(May 6, 2012 at 2:54 am)DeeTee Wrote: I say this because atheists do not allow any religious symbol or activity in any public place. We are often treated to news stories where the atheist runs to the courts to force their unbelief upon others and demand that a religious token be removed from public view.

We 'allow' lots of religous symbols and activites in public places. Praying, for instance. In the news stories you're speaking of, it is not just a relgious activity (like praying) in a public place (like a church), it's a physical display on government property, which creates an unnecessary entanglement of government and religion.

(May 6, 2012 at 2:54 am)DeeTee Wrote: Of course, this type of action is done under the misguided idea that atheists are the only members of the public and only they get a say in what goes on in the public spaces.

You don't have to be an atheist to know what the established law of the land is and follow it. You don't have to be an atheist to be a secularist. It's not only atheists that contend these practices. Which is part of the reason why the federal government doesn't allow them: it creates a situation where certain people get to have government endorsement of their particular beliefs, which is hard to do without ignoring someone else's. Best to just keep religion and government apart as much as possible.

(May 6, 2012 at 2:54 am)DeeTee Wrote: They also fabricate a clause based upon a bad reading of the constitution to further their secular agenda and twist its use to distort the actions of those who have placed a religious artifact in a public place.

Just because we don't read the establishment clause the same way you do, doesn't mean your reading is the correct one. Mere assertion and dismissed as such.

(May 6, 2012 at 2:54 am)DeeTee Wrote: Take for example the lone high school girl who was recently offended by a prayer banner given to a high school by its original graduating class. It didn't matter to her that in the intervening years previous atheistic students had no problem with the banner, that it was not the government establishing a religion and that everyone new it was a gift from grateful hearts.

It's not the offense. It's the principle, and the law. It is illegal for a public school to display a Christian prayer. That many people would rather not rock the boat rather than require the school to obey the law doesn't make it legal. The prayer you're referring to wasn't offensive to me. But it should have been taken down sooner, and voluntarily, in the spirit of complying with the clear legal precedents. I can admire civil disobedience, but keeping the prayer on the wall in hopes no one would call them on it is not civil disobedience. If the banner had said, 'Relax, there's probably no God', I would still think it should come down. The difference between us is that it matters to you that what was on supports your religion, while what matters to me is that a government entity shouldn't be involved in religion more than it has to be, and I believe that is best both for theists and atheists.

(May 6, 2012 at 2:54 am)DeeTee Wrote: IF atheists were tolerant, they would not make people or groups spend money they cannot afford to spend defending such innocent acts or force their secular ways upon others. They would see it for what it was, a simple gift, a simple gesture and let it go because such acts do not affect their unbelief.

If those groups were tolerant, they wouldn't spend money fighting the law of the land, which most lawyers will advise against. It is the groups who wasted the money fighting compliance with the law instead of taking the necessary steps to be within the law. It's interesting that the gesture we want from you is to be treated exactly the same as you in the eyes of the government, and the gesture you want from us is to overlook your law-breaking.

(May 6, 2012 at 2:54 am)DeeTee Wrote: Sadly, they do not and they become far more intoleerant than they claim religious people are. If they had read the constitution and compared it to the example given, they would have seen that such a gift was NOT the government establishing a religion and they would have left it alone. As it stands, they just made more enemies and caused a lot of hard feelings (to be polite) and demonstrate how hard their hearts really are.

American law starts with the Constitution, but does not end with it. Even granting your intepretation of the first Amendment, we now live in a much more pluralistic society and as a practical matter it's best for the government to be completely neutral regarding religion. By staying out of religious matters, government can be neutral, but a soon as it gets involved, it becomes impossible to treat all religous views equally. Prayer in schools used to be the source of a lot of contention between Catholics, Protestants, and Jews. We have the Protestant majority's refusal to share the classroom prayer stage to thank for America's network of Catholic private schools. I'm comfortable with the comparison between us: atheists are hard-hearted for expecting Christianists to obey the law. Christianists are hard-hearted for making death threats against little girls when they don't get their way.

(May 6, 2012 at 2:54 am)DeeTee Wrote: Since atheists do not make up a majority of the public, one would think they would just live quietly in their unbelief frely as they are allowed to do for unbelief is their choice.

We're going to be the majority of the public one day. I truly hope we do a better job of living up to the spirit of the first Amendment and true secularism (that does not favor us just because we're in the majority) than Christianists have been doing.

(May 6, 2012 at 2:54 am)DeeTee Wrote: They should also respect/grant the same freedoms to religious people and ignore their acts if they do not want to be a part of the situation.

Religous freedom is not the entitlement to government endorsement. It's the freedom to believe what you want, which is not infringed by not having a prayer banner in a public school. The prayer itself was fairly innocuous. Placing it the lobby of a public school was unintentionally a subtle reminder to every Buddhist, Hindu, and atheist student that the Abrahamic religions are favored by the school, a government entity. Don't worry, when we're in the majority, I'll be on your side if anyone tries to put 'In no God we trust' on the money.

(May 6, 2012 at 2:54 am)DeeTee Wrote: But they don't and they force their ways upon others who do not subscribe to their unbelief and that is very wrong and very intolerant.

And here we are in the world where it is intolerant to expect Christianists to obey the law.

(May 6, 2012 at 2:54 am)DeeTee Wrote: {now I am betting there will be some unintelligent person spouting the 'establishment clause' but this thread IS NOT about that. IT IS ABOUT the intolerance of atheists. The prime example are all atheist chat forums who mock other people's beliefs, their holy writings, and on it goes. IF the atheist had a better way, they would treat others and their beliefs a lot better than they do but they don't so they are in no position to treat others badly.}

Tolerance doesn't include not exposing you to our opinions. It doesn't include some sort of immunity to mockery or faux respect. I know it seems like it does to you, because historically Christians have used their super-majority status to make others too afraid to challenge them, but losing your special privileges and being treated exactly like non-Christians is not persecution, it's leveling the playing field. A lot of white people felt the same way when it was no longer taken for granted that they would get to sit in the front of the bus, and drink from the same water fountains as the non-whites. What's happening now is a continuation of decades of trends toward US citizens being treated more equally.

(May 7, 2012 at 3:09 pm)Abishalom Wrote: To your first post...How did the ancient Israelites practice "safe" sex? So you're actually not refuting the claim that their are risks involved in homosexual activity.

They didn't and yes I am.

(May 7, 2012 at 3:09 pm)Abishalom Wrote: To the second one...it would depend on which STDs you are talking about. But seeing that we were just discussing homosexual (since you atheist chose to single them out) your statement is a moot point. You saying the rate would have been equal (with no proof) does not refute the fact that homosexual activity was a danger to ancient Israelite society.

You saying that it'd have been a danger to ancient Israelite society (with no proof) does not mean it should have been outlawed.

(May 7, 2012 at 3:34 pm)genkaus Wrote:

(May 7, 2012 at 3:09 pm)Abishalom Wrote: To your first post...How did the ancient Israelites practice "safe" sex? So you're actually not refuting the claim that their are risks involved in homosexual activity.

They didn't and yes I am.

(May 7, 2012 at 3:09 pm)Abishalom Wrote: To the second one...it would depend on which STDs you are talking about. But seeing that we were just discussing homosexual (since you atheist chose to single them out) your statement is a moot point. You saying the rate would have been equal (with no proof) does not refute the fact that homosexual activity was a danger to ancient Israelite society.

You saying that it'd have been a danger to ancient Israelite society (with no proof) does not mean it should have been outlawed.

Actually no you're not. The claim is that homosexual activity was a danger to society for the previously mentioned reasons. Your idea of refuting this "heterosexuals have the same STD rates as homosexuals". We are not even comparing homosexuals to heterosexuals. That is an utterly failed attempt at addressing the claim.

Well we don't know that the STD rates were the same back then as they are now (so you cannot prove that). But we know that there is risk involved in homosexual activities. Now add the fact that they could not protect themselves and less advanced medically. Unless you're actually insisting that there are no risks involved in unprotected homosexual activity. Now you're not doing that are you?

What.The.Fuck?

If anything, there are fewer risks with unprotected homosexual sex, especially in ancient times. Homosexual sex cannot lead to pregnancy, and pregnancy can be dangerous, even more so in biblical times.

(May 7, 2012 at 3:51 pm)Tobie Wrote: If anything, there are fewer risks with unprotected homosexual sex, especially in ancient times. Homosexual sex cannot lead to pregnancy, and pregnancy can be dangerous, even more so in biblical times.

Pregnancies can be dangerous sometimes. But you've got to be freakin kidding me...

That's a joke right? Now you're just making baseless assertions. Well this has been a nice conversation. But I've got some things to take care of. Yall have a good day.

I'm the one making baseless assertions? You can fuck right off.

You're the one who claims god exists. You're the one who claims that homosexuality is dangerous.

(May 7, 2012 at 3:56 pm)Abishalom Wrote: Now you're just making baseless assertions.

Hey Kettle,
You black son of a bitch!

Sincerely,

Pot.

(May 6, 2012 at 10:15 am)Abishalom Wrote: Yeah I see where you're coming from. It's like when the atheist claims that atheists are less like to commit a crime. Well when you compare their proportion to the society they live in, one would expect that number to be lower...wouldn't we?

Yes, we would. We would expect it to be only 2 or 3% actually, because that's roughly the percentage of the US population people who identify as atheist make up. And when we look at the available relevant prison statistics, we see that atheists make up about 0.2% of the prison population, about a tenth of the representation you would expect if they committed crimes at a similar rate to Christians and Muslims.

I suspect that percentage will go up as the percentage of atheists in society rises, currently we're a small group that tends to select for education and affluence. It won't always be that way, some day your average idjit will be an atheist.

(May 6, 2012 at 12:59 pm)Abishalom Wrote: Yeah and I not surprised that you brought up the Catholic church even though I'M NOT CATHOLIC! You do know that there were other branches of Christianity right?

How many of us do you suppose are communists? You do know that not all atheists are communists, right?

---

(May 7, 2012 at 3:56 pm)Abishalom Wrote: Pregnancies can be dangerous sometimes. But you've got to be freakin kidding me...

Number one cause of death for women for most of human history. If the Bible had commanded women not to marry until they were in their twenties, when their bodies were more likely to be able to survive the rigor of childbirth, untold millions would have lived longer lives.

(May 7, 2012 at 3:45 pm)Abishalom Wrote: Actually no you're not. The claim is that homosexual activity was a danger to society for the previously mentioned reasons. Your idea of refuting this "heterosexuals have the same STD rates as homosexuals". We are not even comparing homosexuals to heterosexuals. That is an utterly failed attempt at addressing the claim.

If not, then why would they be a danger to society?

(May 7, 2012 at 3:45 pm)Abishalom Wrote: Well we don't know that the STD rates were the same back then as they are now (so you cannot prove that).

Why would that comparison be relevant?

(May 7, 2012 at 3:45 pm)Abishalom Wrote: But we know that there is risk involved in homosexual activities.

No, we don't

(May 7, 2012 at 3:45 pm)Abishalom Wrote: Now add the fact that they could not protect themselves and less advanced medically.

They couldn't protect themselves while having straight sex either.

(May 7, 2012 at 3:45 pm)Abishalom Wrote: Unless you're actually insisting that there are no risks involved in unprotected homosexual activity. Now you're not doing that are you?

The risks are the same as unprotected heterosexual activity. Unless your point is to ban all sexual activity altogether, I don't see any point in singling out homosexuality.