babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Atheists: the most distrusted minority in USA - II
January 2, 2007 - 11:01pm
Atheists throw down the gauntlet
a misguided crusade, I think, which net net will increase curiosity about religion at a time when the rise of Islam's visibility in the West is also prompting awareness of religion and cultural identity
final word:
... there is a market for militant atheism, but the market for religious belief is bigger
.
[ 03 January 2007: Message edited by: Geneva ]
Poetry, love, romance, and a sense of wonder are human qualities that give rise to learning and science and continue on in spite of the religious strait jackets imposed on far too many.
You say there is a greater market for religion. I say you are wrong. People turn to religion for certainty and mostly they are rewarded with chaos and hate.
Peace will come when people realize religion is the philosophical equivalent of fools gold. But probably too late.
in Canada, religion generally means your local neighbourhood United Church of Canada or Reform synagogue, hardly hotbeds of violent rhetoric and extremists,
more likely home of Tommy Douglas or David Lewis voters
as long as religion = fundamentalism for the Dawkins crowd, I predict this movement will hit the goalposts repeatedly with the broader general public
.
[ 03 January 2007: Message edited by: Geneva ]
I will just focus on my synagogue which is Conservative.
Historically in Conservative Judaism women did not wear a tallit, tefillin or were counted as part of a minyan.
the COnservative movement has modenized and at my Conservative synagogue all has changed. Women wear talit, lain tefillin and yes are counted as part of a minyan.
So to group all religion together stating that they do not change, can not be modernized is simply false.
While we must keep our eyes open against the fundies no matter what religion they come from we must also recognize that not all religions or religious people are fundies.
To group all together is to do a great disservice to those who have chosen a path that includes belief in a God etc.
ETA: recently my family has gone through a couple of tragedies and deaths. One thing that has kept me going was my belief in God and my knowledge that my relatives were reunited together.
I have never considered myself a fundy before.
[ 03 January 2007: Message edited by: johnpauljones ]
So too, does our health care system. At a certain point religious zeal is clearly a psychological disorder.
Remember that odd cult that committed mass suicide because they believed a mother ship hiding behind a comet was going to take them up? There was universal agreement at the time that they were nuttier than fruitcakes.
BUT, thier belief had as much support as belief in the literal interpretation of creation, or that flying a jet liner into a skyscrapper will earn you a one way ticket to paradise.
We have to stop allowing religion to mask deep psychological disorders.
Sorry for chuckling when I read this, but before I read your punch line, I honestly thought you were going to say:
I guess there's more than one way to "modernize"!
PS: Pardon my dogmatism, but "laying t'fillin" is a translation from the Yiddish, "leg'n t'fillin". So you can't say "lain t'fillin" (which sounds a bit like "lehn Torah"). It's either "lay t'fillin" or "laig t'fillin".
Distrusted for being atheist is bad enough, but being killed for being atheist?
[ 03 January 2007: Message edited by: ouro ]
You are right. Oy Gevalt. a shunda I say a shunda [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
But you don't speak for the cultural mainstream, Geneva. Everyone here knows I do.
That is what religion once meant. But if you put down your Margaret Wente column for just five minutes and visited those churches, you would notice the declining pools of grey. That is because those shining examples of liberal Christianity are on the decline while angry pools of narrow minded bigots who call themselves Christians are on the rise. The same is true for all the major religions.
And it does, I suspect there will be increased derision and hostility from a broader public that merely wishes to live and let live rather than be subject to the the moral righteousness of immoral people.In a world context (or an American one) I'd agree with you. However, in the Canadian context, I believe Geneva is correct. If you look at the statistics, reactionary and bigoted churches such as the evangelicals or Catholic Church are experience a massive exodus of young people, who attended with their parents as children. I know several who have followed this course, and wound up joining the United Church. Some are LGBT's who were disgusted with the hatred and bigotry expoused in the Churches they were brought up in, but did not want to abandon religion all together. For young people today, the dogmatism, bigotry, and hatred of backwards Churches is a non-starter. Progressive churches such as the UCC are the only ones with the opportunity to gain members from large parts of younger Canadians because they have a message that resonates with tolerant, progressive minded people who don't want to spend 60 minutes every Sunday morning listening to some demagogue preaching hatred and bigotry.
For the churches that refuse to follow the path of progress and grow with society, they will slowly disappear all together over the next few decades as their membership dies off, and whose children want nothing to do with hatred and extremism.
[ 03 January 2007: Message edited by: Kevin_Laddle ]
[url=http://are.as.wvu.edu/o'toole.html]http://are.as.wvu.edu/o'toole.html[/url]
Note those numbers are 13 years old but indicate the trend which I submit, has accelerated.
and the manifestations of religion or not in Canada are secondary issues,
although the notion that talking about God = fundamentalism is wrong, remains important, otherwise no debate is possible without accepting a very restricted discussion
"I have no desire to make it the foundation of government with the inherent persecution or discrimination of anyone who does not share my views."
BS. You say this, but you don't mean it. You seem to think that it is wrong for government to operate and make decisions based on the existence of a God - and therefore ask for the opposite - a government that bases its decisions on the belief that God does not exist. Atheism is a religion the same as any other - it is a belief as to the existence or inexistence of deities.
No. Children are not old enough to decide that, especially since it's likely that their nutcase parents will have influenced the decision.
Suicide, like drinking, like sex, like driving, like everything else with consequences that children don't fully understand, is for adults.
That is patent nonsense. Governments have no business in churches and churches have no business in government. Government legislate, or ought to, in the absence of any theocratic belief.
It is wrong in your opinion. In my view, it is entirely justified if only because it is fundamentalists who are the rising religious crescendo seeking to erase the line between church and state.
And why it may be true that the power of the religious right is concentrated south of the border, there is no denying it is also consolidating a power base within the Harpercrite regime here in Canada. Ask the so-called Green Tory about it.
[ 03 January 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]
[ 03 January 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]
By the way, I don't want it to sound as if this is some huge victory for progressives, and an end to right-wing hatred and reactionary tendencies (though it's a big help). Certainly right-whingism will persist to some extent even as their religions are rejected by mainstream society. But the most hateful aspects of modern conservatism - hatred of women, gays, Muslims - are driven primarily by the ideology stemming from the relgious right.
So children are not old enough to give up their lives, but they are old enough to give up their soul?
Is that what you believe? Why do you think that the life is more important than the soul? Or is it because you don't think that they will lose their soul?
(Edited to add - whoops. I didn't think abut the fact that, as moderator, this would look like I just banned him. I didn't. That was just me saying I'm tired of debating with him. If I felt like sitting around all day debating right-wingers who think it's intolerant to be intolerant of intolerant religious freaks who harm children, hate women, and want to shove their fundy views down society's throat, I'd go post on FD.)
[ 03 January 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]
You obviously have no idea what a troll is.
Now then, as to my point - you obviously want the laws to revolve around your beliefs - which is:
We shouldn't throw people's lives away for something that is make believe.
And I agree with that. I am just making the point that our laws are based on the assumption that certain religions (if not all) are incorrect.
While Michelle of course speaks elequently for herself, I suspect she called you a troll for being intentionally vexing, and continually baiting with what have been clearly pointed out to be circular and really rather sophmoric arguments. I would call that trolling.
I however think you're engaging in the perseveration of the true zealot, one who is capable of learning nothing and forgetting nothing. You don't debate, you parry; you don't listen to understand you listen to oppose. From my reading of this debate, I'd say you were not doing either all that well.
BTW: It's childish of you to call atheism a religion, simply because you aren't an atheist.
You obviously have no idea what a religion is.
[ 03 January 2007: Message edited by: M. Spector ]
Lovely, more childishness.
I don't agree with you. Therefore I must be a right-winger. Simply because someone does not have complete disdain for all religion and does not assume that they know with absolute certainty that God does not exist - does not make them a right winger.
But fuck, you're a moderator here, so do whatever you like.
Incidentally, I've never voted Conservative in my life and don't believe in God but you seem to be unable to imagine that someone might actually try and defend points of view that aren't their own.
[ 03 January 2007: Message edited by: Palamedes ]
I suggest to you it is not. I don't know where you live, but visit rural Ontario and the smaller cities and larger towns. It is prevalent.
More wows. Sorry Palamedes, but this is an Extremist statement which goes against even the most basic assumptions of reformation Protestantism, as well as almost universally held principles of consent. Children simply canNot make those kind of life and death decisions for themselves, least not in any rational society. This is a thin red line which all religious beliefs have to respect, it begins right about where harm is being done to another, which by definition means our children. They are not property to be disposed of for Any ideological reason, not even by their parents, or more accurately legal guardians. If any refuse to accept that little, then they too should be willing to martyr Themselves to our criminal justice system. No rational society can tolerate any less than that.
Really? Because I've only ever voted conservative (well, except for the one election I voted Social Credit) and I watch the 700 Club religiously. I even pledge.
Let me give you an example:
In Saudi Arabia, a building containing 15 schoolgirls was on fire.
They could have been rescued but the religous police deemed that since they were not properly attired, they could not come out of the building.
Consequently, they all died.
Now, here in North America, where the majority of people are not extremely devout Muslims, we view this as a tragedy brought on by foolishness.
Obviously, not everyone in Saudi Arabia thinks so because they do not have a culture of atheism as the presiding assumption in making their laws.
We in North America do. Our laws essentially allow religion, unless it gets in the way of another right, or could cause harm - regardless of any religious consequence.
Thus, in the case of a Jehovah's Witness, the government will not allow a child to lose its life, but will allow it to lose its soul(in the view of the JW's). This is because it is understood that religion is not real - and therefore it will be tolerated so long as there are no real sacrifices to be made for it.
Fortunately, Christianity requires very little in the way of sacrifice, particularly in the way it is practiced today - and thus there are very few conflicts between what the religious believe, and what makes sense for modern day society.
They believe in an all-knowing, all-powerful invisible entity. They believe that they should worship this entity. They believe that this entity will reward them if they are "good" and punish them if they are "bad". They believe that this entity listens to their prayers and actually grants requests from time to time. They believe in heaven and hell. They believe in angels. They believe in miracles.
Those who accept the Nicene Creed, for example (one of the basic statements of belief in the Roman Catholic, Syrian Orthodox (Jacobite) Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian, Anglican, Lutheran, and most other Protestant Churches), believe that this invisible entity created heaven and earth. They believe that Christ came back to life after being brutally killed. They believe their spirits will live forever after they die.
And you don't see any conflict between those sorts of beliefs and "what makes sense for modern day society"? [img]eek.gif" border="0[/img]
Take a drive through a new sub-suburb. You know, the kind built around a "powercenter" of Walmarts and Mcdonalds, and there will inevitably be one or two brand new megachurchs. Calgary is lousy with them, and Edmonton, that liberal city, isn't too far behind (Red Deer is in an Ozark all its own).
[ 03 January 2007: Message edited by: Jingles ]