There’s No Need for Accommodation

Hard it may be, but you are in a good position to do it. In your debates, talks and writings you’ve not shied away from critizing faith but you don’t have Dawkins stridency or PZ’s fury. You are in a position to say the things that need to be said and still be likeable, even if the things being said are the same as PZ and Dawkins just put more pleasantly.
Its amazing what a warm personality can do to soften a message, while still getting that message out there.
I’ve always thought the talks you give at churches were an excellent idea. Its venues like these that you can use to get the message out and maybe sow a few seeds amongst a congregations more fertile minds.
Good luck to you in your endeavours.

I am confused about what you mean. It sounds like you’re saying “It’s okay to be nice to religious people or work with them, but it’s not okay to be religious.” That kind of smacks of the “Love the sinner, hate the sin” principle. I don’t understand how it can not be okay to be religious even if you are working for social justice, but it’s perfectly fine to support religious organizations fighting for social justice, ie, Soulforce. What difference does it make if part of your goal is to show people they’re wrong if you’re supporting them financially or with your time? Am I missing something you wrote?

I see no reason to build bridges with religious people and/or groups. We function together in the same society, but that doesn’t mean we have to surrender on any debate issue, or join them in any effort that includes their banner of religion.

If they’re wrong, they’re wrong. We don’t need to join the party of the wrong, for any reason.

Just like they won’t bother to produce or even look for their god, we shouldn’t ever accomodate error. No matter how organized the effort to promote an error, it’s still error.

Reality won’t budge. Why should we?

I will have to agree with you on this one. I read PZ and Jen’s posts regarding these issues, yesterday and had to agree with them on the general statements. But, like you, it is one thing to openly raise your opinions in a public forum. But when dealing with family on the issue when you agree with them on all the fundamental issues of society, with the one exception being religion. That makes some things more difficult. It is hard to burn bridges with friends and family. My current approach is to live by example.

Maybe I will get more outspoken and direct later on.

we can still tell Francis Collins that he’s out of his mind when it comes to his Christianity

If you want to insist on reality, you can tell Francis Collins that he is incorrect when it comes to his Christianity. If you are saying that he is “out of his mind,” you are implying something along the lines of mental illness or fanaticism, and that’s a distortion of reality.

Laura said:

That kind of smacks of the “Love the sinner, hate the sin” principle.

And so it should. The problem with that doctrine is not that it is immoral, or nonsensical, it is that it is not applied by the people who most insist they are applying it. Ted Haggard, Phyllis Schlafy, Laurie Higgins and other like them do not “love the sinner”. They hate the “sin”, and they hate the “sinner” with a burning fiery passion that has no equal. When they bleat otherwise they are lying, and doing a laughable job of it.

If there are people who claim to “love the sinner, hate the sin” and actually do that, those people are an entirely different can of beans. Still incorrect when it comes to religion, but not hypocrites like the aforementioned gang of kooks.

How nice to know that atheists function under the same rules as fundamentalist Christians. Evangelical atheists are some of the most annoying people if only because they deny that they are evangelical.

they’re still wrong about the god thing. That means we must keep speaking out on that issue.

I see the issue slightly differently. It’s not that we have to keep speaking out merely because the god thing is wrong. In the absence of concrete issues (say, with a deist god) whether you are right or wrong about god is no more important than whether you are right or wrong that your favored sports team is “the best”.

It’s not the non-existence of god that’s the problem, it’s the elevation of faith as a virtue. Faith is not a virtue, and having it valued, even by benign people of faith, is a problem. The problem is that you can’t argue with faith. You can’t argue with MLK on his faith-based motivations, and you don’t want to. The problem is that you can’t argue with his polar opposite, Osama bin Laden, on his faith-based motivations. Faith, by its very nature, cannot be reasoned with, and hence has enormous destructive potential, especially when societies encourage the idea that faith is a good thing.

However I do think we should pick our battles, in a practical sense. Sure I don’t agree with a Unitarian theist or a United Church of Christ theist and I don’t think their elevation of faith is helpful, but on the other hand we both have much bigger fish to fry and I think Mormon and Pentacostal threats to my reproductive rights and the rights of GLBT folks are much more imminent, and worth putting aside our other differences to fight together.

It isn’t good to be afraid of the religious, which I was at my last job where they had the power to make my life miserable if they knew that I’m an atheist. However, to paraphrase the old racist saying, “Some of my best friends are religious.” Well, not my best friends, but many of my relatives are. When I was a teenager, I used to think, “Surely my dad is too intelligent to really be religious; surely my mother doesn’t believe this crap.” I know that my grandmother had an imperfect understanding of the religion she professed to believe in. But eventually I figured out that they belonged to a church for different reasons. Maybe, for my dad, church attendance was tradition and for singing; for my mother, for social status; for my grandmother, it was something that you did if you were a good person–if you didn’t attend church, you were suspect. I learned that it didn’t pay to argue with them about their beliefs. After all, they weren’t *that* stupid–they believed in evolution. Now I argue in favor of the separation of church and state; in favor of science; and in favor of human rights (including gay rights). Those are the issues I find worth arguing about, not religious faith or church attendance.

I think the bridge metaphor is overextended (pun intended).

If I have a friend with whom I have to follow a law that says “don’t criticize me or risk our friendship”, then who threatened the integrity of the bridge? Because a similar friendship without that law may well have a robust bridge.

I’m for robust bridges and robust bridge building. Hence I’m for outspoken atheism all the way. Honesty and criticism is not bad. It’s good!

I think it depends on what we mean by accommodate. I have start speaking out a lot against “random” phrases that invoke God that are part of our every day language. Things like: “For god’s sake” “Oh, that’s been around since god was a child”, etc.

My boss makes a lot of statements about god, especially when she is around a pastor who sits on one of our boards. I think it’s inappropriate and I have said to her that I am uncomfortable with the references. Her position is that it isn’t hurting anything and is standard language (which is exactly my point).

THAT is where I think our fight is. People made fun of feminists for trying to change mailman to mailperson but it was a cause that raised a lot of awareness.

There’s no need to be hostile. If their stupid imaginary friend is doing no harm and they’re not bringing it up, why do we need to? If they bring it up politely, we should just as politely disagree. If they’re hostile, fight fire with fire and tell them they’re being a dickweed and an idiot.

But — as you used to notice — there’s simply no argument when they’re not using their religion to harm. Why do you assume the ones who are open and accepting to gays are sneaking quietly off to vote against gay marriage in the voting booth? Sure the ones who say they hate the sin love the sinner are but I’ve known many Christians who are openly accepting of gays without that qualifier and I’m sure they’re not doing so. To assume they are is, frankly, prejudicial. There are denominations who want to marry gays and are prevented to by law. They are most likely voting for gay marriage. While I think evolution pretty much debunks the creation myth of the buybull, I’ve known many Christians who politely disagree with that and are outspoken against creationism in the schools. Do you really think Atheists are in the majority in Dover, PA? Naw, I don’t either. Far as I know, we’re not in the majority anywhere.

Let me stress, not antagonizing unnecessarily does not mean to actually support religion by giving to their charities, etc. You know my view on that. It does, however, extend to protecting their civil rights. Hell with them, protecting their civil rights is important because it protects ours.

I’ve got to say, Hemant, I’m really disappointed in this new bitter tone. I’m patient because I realize that you’re in a public position and, hence, more of a target for the nasty type of believer. It’s got to be harder to keep your perspective in that situation. But I’d really hate to see you come what you hate and that’s always what it seems to me when Atheists like Dawkins start with bigoted crap like they’re all delusional and Atheists are smarter, etc. They are every bit as bad as theists who say you’re amoral without gawd. Every fucking bit. There’s a reason why I read your blog every day and not PK’s.

Let’s not fall into the trap that we condemn so many theists of falling into: that’s it’s okay to follow the leaders into hateful, viral over-genralizations of people who are not like us.

@fea24, oh for god’s sake! (muggle rolls eyes) Don’t you think that’s being a bit nit picky? Can I still use goddamn? Although to be honest, I usually do use for fuck’s sake. 🙂

And it’s letter carrier, not mail person. At least that’s what the post office now uses per my sister who is one. (Or was last time I spoke to her, which I admit was a long time ago.)

But the feminist changes are because mailman, fireman implied women couldn’t do the job. So they became letter carrier and firefighter. I don’t think anyone think’s you’re seriously calling on God when using his name in vain!

Um, don’t be pissed, please. I’m chiding you gently and in good fun. It’s just that I use these phrases like goddamn and Jesus H. Fucking Christ all the time, out of habit. If I believed, I’d be less inclined to.

I am perhaps a bit too fond of the F word.

I can appreciate the “even if it harms no one, they are still wrong and we need to fight for truth” argument on an intellectual level. That’s right in a way. But in practice, I don’t care that much. I think it’s stupid and a waste of time, but if they want to waste their time with stupidity, that’s their right to do.

All I’m asking is that they stop indoctrinating children, convert adults and try to force the entire society to live by their rules. That has to the be the immediate goal. Getting rid of faith in general can come after that. If, in the process of decreasing religious influence, it’s necessary to attack theological principles itself, then that’s fine, but it’s not done for its own sake.

However, people also need to be called out when they passively support tyranny and discrimination. It’s possible to believe in a god without buying into all the institutionalized dogma and BS.

muggle wrote:

I’ve got to say, Hemant, I’m really disappointed in this new bitter tone. I’m patient because I realize that you’re in a public position and, hence, more of a target for the nasty type of believer. It’s got to be harder to keep your perspective in that situation. But I’d really hate to see you come what you hate and that’s always what it seems to me when Atheists like Dawkins start with bigoted crap like they’re all delusional and Atheists are smarter, etc. They are every bit as bad as theists who say you’re amoral without gawd. Every fucking bit. There’s a reason why I read your blog every day and not PK’s.

I have to say that i agree with this.

Hemant, one of your best features has always been to disprove the ‘angry atheist’ stereotype…..and your ability to bring people together. I’d hate to see either of those great qualities dissipate.

I only read PZ’s blog on occasion, because I really can’t tolerate the atmosphere over there. The climate over here has always been more positive and constructive, imo.

Daniel Dennett in the NY Daily News, Sam Harris in a week-long Economist debate (“Is religion a force for good?”), Jerry Coyne in USA Today, Dave Silverman from American Atheists on FoxNews.com…

Somebody pinch me! This is so much new ground!

@Chris

I’ll bet you are a RIOT at parties.
*snorts*

Thanks Guy G. I’m glad to see some people here are on the same wavelength as me. What’s important is fighting religion when it tries to push something harmful on society. Picking on the likes of Unitarians (for example) doesn’t accomplish a lot, and could harm our chances of working together on that important stuff.

That’s not to say you can never discuss these beliefs over a friendly drink, if invited. Otherwise if people’s crazy stories bring them some kind of comfort and aren’t harming anyone, it’s not worth barging in with BUT IS IT TRUE?!?!

Like I say all the time. The problem is the privilege.

Now, I’m one, personally when it comes to religion I’m a “mend not end”-er type person. That is, I don’t want to take away anybodies community or family. I think that’s just harmful and cruel. But that said, I do think that religion can and should change itself into a form that focuses on the positive…the community..and not the negative..the authoritarian/anti-rational mindset.

The first thing to realize, is that we’re being accused of being rude/bigoted/hateful whatever, for our core principles. The whole idea that we believe that a god, probably does not exist. Everything else? Tone, the way we say it, whatever, it’s all gravy. When we speak our mind, even in the nicest way possible, we’re offending people. There’s no real difference between saying that god does not exist and calling believers delusional. One directly leads to the other. (FWIW I actually don’t think that theyr’e delusional. I think they’re mistaking the feeling of communal catharsis for god..well..sometimes)

But back to the beginning. The problem is the privilege. And as long as moderate/progressive religious folks make active efforts to stake out that privilege, they’re doing the work of the bad guys. Because that’s the weapon the bad guys use to fight with.

But in the end, we should keep on doing what we’re doing. Fighting against religious privilege, even by pointing out the bad things that religion does/is, keeping firm in our core principles, and not shutting up, and continuing efforts for our community building, no matter how much it threatens existing religions.

Now some of us are nice people, some people are jerks. But that’s true with all of us. And quite frankly, no atheist I’ve heard has ever gotten to the “believe or fry in hellfire” level of pure offensiveness IMO.

You shouldn’t care about what PZ or Coyne or Jen or Plait or Dawkins say. You are Hemant.

Now, the battle is over when I should bring up religion with people who might agree with me on everything else. Do I fight with my friends over topics like religion? Should I argue with my parents about god’s existence? At least in my own life, no good can come from these things.

I had some people over the other day, and I found out the one male friend amongst all the women was against abortion (personally). He’s married to my friend, and there are many things I like about him. Would I try to argue him out of this belief of his?

My parents are quite religious. Would I hurt our tentative relationship by trying to persuade them out of their beliefs?

Of course not. But accommodation isn’t about the personal. It’s about the political, and the public. I will maintain the bridges I have with individuals, and I will continue to seek out friends who are rational.

I hope that some of the more blustery people in the online atheist community (I’m thinking of comments, not blog posts) aren’t quite so vitriolic in their real life.

We still have massive asymmetry. If a believer says that if you do not embrace Jesus as your personal savior you go to hell.

Saying that is fine.

But to say that Jesus was either a mortal man or never existed is insensitive and in your face.

I think the compass that measures what is normal and what is out and out is wrong.

And we do need a few people who are willing to try to bend the dial, even if it is misunderstood and labeled as aggressive and abrasive.

Yes we know Robert, us atheists would be so much more successful at spreading our message if we shut the hell up and never challenged anything a christian said or did.

Could you tell us about a ‘polite’ atheist who has managed to become anywhere near as famous and influential as those ‘radicals’ like Dawkins? Since it’s such a successful strategy their must be plenty of ‘polite’ atheists who are just as well known as them and have accomplished just as much.

PS: By ‘those god hates fag folks’ do you mean the majority of Christians who hate gay people and oppose letting us have equal rights? Why are you comparing them to our ‘radicals’ when as far as I know Dawkins has never called for Christian’s rights to be restricted in any way?

Muggle-

I was thinking less of things like goddamnit (which anyway is a sin according to what I was taught so, it is totally acceptable to me). I was thinking of how many times God is referred to in offhand ways that continue to support the notion that we all believe in a God.
I think we are all very used to it but it’s not uncommon for me to hear things like “from your lips to God’s ears” in the workplace and no one thinks twice about it. I happen to believe that changing day to day language is an important element of social change.

I’m not saying that I’d go to HR to file a claim of harrassment but I think that inclusive language is useful and is an issue that should be raised.

It’s weird to see this post because I’ve been reading your book and observing how the 2006 you was much more agreeable to religion.

I’m going a bit of the other way on the spectrum. I don’t think focusing on the truth is a battle I’m willing to have even with science on my side. I am on the side of science and that allegiance speaks for itself. However, I am not science. I’m a person who has to live in a community of different faiths. It sometimes seems to me that by working to increase acceptance for individual statements of faith we can simultaneously open the door for more atheists and Christians (predominant American faith) to focus on issues that really matter.

Let me reiterate. What matters is science being seen as science, people being seen as people even when non-white, non-straight, non-traditional. What we are seeing in Christianity is a kind of institutionalized privilege that came from having few alternatives. People generally choose among types of Christianity in America. Fight that privilege.

Don’t get lost along the way by chasing every bit of woo away because not every person is that rational. This is a claim that should be obvious to anyone. I wish they were but they aren’t. The Pagans are not putting Creationism in school. Not even the Muslims are doing that.

If we can get individual freedoms for people to get in and get out of religions while losing and gaining no social benefits for their state of affairs, we’ll ultimately have benefited everyone. And we may get some help from the faithful along the way.

Just saying.

I guess I should add that I am very much an outspoken atheist. It’s where to pick the fight that I work the hardest at figuring out.

Samiimas,

I can tell you that the effect for most Christians when they hear Dawkins, Hitchens or Maher is that it fortifies the stereotype that Atheists are smug, arrogant jerks. If that is what you call success, then so be it, but I doubt that this is what you want to portray.

There is alot to be said for being able to agree to disagree and to have a rational discourse. There is also alot of good that comes out of setting aside our differences in philosophy and work for the common good.

I used the example that I read alot on this site about how intolerant Christians are when I mention the God hates fags folks. There are alot of Christians who disagree with them yet they are looked at as examples of how all Christians behave.

As for Hitchens and Harris not being dangerous, I think both of them calling for a first nuclear strike on Islam nations is pretty scary. Calling for the destruction of millions of people in the name of science and reason doesn’t advance your cause.

Hemant, I like your tagline: The Friendly Atheist. It reaches out across the wastelands of intellectual abandonment to shared values. I think those shared values are incredibly important. I bitterly regret those things that are not shared, but we have to start somewhere. And we have to live together. And (some of us believe) we have to progress.

So my plea sounds like a sad “Can’t we all get along?” Well, yes, we can, to a large extent. Polarising opinions aint going to help that any. We’re all in this together, and we have to get along, like it or not. That God thing (so long as He’s not telling anyone to do something stupid) seems to be a side issue.

Samiimas,

Take away what rights? If you are talking about Gay marriage, that is not a right that is being taken away. It is a right those that advocate it are trying to get.

Radical atheists are trying to change the very fabric of our country in the name of them not being offended.

As for the link

http://www.alternet.org/rights/80449/?page=3

“What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry?” Harris asks. “If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own.

Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime — as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day — but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe.”

So he believes if an islamist regime *AKA: Iran* Got nulcear weapons we might need to nuke them first. Weren’t you whining about us not building bridges? Theirs few atheist republicans and it’s nice to see Harris adopting one of the GOP stances, they might see we have something in common.

Radical atheists are trying to change the very fabric of our country in the name of them not being offended.

Name a single way atheists are trying to restrict anyone’s civil rights. Name one single way or stop claiming crap like this.

I never said atheists were taking our rights away. I said they were trying to change the fabric of our country because they are offended. That is how they removed prayer from schools, how they are trying to remove “In god we Trust” from our money, how they had The Ten Commandments removed from courthouses and are trying to remove them from the Supreme Court building, how they are trying to rewrite our history on how this country was founded. The list goes on.

This wasn’t directed at me, but Bertrand Russell would pretty much fit the bill here.

He certainly didn’t pull any punches though:

“So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence.”

“If I were granted omnipotence, and millions of years to experiment in, I should not think Man much to boast of as the final result of all my efforts.”

“There is one very serious defect to my mind in Christ’s moral character, and that is that He believed in hell. I do not myself feel that any person who is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment.”

“My own view on religion is that of Lucretius. I regard it as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold misery to the human race. I cannot, however, deny that it has made some contributions to civilization. It helped in early days to fix the calendar, and it caused Egyptian priests to chronicle eclipses with such care that in time they became able to predict them. These two services I am prepared to acknowledge, but I do not know of any others.”

People can believe whatever they want. We can just help them realize they’re wrong

See, now you just contradicted yourself…

I am not a particularly “religious” person, but I must say that most of you guys simply amaze me with your vitrolent.

What mental gymnastics and self deciet it must take to make your claim of atheist superiority.

The I’m superior because I saw the “light” club of hate.

The we must erradicate religion because it is so destructive, oh so like the final solution, kind of hate.

The reams and reams and blogs and bogs and subject after subject available for members of this giant hate club, available for all of you to spew about how stupid anyone religious is and how superior you are kind of hate.

Friendly atheist, my arse. Hateful atheist would be more accurate.

Let’s face it, you” knew” age atheists enjoy your club of superiority and bolster your esteem by bashing the other portion of the human population that you in your own mind perceive as the inferior portion, worthy only of your loathing and hate.

You are no different than the KKK or Gerrman Nazi’s, other than in this day and age, somehow it is ok, politically correct to hate, under the guise of being atheist.

I never said atheists were taking our rights away. I said they were trying to change the fabric of our country because they are offended. That is how they removed prayer from schools, how they are trying to remove “In god we Trust” from our money, how they had The Ten Commandments removed from courthouses and are trying to remove them from the Supreme Court building, how they are trying to rewrite our history on how this country was founded. The list goes on.

So the ONLY example of these ‘radical’ atheists you can name is them… following the first amendment. This is the part where you either run away from this thread or lie through your teeth and pretend you’d be calling christians ‘radical’ just for asking that this country obey the first fucking amendment.

By being tolerant for so long, we’ve been enablers. Religious people have a mental issue, period. Just like alcoholics or drug addicts, they have a habit which needs treatment.

Hasn’t there been some scientific work showing that beliefe in a higher power and/or afterlife is somewhat hard wired into our brains as a reaction to stress? So then technically, wouldn’t we be the ones with mental issues? :p

@Robert: I think this is the inexorable end result of associating with people in atheist organizations year after year.

Who is most likely to congregate under the banner of atheism? Those who have a bone to pick with religion. Those with a contempt for religion, even. Any “accommodationists” in their ranks would be quickly weeded out by members sending the message “go away, or fall in line”. So only the most “fundamentalist” of atheists attend these sorts of things.

I think Susan Harkins got it right over at theblaze dot com when she said:

It is quite clear that some people have no life, and choose to “invent a cause for conflict”. Get over it, folks. This was and is part of our AMERICAN HISTORY. A personal challenge to all libtard, spoiled, disgruntled, activists: Stop with the frivolous ideological lawsuits and find ways to add something positive to America’s history, for a change! It is easier to burn down a house than to build one. Choose the latter, and build your namesake in a constructive way.

Can I get an Amen?

Samiimas

I don’t run away from anything, particularly a discourse with someone who thinks that throwing around the f word makes for a clever argument.

And yes I do believe that Atheists are trying to destroy the fabric of our country. The examples I gave you are just a few examples of how that is being tried. some of what you see from some on this blog (including the attitude you are expressing) is another way-the attitude that those that believe in God are mentally flawed.

The only example you can give of atheists’ rights being taken away is the idea of gay marriage. Since when are all gay people who want to get married atheists.

Robert,

All I want is for the atheist movement to advance to the point where it raises no more eyebrows to say that you are an atheist as it does to say that you are a Methodist.

Once we get to that point, then we can all have a level playing field and exchange of ideas.

As for the fabric of the country, was it destroyed before “under god” was added to the pledge? What about before “in god we trust” was added to the currency?

The only thing that is being destroyed is the prejudicial attitude towards atheists that they are somehow sub-human. I’m sorry, but the religious community is just going to have to get used to atheists being around and being present at the table.

Hoverfrog,

Our country was founded on Christian principles. Atheists don’t like it and want to rewrite our history, but the founding fathers were Christian. Jefferson and Franklin were diests if not out Christians, but the remaining founding fathers were unapologeticly Christian. The people who selected them to be their delegates were overwhelming Christian and the communities they lived in were predominately Christian. To say that the founding fathers were not Christian is an attempt to change history.

The First Amendment protects religious freedom by prohibiting the state from setting up a religion. It allows people to practice their religion freely. It also allows people to be atheists and not practice a religion.

Jeff- I agree that is there was true tolerance, eyebrows would not be raised in either direction. However, that is clearly not the case. Christians need to be more loving in their treatment of Atheists for sure. No denying that. However, it is also evident that the new form of radical atheists are not content with allowing others to believe the way they do. They are bent on not only removing religion from the public square, but on degrading and demeaning anyone who believes. That is exactly what this topic is talking about.

Samiimas- No. You are confusing intelligence and a mental flaw. If someone believed in Scientology, that is no test of their intelligence. For example, John Travolta is a strong believer in Scientology, yet he has multiple pilots licenses and is clearly a very good business man. Hardly someone who isn’t intelligent.

And by the way, you are proving my point with your question and its implications. It is part of the new game plan for atheists to not simply be content with keeping religion out of the public square, but to destroy is completely by mocking those that believe.

Our country was founded on Christian principles. Atheists don’t like it and want to rewrite our history, but the founding fathers were Christian. Jefferson and Franklin were diests if not out Christians, but the remaining founding fathers were unapologeticly Christian. The people who selected them to be their delegates were overwhelming Christian and the communities they lived in were predominately Christian. To say that the founding fathers were not Christian is an attempt to change history.

I am so tired of this argument. Just because they were christians doesn’t mean they thought christianity should rule the government. They may have personally trusted god, but they believed that a secular government was the best chance at maintaining personal liberties. We are not obligated to go to church to be good citizens.
To summarize: Yes they were christian, but who really gives a poop?
Would you vote for someone just because they were christian? I’m genuinely curious, since it seems like you feel christianity should have such a strong place in government.

It is part of the new game plan for atheists to not simply be content with keeping religion out of the public square, but to destroy is completely by mocking those that believe.

since when does mockery destroy anything? Censorship may be somewhat successful at blocking ideas, but we aren’t trying to censor the religious or any religious ideas. we just want them out of our secular institutions.

but to destroy is completely by mocking those that believe.

And we got to the heart of the issue. You don’t like us mocking your beliefs. What’s wrong with that? I wanna be a comedian someday and I won’t have a career if it suddenly becomes wrong to mock things. I don’t see the problem when Christians mock other religions exactly as much as atheists do.

You’ve already admitted the most ‘radical’ atheists you can find are Dawkins and friends who’s actions against theists have so far consisted of writing a bunch of books and speaking at conventions. You’ve admitted their are no atheists trying to take away anyone’s rights or force their beliefs on people in anyway, except for ‘mocking’ them.

I wish that the most ‘radical’ Christians out there never did anything but write books and make speeches, I’d have absolutely no problem with them. Instead they force children to pledge allegiance to a nation under their god, put their propaganda on our money,stop evolution from being taught and force children in public schools to pray. *Don’t pretend this last one doesn’t happen, I also had to listen to my teacher rant at us about how stupid atheists are.*

When Atheists are actually trying to impede your freedom of religion or any other right in any way, which you admit they aren’t, I’ll be defending you. But until then I think you should just man up and deal with the ‘mocking’ like we have to deal with being ‘mocked’ by theists on a regular basis.

PS: You didn’t even acknowledge my point that you would never, ever, call a Christian ‘radical’ or claim they were forcing their views on anyone if they protested the government putting ‘GOD DOES NOT EXIST’ on all money. Couldn’t think of a dodge like pretending ‘mentally flawed’ is any different from ‘dumb as hell’?

Richard,

I really do like your comments even if i don’t agree with most of them. You are a thoughtful and kind man. To answer your question, I don’t think that the First Amendment is inconsistent at all with the Bible or with the founding fathers’ Christian principles.

You know that the founding fathers and those that came before them to this country were fleeing state run religions and wanted the freedom to worship as they saw fit. The First Amendment guarantees that right. The effect of freedom of religion is of course not forcing those that don’t believe to engage in that practice. But that does not change the fact that the founding fathers were Christians or that they founded this country on the Christian principles that we were created by God and endowed by Him with certain rights.

Sammiias- It goes beyond mocking. The idea is to eradicate religion from society for the alleged harm that it does. For example, Hitchens calling raising a child in a religious home child abuse.

As for your example, when Atheist rule the country and want to put “God Does not Exist” on our money I would call those that speak out against such an action patriots because we are returning to our roots.

The founding fathers personally didn’t flee religious persecution. They were first and foremost thinkers steeped in the enlightenment movement. That goes for all of the most influential ones. Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Madison, Paine… Of those Madison was probably the most religious. The others were deists and borderline atheists. Paine wrote “The Age of Reason” after all. They wanted a secular republic. Not a secular society, but certainly a secular government. Unfortunately, Christians are doing everything they can do undermine that.

To claim that the US Constitution is based on Christian principles is absurd. Stop claiming it. God isn’t mentioned once in it. Neither are any other religious principles. You don’t understand the Declaration of Independence either. The reference to a creator there is a plainly deistic one, which would have been understood by many people then. It doesn’t refer to a theistic omnipotent, omniscient god. Deistic gods are simply an explanation for how the universe came into being. Nothing more. Their involvement ends right there. Today we have better ideas to explain that, so deism is basically dead.
Do I have to quote the Treaty of Tripoli btw?

Also, the first thing in the Bill of Right isn’t freedom of religion. It’s freedom from religion. Ironically, back then Christians actually liked that. Their attempts to insinuate themselves into politics, didn’t start until a bit later. Today it has gotten so bad that Christians scream about freedom of religion when they aren’t allowed to discriminate against people they hate. And when they aren’t allowed to pass laws as they see fit. Never mind that they are supposed to stay out of politics.

As for eradicating religion. Yes, I’d love that. Religion has been holding mankind back for millennia in a very real sense. it has cost us at least 500 years of scientific progress. It has caused nothing but misery, death and slavery. We would be better off without it. People would be fine with spirituality alone.
The thing is that atheists are realistic. We know that we can’t get rid of religion altogether. It’s too ingrained into everything and maybe even humanity itself biologically/psychologically.
So we’ll settle with keeping it out of politics and public life. We only want that people actually follow Jesus and pray alone in their rooms. We are simply tired of people claiming special privileges to not pay taxes, to indoctrinate people, to pass laws, to have a voice in everything, to influence people that don’t even believe in the same things and to not be offended (!). All based on something that’s a choice and not anything that deserves any kind of special protection in the first place.

And yes, indoctrinating children with religion is a form child abuse if overdone. It screws up minds. That’s not hyperbole. It’s fact. Some religious education is fine, but too often nothing but brainwashing. Raising children with a fear of hell if they misbehave is criminal for example. It can have really bad psychological effects on some people. Effects that take many years to undo.

If your religion is so wonderful and great and good, then that’s so obvious that they’d believe it anyways when they grow older. When they are old enough to make an informed decision. But since it’s all a gigantic lie, you need to force it on impressionable young minds, or else you couldn’t replenish your numbers.

Robert –

Our country was founded on Christian principles.

This is demonstrably false. Several times during the framing of our Constitution, the idea of inserting Christian language into the document was raised. Every single time, the idea was shot down. Christianity is intentionally absent from the official founding of our country.

There’s also that sticky bit of the Treaty of Tripoli, written fewer than 10 years after the Constitution, which says that the United States is in no way founded upon the Christian religion.

Let me see if I can respond generally to all who have addressed my comments. First, you cannot separate the reason that people came to this country in the beginning nor the Christian faith of the founders from the country they formed. You can’t say that the founders who came here to worship as Christians and who were Christians did not found a country based upon the principles they held dear. They clearly did not divorce their beliefs when they founded this country. In fact just the opposite is true.

The colonies who sent delegates already had founding documents that formed the basis for the constitution. These documents clearly referenced God- God in South Carolina, the Almighty in North Carolina, the savior and Lord in Connecticut, The Governor of the Universe in Pennsylvania, etc… Although the Declaration of Independence mentions Creator, there is no doubt that it was referencing the biblical God.

The idea that our liberty and freedom comes from God, the Biblical God is a Christian principle, that all men have worth and are created equal is a Christian principle. The idea that people should be allowed to worship freely as they see fit is based upon the Christian principle that Jesus taught that neither religion nor the establishment should impede people from worshiping God the Father. The founding Fathers knew this and were clearly basing their notion of how our government should be formed on these principles.

Quotes from them show it.

Patrick Henry- This great nation was founded by Christians, not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ

John Adams- The general principles on which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity

George Washington- It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible

James Madison- The future and success of America is not in this Constitution but in the laws of God upon which this Constitution is founded.

The university of Houston did a study to determine the influence of the Bible on the philosophy of the Founding Fathers. They came up with 15,000 quotes. From these they determined that a little over three thousand were significant. Of those over 60% mentioned the Bible or referred to it as the basis for the point they were making.

Following the inauguration of George Washington, there was a government sponsored public prayer meeting to commit the new nation to the blessings of the Creator.

Beyond the founding fathers, the citizens who shaped this country were overwhelmingly Christian. The books that taught the children to read were based upon the Bible, church life was the fabric of society, strong laws based upon moral
principles derived from the Bible were everywhere, etc… That influence shaped this country for 200 years.

As for the Tripoli Treaty that text must be taken in context and by itself does not show that this country wasn’t founded on Christian principles. It was directed to a Muslim country to address their concerns.

Hoverfrog I can see why as an atheist you would not like “In God we Trust” on the money or mention of the Ten Commandments on the Supreme Court building. But I don’t see that as the same thing as the state establishing a religion. It is acknowledging the foundation of this country and the principles upon which it was founded.

If I didn’t address something expressly, it was because this was too long already.

Hoverfrog I can see why as an atheist you would not like “In God we Trust” on the money or mention of the Ten Commandments on the Supreme Court building. But I don’t see that as the same thing as the state establishing a religion.

I like that Robert’s basically admitted his real problem with us atheists isn’t that we’re rude or mocking, its that we’re challenging his privileged place in society and he doesn’t like the thought of the government not kissing his ass. too bad robert.

The First amendment makes it clear ‘IN GOD WE TRUST’ is an endorsement of a religion and a violation of the constitution.

Steve, I did not start this discussion by saying that all atheists want to see the eradication of religion, but that this is the stated goal of the new breed of radical atheism. A goal you apparently agree with when you said that you would be okay with it as long as people pray to Jesus alone in their rooms. Wouldn’t a law that only allowed the practice of religion in the privacy of ones home be in violation of the first amendment?

And if you are going to try and quote what the First Amendment says then you should quote it correctly. Here is the text:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

It is specifically freedom of religion and the right to freely exercise that religion. So religion does hold a special place in our society and the right to practice it is expressly protected.

And no my understanding of our history is not wrong as much as you would like it to be. You have shown nothing to contradict the specific examples I have given. Do you really think that people who are Christians when they mention God and a creator that they are talking about anything other then the God of the Bible?

Sammiias- you are attributing motives to me that you are making up. Like it or not, “In God we Trust” is simply not unconstitutional. You of course may think so, but the courts so far haven’t agreed with you.

Robert,
You have not answered even one of my questions. You just keep repeating and repeating another of your beliefs, as unfounded as your beliefs about God. To support your belief, “This country was founded on Christian principles,” you offer no specifics on what any of those principles actually are, you offer no explanation for what appears to me to be direct contradictions between the principle of freedom of religion and many Biblical injunctions against such freedom, and you offer no specifically Christian source for the principle of freedom of religion.

You just keep repeating that many of the founding fathers were Christians and that many of the people in America were Christians, implying that that proves that they founded a nation based on “Christian principles.”

Copernicus was a devout Catholic. Does that make the Heliocentric Solar System a “Christian principle”? (At the time, the Vatican kind of disagreed)

Galileo was a devout Catholic. Does that make the principles of pendulums, the principles of accelerating falling bodies, the principles of flotation, the, again, heliocentric solar system, and dozens of other ideas “Christian principles”?

Newton was a devout Christian. Does that make gravity, the multicolor nature of light, calculus, or the principles of moving bodies “Christian principles”?

Werner Heisenberg was a Lutheran. Does that make the uncertainty principle a “Christian principle”?

There are also many awful, despicable and destructive ideas that have been put forth by people who were Christians, but does that mean those ideas were “Christian ideas”?

I’m sad to see that you’re taking the same stance on this belief of yours about American history as a Christian who takes the stance “God said it, I believe it, that’s the end of it.” You resemble John McCain mechanically repeating over and over that under DADT, they do not seek out gay military personnel, and repeating that he doesn’t care what anyone says, he isn’t going to listen.

Repeating and repeating this falsehood about a “Christian nation” is only going to make it “true” in your own mind, and in the minds of people who have a poor education in history. That is its purpose. This lie was started by people who are trying to lay the foundation for an American theocracy, and you don’t seem to realize how horrific that nightmare will be for all of us if it ever comes about.

So I guess further requests for a real explanation of your assertion appears to be futile. Thank you for your polite and respectful tone. If your feelings are chafed, I am sorry. I have tried to not personally mock or insult you; I have only stated exactly why your lack of substantive response is disappointing to me, and why I think it is a logical fallacy to insist that the principles the Founding Fathers used were specifically “Christian principles” just because they happened to have been Christians.

Robert,
You have not answered even one of my questions.

B.S.

Actually he DID.

Go back and re read.

I was astonished to see Sigmund write:
“In contrast to the Old Atheists like Bertrand Russell who was prone to say there is definitely no God”

This is a dreadful misrepresentation of Russell’s views.

And since so much of this forum concerns “truth” and “proof”, here it is:
http://articles.exchristian.net/2002/09/am-i-atheist-or-agnostic.php

It has been said before, but I think it is worth repeating. Anyone is entitled to their own beliefs. Even beliefs that are ridiculous and absurd. But no one is entitled to their own facts. Beliefs, no matter how sincerely held, do not alter facts.

Then to openly state your intention to impose those pseudo-facts upon everyone else, by violence and/or the force of law is not just wrong, it is evil.

It’s bad enough to brainwash your own children with beliefs that will cause them to waste their lives in pursuit of those beliefs. But to attempt to brainwash the children of others into those beliefs and pseudo-facts is beyond evil. It is unforgivable and should be resisted at every opportunity.

“If you want to insist on reality, you can tell Francis Collins that he is incorrect when it comes to his Christianity. If you are saying that he is “out of his mind,” you are implying something along the lines of mental illness or fanaticism, and that’s a distortion of reality”.

Christianity is a mental illness so his implications were correct. If you want to argue that then you have never met anyone with dementia. Voices, false entities and neurologically unfit. Equivalent to a religious mind in every one of those descriptive instances.