why its being done. Why is a prayer needed to start any meeting? what value does it add to the meeting? none really.
If you had your way and we never changed traditions and do away with the really bad ones, there'd still be a tradition of slavery, a tradition of keeping women in the home and out of the work place.
so you're saying that we are worse off for doing away with those traditions? Even in the navy, they thought about their core values and tradition was the first to go. Tradition used to be a core value of the navy, but was replaced with better values, and a newer, more enlightened tradition was founded on the core values of 'honor, courage, commitment'
Tradition is the worst reason of all to do anything.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/05 19:39:13
Orlanth wrote: A humanist speaker could ask for time at meetings for 'unity and quiet reflection'.
Humanists and athiests have been blocked from speaking on "thought for the day" since its inception. I know that whenever I went into the workshop where I used to work (they only ever listened to Radio 2) the invariably Christian thought for the day would annoy me.
This is far (especially in America) from the only venue at which non-religious, and often specifically non-christian, speakers are refused.
Wolfblade wrote: You don't "practice" atheism, there's nothing to practice. And no one is stopping you from praying, just do it on your own time, and don't involve others who don't want it, in it (which applies to more than just atheists. I'm sure a Hindu would feel uncomfortable during a Christian prayer i.e.)
You may be surprised. From what I know of most Hindus they dont mind, and if there are Hindus in the community meeting the meeting will likely have interfaith prayers, if any.
As fro atheism, for some there is nothing to practice, but in that case why not let everyone else get to it. If the only practice you have is intolerance when religion is encountered, something is wrong
Nevertheless humanism has comparable procedures to a lot of religion, namely in terms of the way a congregation meets and even some of the roles of a priesthood.
There is elements of atheism to practice if you choose to do so. Evidently as atheism has no core theology there is no pressure to join in as such. Though with one caveat below*. Humanist meeting halls and clubs provide fellowship with people of similar perspective. Humanist speakers provide inspiration at meetings, and consolation useful at funerals. There are also times of reflection on a common goal a form of prayer focus, just without any propitiary elements. A humanist call for a moment of quiet reflection on an issue relevant to the group or society in general is 'half a prayer' it focuses the community even if it doesn't ask any deity for assistance.
I could easily see room for humanist speakers in interfaith meetings.
Doing a quick google search and evidently I am not alone in that. It happens here in Europe.
If faith leaders stand together for peace after an atrocity, a humanist is normally with them.
Perhaps if you brought that to America this whole issue would go away.
We dont have the us and them battle with atheists in the UK. Debates yes. The main problem is government pressure for disestablishmentarianism partly under the veil of atheism.
* The caveat. Communists. They were big on atheist/party meetings, and it was a good idea if you turned up. China is still big on these. There is a lot of humanist teaching at face value, though far less gentle because its atheist reason plus party line.
There is even a from of prayer and worship in some extreme communist cultures.
Mentioned for completeness, America after all is not exactly up for communism. Especially the southern states, most of the issues raised refer to.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Regardless, if you leave for or show up after the prayer exoect not to have any comment you make seriously by the board.
Even if you keep on plugging your ears and ranting that it's not true; Chrustians occupy a position of privelege in the US.
So from your link you could turn up and say you leader a congregation of believers and get a slot. Non -christians are definitively catered for and the article expenses that. In fact the picture in the article shows a Baha'i worshipper holding prayers.
Atheists feel they fall foul of the wording intended to weed out lone nutcases, but only because they don't have any congregations. A group of humanists could easily found one, and there is established cause for humanists to meet, human fellowship.
Most religions have human fellowship at its core, in fact the word church refers to the group of believers, not the building, which is a secondary definition.
Time with like minded people is a part of a humans basic need and goes back to our tribal roots. Humanists understand this truth also and can and do meet. They could easily quality for the criteria for Greece, NY. It might make better copy however to assume that the atheists of the rtown would not want to sit in the same room for, reasons, and thus they are all being discriminated against by those dastardly we-will-assume-are-Christians.
Any evidence that you cant turn up after prayers and still be heard fairly?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/05 20:02:21
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Regardless, if you leave for or show up after the prayer exoect not to have any comment you make seriously by the board.
Even if you keep on plugging your ears and ranting that it's not true; Chrustians occupy a position of privelege in the US.
So from your link you could turn up and say you leader a congregation of believers and get a slot. Non -christians are definitively catered for and the article expenses that. In fact the picture in the article shows a Baha'i worshipper holding prayers.
Atheists feel they fall foul of the wording intended to weed out lone nutcases, but only because they don't have any congregations. A group of humanists could easily found one, and there is established cause for humanists to meet, human fellowship.
Most religions have human fellowship at its core, in fact the word church refers to the group of believers, not the building, which is a secondary definition.
Time with like minded people is a part of a humans basic need and goes back to our tribal roots. Humanists understand this truth also and can and do meet. They could easily quality for the criteria for Greece, NY. It might make better copy however to assume that the atheists of the rtown would not want to sit in the same room for, reasons, and thus they are all being discriminated against by those dastardly we-will-assume-are-Christians.
Any evidence that you cant turn up after prayers and still be heard fairly?
Oh really, that's what we're basing being discriminated on?
Arkansas, Article 19, Section 1:
No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.
you can't be fairly heard if your immediately dismissed as being incompetent.
The Delta employee then explained that the pilot had decided to ask them to leave as one of the crew members had felt “uncomfortable” in their presence, as the crew member had reportedly seen Mr Ali hide his phone as they walked by, and that Mr Ali had been sweating and saying “Allah”.
tell me any christian would have been removed for saying god?
Orlanth wrote: We dont have the us and them battle with atheists in the UK. Debates yes. The main problem is government pressure for disestablishmentarianism partly under the veil of atheism.
Are you joking?
Christianity is consistently held above all other faiths and non-religious viewpoints in the UK by the government.
The rules are quite restrictive to minority faiths(like mine...I wouldn't be able to offer a prayer there). They are written based on how Christianity operates and are yet another example of Christian privelege.
This is besides the fact that govetnment functions have no business supporting religious rituals.
skyth wrote: Yeah...like they would admit to that.
The rules are quite restrictive to minority faiths(like mine...I wouldn't be able to offer a prayer there). They are written based on how Christianity operates and are yet another example of Christian privelege.
This is besides the fact that govetnment functions have no business supporting religious rituals.
Arent the rules based on how formal religion operates, not necessarily just Christianity.
Some charismatic churches would fall foul of that, house churches for example.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Prayers can still be interfaith, and if only Christian preachers turn up with any regularity that is what you get.
No reason to ban though.
Im not sure how local governance is done where you're at, but here, a religious person offering up an opening prayer doesn't just "turn up".... They are specifically invited.
And in a country such as mine with a disestablishment clause, these prayers run foul of that, ESPECIALLY because so many cities/counties or whatever only send out requests to Christian preachers. The only council meetings I've attended that had a prayer/words offered up by a non-christian, was because that exact religion was going to be talked about (one meeting was opened by a Muslim, because one of the topics of discussion for that night were zoning restrictions and how that Imam/teacher could open a Mosque in town)
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Im not sure how local governance is done where you're at, but here, a religious person offering up an opening prayer doesn't just "turn up".... They are specifically invited.
And in a country such as mine with a disestablishment clause, these prayers run foul of that, ESPECIALLY because so many cities/counties or whatever only send out requests to Christian preachers. The only council meetings I've attended that had a prayer/words offered up by a non-christian, was because that exact religion was going to be talked about (one meeting was opened by a Muslim, because one of the topics of discussion for that night were zoning restrictions and how that Imam/teacher could open a Mosque in town)
Exactly. And here's my state, being a national embarrassment: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article29931514.html#sto. The courts said the county couldn't limit their pre-meeting prayer to Christians, but when there was a Muslim giving the prayer the chairman walked out and the county voted to stop having prayers before meetings. And, charming person that he is, the chairman had this to say:
“I ain’t gonna have no new religion or pray to Allah or nothing like that,” Mitchem told WBTV, saying that anyone opposed to Christian prayer can “wait until we’re done praying.”
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Orlanth wrote: We dont have the us and them battle with atheists in the UK. Debates yes. The main problem is government pressure for disestablishmentarianism partly under the veil of atheism.
Christianity is consistently held above all other faiths and non-religious viewpoints in the UK by the government..
This is a secular move and is a counter to the disestablishmentarianism set up by Blair (who claims to be christian BTW). New Labour wanted this because by reforging the natioanl culture in their image they hoped to become indispensible to the population. a New Brtian of multicultuiralism that doesnt quite work and needs New Labour to cement it to work at all. To do this the old ways hadto go. coE was high on the list, as well as hereditary lords and a number of civic rights. In would come selective empowerment under multiculturalism, which is mainly there to keep the nation divided.
Blairs first agenda was to practice lay investiture to fill the CoE with yes men. Williams was totally useless, but become Archbishop of Canterbury because every candidate the synod elected was rejected by Downing st until they came to him. He was way down this list.
Williams could be replied upon to not make comments if he saw social ills the government said they had a handle on and would ignore the systemic dismantlying of the church. He even took a year off to write a book when there was a schism with the African churches.
Just an example:
He said nothing when Christian ministries were removed from the prison service, which occurred under Blair on a progressive agenda. The same progresive agenda also allowed Islamic mission to continue unchecked, because minority rights. Prison has been a hotbed for Islamic radical conversion because people in prison oftimes want to turn to God, and Allah was the only deity on regular offer. Combine radical Islam wirth ex convicts and you get an unpleasant mixture. In the post Blair years with British citizens without an Islamic background who have been through the prison system converted to Islam and been radicalised being a noticable common history in some ISIS recruits from the Uk hasd caused the current government to rethink.
Blair also went heavily after the CoE in other ways, but relented to some extent because the CoE runs the vast majority of the faith schools in the Uk state system and statistically they are the best schools in the state system overall. CoE schools are highly sought after.
Meanwhile non-Christian faith schools were allowed to get on with it, and under the dogma of equality, false tolerence and multiculturalism could not be scrutinised. Now th Jewish ones were ok and continued as normal, butwhen you allow radical Islam free reign it doesnt need to be asked twice. The 'Trojan horse' schools were like the rape culture in Rotherham, something people knew about but could do nothing about because it was not politically acceptable to beleive these excesses existed.
It took a change of government to deal with both.
The Uk government has big problems with Islamic extremism and has realised that stamping on the church was not helpful in the long run, because the church runs the best schools and the Coe doesnt really get inanyones way, its a non exteremist organisation. So the current government wants to encourage it back on its feet.
Humainists might not like that, but humanists have no threat from the CoE, if the Uk becomes Islamic in 2045-50 as some predict kiss goodbye to your rights then.
This is necessary and was seen as such outside the Guardian. New Labour set up the cultural climate that allowed the Trojan horse schools to prosper. Fro those who don't know what that means it means that behind closed doors teachers were teaching Islamic fundamentalism as its core religious teaching, jihadist teaching was kept off all the records, and often spilled out into times for other curricular.
This had to be stopped. Harsh new measure included but without punishing those faith schools that were not trying to teach preteens to be jihadists.
Lets be clear here, its not some teaching on creationism that some humanists had problems with, indeed the humanists didnt go around critiqing these aschools because criticising ethnic schools in New Labour Britain was not a good career move and CoE were a sanctioned punchbag.
So kids were being taught stuiff that the average humanist, and anyone else might not like. Such as how all Jews are evil, women are third class citizens and how unbeleivers can be persecuted.
Again necessary. Humanists were indirectly used to bash the CoE, this doesnt imply any conspiracy, many atheists like to bash Christianity given the chance, see thread for details, Blair gave them free reign to do so. imagine what would happen if a hostile government purposely and specifically gave Peregrine or some of the more anti-religious posters here free reign to critique Christian schools. I think they might enjoy finding faults. Much of the bashing was entirely uncalled for. Again coE schools have the best records in the state system as a group, some are very very good. there are many failing schools in the state system, humanists don't seem to care about them though for some reason, even though basic literacy is a problem for many school leavers.
The government wants to end this. Humanists have been basically trolling the CoE for over nearly two decades with the blessing of prior governments, it hasn't helped. CoE standards remained high, Jewish schools likewise, secular schools and Islamic schools are generally not so good, infact outside of grammars, a few flagship schools and the CoE and Jewish faith aschools the state system in the Uk is crap.
Some humanists still like to fault find specifically at the CoE, and even post Trojan horse aren't of a mind to look too deeply as Islamic schools.
To some extent it has become a right to troll.
Most of the nit picking is unhelpful and tiresome, especially as the humanists are self motivated to find fault for any reason and bleat about it if they do even if it is very thin. Its a waste of time and resources dealing with these constant nick pickings (remember the CoE schools get the highest OFSTED reports) its also a form of harassment in some cases. So schools in general not just CoE are now given a buffer against spurious complaints. Complaints must come from parents of guardians of students at the school, or professional inspectors, not politicised groups out to score a point. This way resources are not diverted away from relevant issues.
The irony here is that if we stop being a Christian country because of pandering to multculturalism, we will become an Islamic country, with no equality.
Also the CoE is recovering now it has had the New Labour boot lifted off its neck. Cameron got rid of Williams very quickly and replaced him with someone competent. Blair and Brown could have done this at any time, but they didn't want a competent leader of the CoE.
It also helps that the BBC is not pressing an atheist agenda as it did a decade ago and the charismatic church, which has growth rates higher than any other group, is now no longer unwelcome. New Labour shut down a lot of charismatic churches, especially the multicultural ones, as they could make a success of multiculturalism, wheras multiculturalism is not supposed to work without the guiding hand of government.
The situatation in the UK is very different from the US. The CoE worked as a cultural bedrock, so it had to go, or at least be unfit for purpose. Schools had to reflect the new dogma and the divide and rule society. Even devolution of Scotland and Wales was part of the same strategy, Scotland and England separate but united with the unifying glue of Labour, but actually as some said would happen being instrumental for the rise of the SNP and Pliad Cymru from prior inconsequence.
The religious issues in the Uk are party political and recent and the current moves to alter the balance are also entirely polticial. Its not due to a faith bias, it is because the nation is fracturing due to disestablishmentarianism, and the post Blair government see the consequences of the mistakes. The Tories don't give a gak about Christianity, they just dont want civic unrest, an Islamic rise, or for that matter Labour being engineered as the essential component to glue society together.
And nobody wants the continuation of the problems of jihadist infiltration of school curricula, except the jihadists.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skyth wrote: 'Formal Religion' is determined by how Christianity does it. It's part of the Christian Privellege.
Saudim Arabia has a formal religion, as does Iran and India. Those Christians.....
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/05 21:56:12
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Orlanth wrote: because its known why you feel this way. There are many atheist movements calling for an outright ban on prayer in public meetings. They beleive that religion should only be practiced behind closed doors, if at all, despite being in an information age where nearly every activity is broadcastable and in a milieu of increased tolerence of public expression of anything legal to be publically expressed.
No they don't. This is a blatantly dishonest straw man argument. What "atheist movements" want in this case is a ban on government-sponsored/endorsed prayer. Nobody is suggesting that religion be banned from public spaces and only allowed behind closed doors or (even more laughably wrong) banned entirely. Virtually all atheists will acknowledge that you can pray in public. What we oppose is that prayer being done by government organizations and/or employees acting in their government role, because that involves the secular government picking a side on religious questions and making other religious (or lack thereof) groups feel excluded or even threatened. It's why our constitution explicitly states that the government can not do this.
In short: build a church on private property if you want. Put a sign out in front with whatever religious message you want. But the government can not endorse your message.
Lets put these two together: Atheist..... Taliban.
Yeah, because "the government should not endorse any religion (or atheism)" is totally the same as "the government should enforce my religion and kill anyone who doesn't follow it". Clearly this is a reasonable comparison to make.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Peregrine wrote: Nobody is suggesting that religion be banned from public spaces and only allowed behind closed doors or (even more laughably wrong) banned entirely.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Orlanth wrote: - It is arguable that Christians are the injured party. Atheists made an 'us vs them' fight by targeting Christians exclusively with regards to their battle against religion; as nobody wants to be seen targeting Jews, and they are collectively litigious if you do, and targeting Moslems is outright dangerous. The fact that Christians are on the firing line indicate where the shots are coming from, it's not like Islam doesnt want to pick a fight, and despises atheism, but is curiously out of this one.
Going to have to go back and reply to this one, because it's so hilariously wrong. What alternate world are you looking at where atheists don't target Islam? Did you miss the fact that some of the most popular "leaders" of the atheist "movement" will go on and on about how much Islam is a threat, how we need to be very afraid of Islamic terrorists, how we need to continue having wars in the middle east to fight Islam, etc? Trust me, there is no shortage of targeting Islam in atheism. If it seems like Christianity is more often a target it's only because English language books/forums/blogs/etc are US/UK-dominated, two countries that are majority Christian. So, especially in the US, if you're going to talk about a way that a religious group is harming society it's almost certainly going to be a Christian church responsible.
Nice job moving the goal posts there. Opposing religion and saying "we want to persuade people that their beliefs are incorrect" is not at all the same as trying to ban religion. Please don't use such a dishonest argument.
And, amusingly, that Sam Harris interview even refutes your own claim that atheists don't target Islam. Quotes:
To speak specifically of our problem with the Muslim world, we are meandering into a genuine clash of civilizations, and we're deluding ourselves with euphemisms. We're talking about Islam being a religion of peace that's been hijacked by extremists. If ever there were a religion that's not a religion of peace, it is Islam.
and
There are so many. Let's take the extreme case, honor killing in the Muslim world. Imagine the psychology of a man who, upon hearing that his daughter was raped, is inspired not to console her, not to seek immediate medical and psychological treatment for her, but to kill her. This is an honor-based, shame-based psychology. You cannot name a Muslim country to my knowledge where it doesn't happen. It even happens in the suburbs of Paris. It falls right out of the theology of Islam.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/05 22:08:31
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
