Thumpalumpacus wrote:

Quote:MTL Wrote:

I am Agnostic because I find religion repulsive, evil, and lacking in integrity and sanity.

I find those moderate, well-meaning Theists might be far more sane, kind, and well-intentioned,
than their extremist counterparts,

but I also think that, when you get down to business,
they are also a bit self-deluded...and, consequently, a bit irresponsible.

Therefore, I don't feel it is right for "religion" to be included in the list of constitutionally-protected aspects of individuality, such as race, age, gender, orientation, etc.

Because religion is so corrupt.

Thumpalumpacus wrote:

I completely disagree. The freedom of conscience is the very essence of social freedom. Just because you think someone is deluded, their thinking should be outlawed?

Again, did I say "outlawed"?  No.  Of course not.

Kindly stop putting words in my mouth, Thumpalumpacus?

I do take issue with their right to dogmatize and mislead others being constitutionally-protected.

I do NOT take issue with their right to believe in God being protected, however.

You said,

Quote:What would happen if American Christians took the same attitude towards your atheism? What if they outlawed this very forum based on your own standards of "self-deluded" and "irresponsible"?

First big difference:

My being an Agnostic is an individual thing, unlike Religion.
I am not a member of an organized religion that gets tax breaks,
owns real estate, and has administration and lobbyists.

Second big difference:

I am not on a mission to convert others to Atheism.

I don't approach Theists and engage them on the subject....only when they engage me, do I respond.

Christianity and Islam, once again, ARE on a mission to convert others to their religion
....and seek, in significant measure, to oppress the rights of those that refuse to convert.

I merely question, and only when approached by a Theist, why they would consent to be part of a violent religion,
when they could just as easily be something closer to a Deist?


And it's funny you should raise that point, anyways:

There ARE right-wing Christians
who opine that Atheists should NOT enjoy the same rights as Theists, in America.

There is a section of Christian America who unapologetically wish to convert America to a Christian Theocracy.

Hence, my problem with the Constitutional protection of "Religion" (or Dogma)

(as opposed to the protection of mere personal faith in God)

...because when you protect the "Religion"/dogma,
you need to consider what the specific requirements are, of a dogma, that you are protecting.

It can be like saying,
"we protect your right to assimilate, harass, and oppress those who don't believe what you believe".

Finally, you said,

Quote: Trying to make all Christians responsible for the actions of WBC not only flies in the face of facts (Christians who partake in counter-demonstrations of WBC actions), it flies in the face of the idea of being responsible for one's own actions. If an atheist commits a crime, should you carry the onus for it?

Again, I am not holding them responsible for the actions of others.

In the specific case of WBC and their Christian counter-protestors,
I would tacitly applaud their counter-protest, for, at the very least, not being idle in the face of bigotry;

but...and again, only when engaged...I would still point out to those counter-protestors
that while Westboro's bigotry is ludicrous and reprehensible,
their Biblical position is actually well-reseached and supportable;

AND that for them to criticize Westboro's interpretation
is no worse, in principle,
than Westboro criticizing their own interpretation;

and therefore, once again,

return to querying why any decent person
would choose to be part of a religion based on a book so full of such vitriol;

and why any decent, intelligent person would insist on remaining aligned with a religion
which is supposed to be in service to a Divinity,
and should therefore be perfect, unified, and unassailable,

...yet so obviously is not.

(November 4, 2015 at 12:39 pm)abaris Wrote:

(November 4, 2015 at 12:29 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote: Yes, the Moors educated Europe, but the Arabs who forced Islam on them were both ignorant and illiterate. So Islam cannot take credit for what it did not do. Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's.

Simply put - no. Answer: read up on the history of regions such as medieval Syria, what we now call Iraq and the regions of Northern Africa. The region you obviously associate with Moors, since they came from there. But here's the thing. The ones settling on the Iberian peninsula were invaded by a different tribe of the same ethnicity. So Moors replaced Moors, not Arabs.

I would also look for persons like Avicenna, where he came from and what he stood for. Also compare the treatment of jews in the Islamic realms to their treatment in christian Europe.

Arabia is in Asia not North Africa. The Arabs invaded North Africa, colonizing the Berbers and forcing Islam onto them. The Moors are the children of miscegenation between the Arabs and the Berbers. Bottom line, it was the Moors not the Arabs who brought education to the rest of the world. So you cannot give Islam credit.

Yeah, don't look up facts, for all I care. And it's not Islam, but the muslim world, bringing us culture in the medieval world.

(November 4, 2015 at 1:29 pm)abaris Wrote: Yeah, don't look up facts, for all I care. And it's not Islam, but the muslim world, bringing us culture in the medieval world.

No, you cannot give the whole Muslim world credit for what only a small group of colonized Muslims did. That just isn't reasonable.

You want to separate Muslims from Islam for fear that what happened to the Jews will happen to the Muslims. The thing is being a Muslim is a choice. Bing a Jew is not.

The facts you suggest I look up are irrelevant to the point I am making. Instead of addressing these points, you want to play Mitt Romney.

(November 4, 2015 at 12:49 pm)MTL Wrote: Again, did I say "outlawed"?  No.  Of course not.

Kindly stop putting words in my mouth, Thumpalumpacus?

My apologies; you want it stripped of constitutional protection. My objections based on freedom of conscience stand.

(November 4, 2015 at 12:49 pm)MTL Wrote:

Thump Wrote:What would happen if American Christians took the same attitude towards your atheism? What if they outlawed this very forum based on your own standards of "self-deluded" and "irresponsible"?

First big difference:

My being an Agnostic is an individual thing, unlike Religion.
I am not a member of an organized religion that gets tax breaks,
owns real estate, and has administration and lobbyists.

Second big difference:

I am not on a mission to convert others to Atheism.

I don't approach Theists and engage them on the subject....only when they engage me, do I respond.

None of that is an answer to my question: How would you feel if theists forbade your expressions of doubt by using the power of the State?

Answer the question. Right now, atheism and agnosticism aren't protected to the extent that religion is. The vast majority of Americans are theist. If an amendment was passed overturning the "wall of separation", and your protections were stripped, how would you feel?  You wouldn't like that, would you?

We're not talking about the nature of their beliefs versus yours, we're talking about legal protections.

(November 4, 2015 at 12:49 pm)MTL Wrote: There is a section of Christian America who unapologetically wish to convert America to a Christian Theocracy.

Hence, my problem with the Constitutional protection of "Religion" (or Dogma)

(as opposed to the protection of mere personal faith in God)

Organizing for the sake of politics is the right of every American, and we are free to do it on whichever basis we wish, including a religious basis.  They are forbidden, Constitutionally from enacting their religion into law. Your concern here is not only poorly founded, it is a red herring. Stripping religion of its Constitutional protections because you're worried about a hypothetical theocracy when we already have Consitutional safeguards against such an outcome in place is disingenuous.

(November 4, 2015 at 12:49 pm)MTL Wrote: Again, I am not holding them responsible for the actions of others.

Bullshit.  Here is what you wrote:

Quote:all those moderate, decent, ordinary, everyday theists
must ultimately own that they either condone, or wink at, the evils done in the name of their religion,
as long as they consent to continue to be a part of it.

[Bolding added – Thump]

You are clearly tarring them for the actions of others whom they do not know and cannot control.

(November 4, 2015 at 2:00 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote: No, you cannot give the whole Muslim world credit for what only a small group of colonized Muslims did. That just isn't reasonable.

Avicenna, Persian. Saladin, Kurd. General and ruler, yes, but at least he didn't slaughter all the inhabitants of Jerusalem as the Crusaders did. Hafis, again Persian. Also, as I said, look for the treatment of jews, as opposed to Europe. You might also find some interesting facts on the Osmanic empire, concerning the treatment of other religions and their chances of rising through the ranks.

A lot of reading to be done - if you so wish.

(November 4, 2015 at 1:26 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote: Bottom line, it was the Moors not the Arabs who brought education to the rest of the world. So you cannot give Islam credit.

I'm sure the Chinese and the Indians would have quite a laugh reading this sentence. I believe you meant to write "brought education to Europe". At any rate, Islam penetrated Europe in the Balkan peninsula as well as the Iberian, meaning that Moors weren't the only transmission-route of Islamic culture; Turks as well imported knowledge from Arabia to Europe.

And Arabs did much to foster the advancement of knowledge and society in Europe, even if they weren't the direct transmitters. They invented the lateen sail, allowing ships to tack closer against the wind. They preserved much of the knowledge of the Greeks when the Catholic Church was busy expunging it. They imported the concept of zero from the Indians, and exported it to Europe. They invented algebra. Further information to be found in these wiki-links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_in...amic_world
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomy_...eval_Islam
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophthalmol...eval_Islam
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_...eval_Islam
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_in...amic_world
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematic...eval_Islam

(November 4, 2015 at 2:26 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: And Arabs did much to foster the advancement of knowledge and society in Europe, even if they weren't the direct transmitters. They invented the lateen sail, allowing ships to tack closer against the wind. They preserved much of the knowledge of the Greeks when the Catholic Church was busy expunging it. They imported the concept of zero from the Indians, and exported it to Europe. They invented algebra. Further information to be found in these wiki-links:

Also, don't forget the crusades. Westerners learned a lot about hygiene and started to "Arabize" when trying to colonialise the Middle East. They saw the advantages of the lifestyle and it's for a reason, I repeatedly mentioned Avicenna, since Middle Eastern medicine was already heavily influenced by his writings. Which was more advanced by some lightyears to everything the Westerners had in stock.

The nominal German emperor Frederick II was one of the first to notice what could be learned from that part of the world. And he actively invited muslim scholars to his court in Sicilly. He also "conquered" Jerusalem by negotiating instead of bloodshed. Which is often forgotten and, of course, got him banned by the church.

Also, it's for a reason our numbers, in general, are called Arabic. The same reason we're writing latin letters.

(November 4, 2015 at 2:12 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(November 4, 2015 at 12:49 pm)MTL Wrote: There is a section of Christian America who unapologetically wish to convert America to a Christian Theocracy.

Hence, my problem with the Constitutional protection of "Religion" (or Dogma)

(as opposed to the protection of mere personal faith in God)

Organizing for the sake of politics is the right of every American, and we are free to do it on whichever basis we wish, including a religious basis.  They are forbidden, Constitutionally from enacting their religion into law. Your concern here is not only poorly founded, it is a red herring. Stripping religion of its Constitutional protections because you're worried about a hypothetical theocracy when we already have Consitutional safeguards against such an outcome in place is disingenuous.

Well, I will readily admit that I do not claim to be an expert of the American Constitution;

you make at least a partially-valid point, here....I will own my ignorance, and acknowledge your point that the structure of the Constitution may be such that it prevents complete and total Christian Theocracy from occurring;
However, that does not make my argument a red herring, or disingenuous;
although it may make it poorly informed.
My arguments come from a very sincere place
and I'm not setting out to mislead anyone with red herrings or strawmen.
You sort of demonstrate my point, yourself, when you acknowledge,

Quote:Right now, atheism and agnosticism aren't protected to the extent that religion is.

I am trying, very sincerely, to say, (in what might admittedly be an unversed approach)
is that I maintain that religion/dogma have very obviously abused their privilege and constitutional protection
to manoeuvre and manipulate the laws until they work in their favour, and to the disadvantage of Atheists, to a shocking and sad degree.
That wall of separation seems rather thin.

you said,

Quote:Organizing for the sake of politics is the right of every American,
and we are free to do it on whichever basis we wish, including a religious basis. 

(bold, mine)  and then said,

Quote:They are forbidden, Constitutionally from enacting their religion into law.

(bold, mine)

....okay, then I'll need some clarification, here, because those two statements seem opposing to me.

you said,

Quote:How would you feel if theists forbade your expressions of doubt by using the power of the State?

Answer the question. Right now, atheism and agnosticism aren't protected to the extent that religion is. The vast majority of Americans are theist. If an amendment was passed overturning the "wall of separation", and your protections were stripped, how would you feel?  You wouldn't like that, would you?

We're not talking about the nature of their beliefs versus yours, we're talking about legal protections.

To answer your direct question:  No.  I wouldn't like it.

To address what is really the kernel of my point:

It almost doesn't matter, because that wall of separation seems to be protecting Atheists
from the way that Theists abuse their Constitutional religious protections
the way hiding in a tent would protect you from a hurricane.

Example:

I believe it is that wall of protection that at least in part contributed
to the Supreme Court ruling on LGBT marriage rights.

yet when Kim Davis refused to issue licenses to gay couples,
there was no direct enforcement of THAT ruling;
they arrested her on another charge, did they not?

Question:

Is there any other provision in the Constitution, other than this "wall of separation",
that one party may not abuse their constitutional protections
to the extent that they encroach upon the freedoms of another?

And if Yes, why isn't Christian America kept in check by it,
in their campaign against the LGBT
and against Atheists?

(November 4, 2015 at 2:12 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(November 4, 2015 at 12:49 pm)MTL Wrote: Again, I am not holding them responsible for the actions of others.

Bullshit.  Here is what you wrote:

Quote:all those moderate, decent, ordinary, everyday theists
must ultimately own that they either condone, or wink at, the evils done in the name of their religion,
as long as they consent to continue to be a part of it.

[Bolding added – Thump]

You are clearly tarring them for the actions of others whom they do not know and cannot control.

Now who is guilty of a lack of nuanced thinking?

Can you really not differentiate between OUTRIGHT BLAMING a moderate, everyday American muslim for 9/11,

vs

Respecting the rights of an everyday muslim in every way,
UNTIL they engage me on the subject,
and only THEN asking them why they continue to be part of a religion that is so convoluted and violent???

I am NOT burning crosses in anyone's front yard,
I am not accusing random muslims of plotting 9/11.

Just as I know many Christians support LGBT rights;
I am not blaming them for the gaybashing that other Christians might have done.


But I am saying to them:

You know these atrocious things have been done in the name of your religion, yet you are a good person.

How can you stand to remain part of the same club,
and doesn't it grate at you that your holy book can't be all that Divine
if it is open to such appalling misinterpretation?