Some are not used to understanding the complexity of a human individual. I have seen both economic Ayn Rand atheists who would vote Libertarian and liberal atheists who vote for Hillary or Bernie object to what I am about to post here.
The topic is putting Gideon's bibles in publicly funded lodging. Of course I get accused of wanting to oppress religion because I disagree with the the concept the word itself. I have called it poison and still do agree with calling religion poison. But many, both left and right atheists, confuse the issue of rights and pragmatism. Paris is a result of religion. Slavery and sexism in Christianity's past was a result of religion. But that is not a human rights issue, or a call to forcefully end religion. I object to the word "religion" only as an idea.
So why should anyone object to those bibles being put in public lodging, or private lodging that tax payers use to allow government officials or military to use? Because it isn't fair to other religions, even the various sects of Christianity. The argument I got from a Ayn Rand/Libertarian atheist was that more speech, not less speech is good. He doesn't understand that I don't disagree with that. I agree that the more people expose themselves to a variety of religions, at a minimum, they become less dogmatic. I think the sunlight favors skepticism and leads to a more civil society.
I got accused of oppressing religion which is flat out absurd. If the argument is that more speech is good, and I agree then you should not limit only the Gideon's to a monopoly of being the only religious book in the nightstand. Problem is, if more is good, you are literally going to have to put every version of every holy book in human history in that nightstand. How can you say more speech is good, but defend a monopoly?
I couldn't even get him to see, that public libraries, and state funded college libraries have a variety of both secular and religious books, and not just one religion, but a multitude. I pointed out that there are 360,000 private houses of worship of all kinds that one passes on public roads in America. And there is no lack of religious websites on the internet.
I call religion poison, not because I hate human rights. I call it poison because it is the worst way humans can get to more cooperation. It is inherently tribal and local. And even within the same label you have different sects that dont agree as to what a "true" whatever, is. And they still use the same books.
On a government level, you don't allow a contract that allows only one religion to advertise their book to the exclusion of all others. But even from a business perspective, you have to make a choice. If you want to pander exclusively to one religion, you can, but, if you are about maximizing profits, then you refrain from that pander so that you can expand your market base.
I am not inhuman, I don't want to stick believers in ovens. But do not confuse a law or regulation as an outright ban. You don't put your underwear in the dishwasher and you don't put your dishes in the washing machine. Just like you can drive a car but you cant speed through a school zone 100mph.
A library is better suited for diversity in text. A room is not a library, so the only reason that the producers of the Gideon's bible want to do it an act of advertisement for their religion. In the private sector that is more reasonable. But in a public venue, you cannot say "we get to put our books in that nightstand, but you do not".
The topic is putting Gideon's bibles in publicly funded lodging. Of course I get accused of wanting to oppress religion because I disagree with the the concept the word itself. I have called it poison and still do agree with calling religion poison. But many, both left and right atheists, confuse the issue of rights and pragmatism. Paris is a result of religion. Slavery and sexism in Christianity's past was a result of religion. But that is not a human rights issue, or a call to forcefully end religion. I object to the word "religion" only as an idea.
So why should anyone object to those bibles being put in public lodging, or private lodging that tax payers use to allow government officials or military to use? Because it isn't fair to other religions, even the various sects of Christianity. The argument I got from a Ayn Rand/Libertarian atheist was that more speech, not less speech is good. He doesn't understand that I don't disagree with that. I agree that the more people expose themselves to a variety of religions, at a minimum, they become less dogmatic. I think the sunlight favors skepticism and leads to a more civil society.
I got accused of oppressing religion which is flat out absurd. If the argument is that more speech is good, and I agree then you should not limit only the Gideon's to a monopoly of being the only religious book in the nightstand. Problem is, if more is good, you are literally going to have to put every version of every holy book in human history in that nightstand. How can you say more speech is good, but defend a monopoly?
I couldn't even get him to see, that public libraries, and state funded college libraries have a variety of both secular and religious books, and not just one religion, but a multitude. I pointed out that there are 360,000 private houses of worship of all kinds that one passes on public roads in America. And there is no lack of religious websites on the internet.
I call religion poison, not because I hate human rights. I call it poison because it is the worst way humans can get to more cooperation. It is inherently tribal and local. And even within the same label you have different sects that dont agree as to what a "true" whatever, is. And they still use the same books.
On a government level, you don't allow a contract that allows only one religion to advertise their book to the exclusion of all others. But even from a business perspective, you have to make a choice. If you want to pander exclusively to one religion, you can, but, if you are about maximizing profits, then you refrain from that pander so that you can expand your market base.
I am not inhuman, I don't want to stick believers in ovens. But do not confuse a law or regulation as an outright ban. You don't put your underwear in the dishwasher and you don't put your dishes in the washing machine. Just like you can drive a car but you cant speed through a school zone 100mph.
A library is better suited for diversity in text. A room is not a library, so the only reason that the producers of the Gideon's bible want to do it an act of advertisement for their religion. In the private sector that is more reasonable. But in a public venue, you cannot say "we get to put our books in that nightstand, but you do not".
