Another Denier Wakes up and smells the coffee,,

Well as someone who is a realist (which many times can be a pessimist), I would say it's more a matter of humanity then actual religion. Religion in itself has never brought on violence: it's man's interpretation of religion that has done so. If we were devoid of religion right now, I don't think most things would be different: extremists would just latch on to other beliefs. A good example would be Nazi Germany: which some people equate to athiesm, while others equate to Catholicism. There were some Nazis that were religious while others weren't..some tried to find links to "the problem" in their religion while others sought it in other moral sets.

 

Wow... well put. Can't wait for D's response.

 

You make an excellent point, and one that's hard to argue. The problem is that if we accept this line of reasoning, it becomes pointless to try and change any sort of group behavior. Essentially all we can do is shrug our shoulders and say "Well, that's the way people are - can't do anything about it." It becomes self fulfilling.

I look at religions and other exclusive clubs as breeding grounds for bad group behavior. They don't cause the bad behavior, but they provide fertile ground.

It's a lot like cleaning your kitchen. You could stand there and say "Bacteria can grow almost anywhere, so why should I wash my counter tops?" It is true that bacteria can grow pretty much everywhere, and it's also true that you will never rid your kitchen of the little pests, but you can minimize their numbers with good hygiene. Likewise with divisive groups. You can't eliminate them all, but you can reduce their potential for damage.

Tom

 

How would you surmise this should done in a society that has the right to assemble and also has freedom of speech?

 

Well, unfortunately you can't kill them with bleach water, even though that works well for bacteria.

Our free society allows for many damaging behaviors. We can't force people to not smoke. Anyone is free to be an alcoholic. Likewise you can eat yourself to death or form strange cults.

While we can't prevent people from doing undesirable but legal things, we don't have to embrace and support their efforts. Most people in this country are afraid to speak out against religion. Generally it is considered uncharitable and rude, so we all smile and say "That's nice", even if we think it's the dumbest thing we have ever heard of. It falls under the whole "fair and balanced" nonsense, where we try to give equal time to all views, even if some of the views deserve nothing of the sort.

How to stop it? Stop giving a free pass to every group with a crazy idea or bad agenda. Judge ideas by merit. Just because something is labeled as a religion does not necessarily mean it's a good idea.

Tom

 

That is just laughable. The ECLU and others are doing everything they can to eradicate anything to do with God throughout the country. Founding principles this country was built on. And people wonder why it is going to hell in a hand basket.

So judge ideas on what merit? Your ideas, morals and values? Good grief.

 

My morals, ideas, and values for my judgments. Your morals, ideas, and values for yours. That's why each of us has a brain.

Who is the ECLU?

Tom

 

I suspect he means the ACLU.

I don't think that he realizes that the ACLU does more to fight for your constitutional rights than any other group in America.

Separation of church and state (read the 1st amendment, people) is one of those issues which helps insure that all people receive equal treatment.

 

Yes, sorry ACLU. I am talking about judgments made by others upon you and myself (lawmakers, etc). Who has the answer? Why is that the ACLU has only around the last 80 of the counties 234 years? And have only recently been heavily interested in their "idea" of separation of church and state? Are we "evolving" as a country?

 

First of all, the ACLU has been around for 90 years. Secondly, I don't understand why conservatives are so against the ACLU: they've even defended Rush Limbaugh. Also, the idea of seperation of church and state was not started by them. The only people that might be offended by one of the founding papers (the Gettysburg address) are athiests since there is a reference to "one nation under god"...but "god" was obviously assumed for whatever "god" you worshiped. Colonial America was far from being founded by evangelicals: much as they like to paint it that way. You had puritans up North (which escaped to America for religious freedom), you had diests in the mid-Atlantic, and then you had a secular and Baptist South (who's main motivations were economic). There were even Jews in Rode Island and Georgia in Colonial America. Because the original states were not comprised of one religion, and had quite a different background, I don't see how they could have stayed united by religion: it makes more sense that they found some common principles to have national laws and to allow any citizen to practice whatever religion they so chose. The term "seperation of church and state" first appeared in a letter by Thomas Jefferson (mantaining that Baptists would have their religious freedoms). While the Constitution doesn't state seperation of church and state, it does espouse religious freedom (and no where calls for a religious state) "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

 

I'll take that one step further: All religion is bullshit, and should be called bullshit. "Mainstream" Christianity says that I was damned to hell because the first man on Earth ate fruit from a tree God told him not to; then the Romans killed God's son and so now I can avoid hell, but only if I believe the guy the Roman's killed was God. If it wasn't "religion" you'd be locked up in the booby hatch for claiming that with a straight face! The Jews, the Muslims, and the Hindus are no better.

It's a free country, meaning we cannot prohibit such insanity. But we can use our freedom to call it bullshit.

First of all, the ACLU is not doing anything at all to eradicate God or religion. The ACLU is defending the FREEDOM of religion, which means that YOU have no right to use the GOVERNMENT to force your bullshit (sorry, I mean religion) on me.

Second, the PRINCIPLES this nation was founded on include this same freedom of religion. The word "God" does not occur even one single time in the Constitution. Why is that, if the founding fathers were so gung-ho Christian?

This country was not founded as a Christian country. It was founded as a country where religious nut jobs have no damn right to force their religion on anyone else. You can believe whatever silliness you like. But you don't have the right to use the schools, the courts, or the government as a damn church! You want to pray? Go ahead. The Constitution gives you the right to pray. But when you try to use the schools to force other people's kids to pray, you are subverting the most foundational principles of this nation. You want to display the ten commandments on your property? You have the right to do that. The ACLU will even defend your right to do so. ON YOUR OWN PROPERTY!!! But if you try to display them at the county courthouse, that gives government sanction to one particular, narrow set of religions, and that is explicitly prohibited by the Constitution. The nut jobs want to throw the Constitution in the trash. The ACLU is the one supporting the founding fathers and their principles.

 

Wow someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed! I won't argue in defense of organized "Religion". There have been some pretty messed up moments in history all in the name of "Religion". I do know some people that are very "religious" about getting their morning espresso.

Likewise I am sure. As far as I am concern... atheism is a religion (the worship of ME).

Why does the Constitution have to say anything about God? You ought to read some of George Washington's personal letters sometime.

I disagree. The prilgrims were fleeing religious persecution and came to the new world to worship in freedom as they saw fit, not to no worship at all though that was also possible.

Likewise.

Sweet dreams.

 

You must keep in mind the difference between a civil right and specific instances of exercise of that right. One can support the right but disagree with specific uses that someone might make of that right. For example: defending free speech sometimes means defending the right of Nazis to march. So, don't hate the ACLU when they defend those with whose opinions you disagree; someday they may be defending *your* right to practice *your* religion.

Don't confuse atheism with egoism. Atheists do not worship themselves.

 

No thanks... I don't need them to defend my rights. BTW, I don't "hate" them. But I do believe the group is now out of control.

 

Atheism is not a religion. Look at the word: a "theist" believes in a god or gods. An "atheist" does not believe in a god or gods. The definition of atheism is the lack of a belief. A religion is a set of beliefs. Therefore atheism is the opposite of religion.

Some of the founding fathers believed in god. Others did not. When they wrote the Constitution, they left god out of it, and they went so far as to PROHIBIT the government from establishing any religion. It is a SECULAR constitution for a SECULAR country where individuals have the right to practice religion, but not the right to force their religion on others. Therefore when people in government try to establish religion in government by mandating prayer in schools or displaying religious symbols on GOVERNMENT property, people who support the Constitution raise objections.

The Pilgrims were one small group of immigrants. They fled persecution of their narrow fundamentalist sect and founded a colony in which they persecuted and sometimes killed anyone who did not follow their very strict religious rules. They did not support religious freedom. They wanted a land where their own religion was the official religion and everyone would have to believe and act exactly as they did.

It was partly in response to this sort of persecution by people who once had been persecuted themselves, that the founding fathers declared that the government has no business getting involved in religion. Men like George Washington, who believed in god, declared absolutely and categorically that this should be a SECULAR nation, in which everyone would have the right to worship or not, but the GOVERNMENT would be ABSOLUTELY PROHIBITED from supporting any religion in any way.

 

Actually, you're off the mark here in most cases. Many atheists are secular humanists, which is a belief system that is very much not about ME. I would argue that it's a much more selfless set of moral values because they come not from fear of retribution or from the motivation to land a spot in heaven, but rather from the realization that the world is a better place if we live by certain rules and conventions. While I'm not an atheist (I don't rule out the possibility of A god), I'm a functional atheist because I don't see evidence of a god either. Furthermore, I find that religion as most of us know gets in the way of us making the world a better place. Religions are generally not open to a free search for truth. They have already assumed an immutable truth can view reality through the lens of that "truth". The Dali Lama seems a pretty notable exception to that rule. The Catholics are the epitome of it. Now, not every aspect of religion is worthless, but in my opinion, we need to divorce the useful moral guidelines from a deity who, according to his own history, has displayed some pretty psychotic and horribly violent behavior. To me, that's dross we can do without.

 

Wow. everyone take a deep breath. Now Fight!

Most atrocities are caused by religious intolerance, not religion, and atheists seem to be able to be just as intolerant as fundamentalists. There are also intolerance of the different.

Now what does this really have to do with coffee or global warming? Did you put milk or cream in that coffee? Did you eat meat last night? Do you know that those cow farts and extra farming may be causing more harm to the environment than an SUV driving 10k miles a year? Is it true? Does that vegan SUV driving soccer mom driving 7k miles a year create less ghg than the rightous meat eating prius driver going 18k miles a year? Further more if there is isn't enough to fight about is that soccer mom a milf?

Talk among yourselves, I'm a little far clempt (picture mike myers on coffee talk).

 

lol. You said milf. And was it Fair Trade coffee?

 

IMO, the discussion has been rather civil.

Example please - I have yet to see any atheist force their views on others. They only seem to complain when religious views are forced on them through govt funding or settings. I certainly don't see any convicting others of eternal damnation because of their religious views.

I think most environmentalists will agree that we as a nation eat way too much meat to the detriment of not only our environment - but our health.

Without a picture of said soccer mom, impossible to tell.