Merlyn_LeRoy

You are right; I do not understand because I do not see anybody being harmed most of the time, other than feelings hurt due to thin skin and emotional weakness. You mean the way Christians whine when they lose their special privileges? The way you complain when atheists sue for their rights? Don't pay any attention to something that is against your belief. Simply ignore them or put your own interpretation in the mix; but forcing others NOT to have free speech by threats and litigation is simply abusing their rights at the expense of yours. I disagree. Looks like you've got your feelings hurt due to your emotional weakness. JMO of course, as I am not hurt either way. We will never reach a point of even near agreement, and I am fine with that. You have a right to your opinion, even if I see it as biased, skewed, and unreasonable. Enjoy. Yep, how dare atheists try to be treated equally.

AZMike, are you deliberately ignoring my response to you? Skeptic doesn't deserve more of a reply, because his questions are disingenuous.

So, let me get this clear. Both religious individuals or groups and non-religious individuals or groups have the same rights. When the religious groups or persons "publicly" express their views, they are trespassing on the rights of the non-religous. Nope, you haven't gotten this straight. So, the non-religious rights take precedence over the religious rights? Nope, you haven't gotten this straight. I still have a hard time understanding how these individuals are "harmed" by simply seeing or hearing something with a religious significance or symbolism. That isn't the issue, since atheists see and hear a lot of things with religious significance or symbolism, like churches, people wearing crucifixes, people praying, etc. without any lawsuits at all. But if you think reeeeeeeeal hard, you might discern why some displays of religion trigger lawsuits (which the atheists often win, which means the law was on their side) and your simplistic examples. Seems that they do not have much self assurance if these things have such emotional impact on them. That's not the issue at all. It also appears that there really is NOT equality here, since the religious element MUST give up their rights to the non-religious in so many cases. Nope, nobody has given up rights. In some cases, Christians lose special privileges that they aren't entitled to, but that's not losing rights at all. The scale of justice or whatever is out of balance from my perspective. Let's see, in Santa Monica, for example, Christians got to put up displays on public property for 60 years. When atheists complained, allocation was made into a lottery system, and atheists happen to win a number of slots (if I recall, Christians got something like three slots). The 60 years part was the unbalanced part. Now, if the non-religious wanted to be included in these monuments or memorials and they were NOT given the option, then they would have a real issue of bias. That's how atheists finally got a monument put on public property. For the first time ever. http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/06/28/...nt-to-atheism/ But, in most cases, they do not seem to actually want to be included, they simply do not want the religious to express their rightful voice in any manner that they may have to see or hear. Nope, but you don't understand the issues anyway.

Well AZMike, your examples of Christian business owners being told by the state they have to provide services for LGBT weddings is simply a matter of businesses being considered public accommodations. They can't refuse their services any more than someone whose religion objects to mixed-race marriages, or mixed-religion marriages could refuse to do business with couples of mixed races or mixed religions. You can argue against public accommodation laws, but I'm in favor of them. As for Catholic adoption agencies, if they take state money they have to follow the rules for accepting that money. They could still discriminate if they want to forgo state money and be an entirely private adoption organization, but they decided not to do that. I see nothing wrong with the state having requirements for their adoption funding. For atheists suing the IRS, all nonprofits, including churches, are prevented from endorsing political candidates. Some churches have been violating this law, so the atheists sued the IRS to make them apply the law. Of course, if you want to be completely private and not get nonprofit status, churches can endorse political candidates. About the HHS fight, it's not atheists doing that. Military chaplains aren't supposed to insult soldiers in military service, and writing the old "no atheists in foxholes" does just that. Such insults are an actual violation of military regs. The Santa Monica situation was where Christians had preferential treatment for 60 years; when the city had to change it to a fair system, atheists got most of the spots. So now you're complaining about a level playing field. And sorry, you can't take public school students to a church to see them put on "A Charlie Brown Christmas" as a play. Besides the religious problems, the church was violating the law because the owners of the rights weren't allowing it to be performed anywhere as a live play: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/11/27/a-separate-legal-issue-about-that-church-putting-on-a-charlie-brown-christmas/ And the atheist monument is in a public forum. Again, atheists are being treated the same as anyone else. Got a problem with that? For student clubs, that's only if the groups want official recognition (which often includes some funding). If they want to be an entirely private group without official recognition, they can do that. If you think it's a violation, file a lawsuit. Am. Atheists sued over the 9/11 cross because not just Christians were killed in the attack. "Government officials have misused their powers to deny business licenses to those whose religious beliefs differ from those held by the government officials on LGBT marriage:" Well, now you can't read. The mayor of Boston said that, and he was reprimanded by the ACLU, and NO business license was ever denied: http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2012/07/boston-mayor-backs-off-chick-fil-a-aclu-warns-politicians-to-avoid-threats/ Also, where's the atheist in this story? The mayor of Boston isn't an atheist. As for the Camp Pendleton cross, the US isn't a Christians-only country, there's no reason to have government memorials just for Christians. And same for firesighters. As for city seals, no, you do not have a "right" to have your religious symbols on city seals. "I could go on and on, and on, but the fact is that atheists, and those pursuing secular goals, have attempted to impinge on the religious rights of Americans" Sorry, what you call "rights" are not what I call rights. Some of what you are complaining about above are actually Christians losing special privileges and atheists finally being treated equally, such as the Santa Monica story or the atheist monument (which was put up in response to a ten commandments monument on the same public property).

Hmmmm, so now I'm not entitled to express any opinion on my beliefs? You can babble all you want; however, I'll keep noting that you don't back up what you claim. So, here's how it goes. In this country, under the Bill of Rights, I have the freedom to express my opinions in a free-thinking society uninhibited by bullies, distractors, or any thing else that would keep me from that process of expression. Wrong. You can express your opinion, and people can criticize what you say, call you names, or any number of things because THEY ALSO have freedom of speech. But notice none of these actions keep you from expressing yourself, so the last part of your sentence is wrong in that you haven't given an example of anything that keeps you from that process of expression. The key to the whole thing is, tolerance allows a person to politely listen, consider it, judge it, and if the conclusion doesn't suit the listener, they can then express their opinions under the same conditions and the two can either further dialog it or walk away. Only the bully will remain and attempt to intimidate the other into silence. Too damn bad for tender ears like yours -- should I fetch your fainting couch? Other people have first amendment rights, and they aren't restricted to polite speech. By the way, feel free to cut/paste any of my comments where I attacked you personally. When did I say you attacked me personally? Is this another bizarre non-sequitur of yours? By the way, what's an example of this US religious intolerance you say exists? Is it like bigfoot -- you have to believe it exists before you can see it?

So then the US government can prejudiciously stereotype Christian groups the way those groups are perceived to stereotype others? Nope, stereotyping is not the same as deliberately using discredited studies. One group is a hate group for stereotyping but the group that stereotypes them is not? Nope. But you don't understand things. If the Thought Police are ever turned out in force, we'd all be arrested. I kinda thought one had to actually DO something to commit a crime. Be as paranoid as you like, I find your paranoia entertaining.

"Why are you trying to avoid having to back up your own assertions and putting the onus on me?" Same reason for why the victim would be expected to prove intolerance against the bully? The bully never sees their action as being intolerant. Look, YOU MADE A CLAIM. Back it up or shut up. Where was the ACLU? What did the ACLU say when he contacted them? Or do you think they employ mindreaders? I would have thought they would have been first in line to jump on this one. FIRE did, and they've already filed a lawsuit, so what is there for the ACLU to do now? By the way, how is this RELIGIOUS intolerance, like you keep saying but never backing up?

Has the military in any of those countries defined Christianity as a hate group in any of those countries like it has in ours? That hasn't happened. What HAS happened is that a specific organization, the Family Research Council, has been designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center because they use discredited studies to deliberately lie about gays.

Just off the top of my head, Canada has some criminal hate speech laws that would make it illegal to promote some (mostly conservative) religious positions on, say, gays or women, the UK still has an official religion that gets tax money and Christianity is supposed to be pushed in government schools (though it's widely ignored). Don't know enough of Australia or NZ to make a pertinent contrast.

Let's go for the shorter list, show me examples where atheists have been tolerant towards any other religion. Try and be as specific as possible. Why are you trying to avoid having to back up your own assertions and putting the onus on me? You're the one making claims: "If the US is truly a religiously tolerant country, why would any one have to compromise the "free expression" of their beliefs or have to alter them to accommodate someone else's complaint." You have yet to produce an example of what you mean. Plus, you're shifting the goalposts. We've been talking about the US being tolerant, but now you come back and, out of nowhere, ask about where atheists have been tolerant towards any other religion. And then you make another non-sequitur and change to the ACLU and a contract dispute. What's that got to do with whether the US is a religiously tolerant country?

Sorry you don't believe that, I do believe that tolerance is a two-way street. Now you can't even read. I clearly wrote "I don't believe that" in response to you writing "If you don't believe tolerance is a two-way street" I do believe tolerance is a two-way street. I have yet to see you post a specific example of non-tolerance.

Sorry, I'm tired of your bait tactics. Translation: you have no actual examples. If you don't believe tolerance is a two-way street, just say so, and give examples. I don't believe that, but I don't believe you have any actual examples of non-tolerance, either.

If the US is truly a religiously tolerant country, why would any one have to compromise the "free expression" of their beliefs or have to alter them to accommodate someone else's complaint. The tolerance is a two-way street. I know it's futile to ask, but DO YOU HAVE A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE INSTEAD OF YOUR USUAL VAGUE HANDWAVING? You know what a specific example is, don't you? Something that actually happened, with people who have real names. Not made up fantasies.

I've already tried; you're simply ineducable about evolution, as you've already made up your mind.

So Merlyn can spend all day long asking for evidence when he knows full well, there isn't any. Not coming from you, no. I could ask for evidence of any missing link and he couldn't produce any either. Because you don't understand the first thing about evolution.

In this case liberals are excoriating the majority (70+%) for being the majority. No, for violating the constitution. Using public property to promote just the majority religion is unconstitutional. You need to compare apples to apples. the fact that there hasn't been an atheist monument says nothing about the country, other than athiests didn't get up off their asses to do it until now. Wrong. Christians put up their monuments unlawfully, and they stay up only because the majority looks the other way when Christians ignore the constitution. Atheists don't even GET a chance to put up a monument. If you don't agree with me I will destroy you rather than build my own. Removing unlawful monuments from public property is not "destroying" anything. Such monuments are typically just moved to private property, where they ought to have been erected on in the first place. If Christians would stop putting up monuments illegally, you would never see this happen again; it's due to their repeated violations that it keeps happening.

The first and easier is to remove them, the second and harder is to welcome all comers That's pretty easy, it's a public forum. When the choice always seems to fall to the former, rather than the latter, the implication is we are becoming god-less or at least icon-less. To me, the implication is that the government is staying out of religion, like it should. There are plenty of religious symbols on private property in the US. The typical sequence is that some (typically Christian) religious symbol is put up on public property until there's a lawsuit. The net result is that religious symbols of the majority get put up unlawfully all the time, and lots of people think removing these unlawfully erected symbols is some kind of religious oppression. Now, to give you some idea how Christian hegemony steamrollers over the public square with religious junk, the first monument on atheism erected on public land in a public forum happened only earlier this year, as compared to decades of Christian monuments. And the only reason it's a public forum is again, a group of Christians decided to unlawfully push their religion by erecting a ten commandments monument on public property, and when the inevitable lawsuit arrived, the county asked the group that put up the ten commandments to remove it, but that group refused and also threatened a lawsuit. So the county made it a public forum instead to avoid both lawsuits, and a group of atheists put up a monument, too.

You gave me handwaving, you have yet to produce an actual example.

Well then, I'm just waiting for an example of how the US is an atheist country.

Okay, two examples of where the US government did NOT stay neutral as has been claimed. Who's been asking for such examples? Here's what I HAVE been asking for: "By the way, do you have a specific example of how the US is an atheist country, as you claim?" I don't know of any atheists involved in either Wounded Knee or preventing Utah from having legal polygamy, nor do I see how either is specifically promoting atheism. Since Wounded Knee concerned a non-Christian religion being oppressed, and many Christians don't consider Mormonism to be a sect of Christianity, why aren't the two events you've (finally) cited show that the US is a Christian nation? I would say both involve a lot of Christian hegemony.

No, I'd like you to actually list one specific example that shows the US is now an atheist nation. PS: we are both the same species, you are not a subspecies of my species.

Oh, how I wish that were true. That's what it might mean to you, but like everyone else, they have a different perspective they are coming from. As one coming from the atheist point of view, of course you can't see it, your ox isn't getting gored. And again, you offer NO examples. That's why I can't see it. Removal of religious pictures, posters, memorials from schools, government buildings and public property. Mormons told they couldn't join the United States as the state of Utah unless they first remove their religious practice of polygamy. Christian organizations that were dictated they had to provide contraceptives to their employees. School organization deprived of membership like other groups. Christian groups are required to allow non-Christians into their group including holding office in the group. Christian organizations that restrict employment to members only is illegal. Certain Christian activities for their members prohibited on public property. Schools couldn't perform Christian music at performances. Movement to drop "God" from the pledge and currency. Movement in the news today to drop "God" from the Air Force Oath. Government agencies identifying Christian groups as terrorists. Military chaplains dictated what they can and cannot do. You have a real problem with the word "specific", don't you? The above are ALL vague generalizations. For example, your first line: Removal of religious pictures, posters, memorials from schools, government buildings and public property Various religious items have been removed from PUBLIC schools (not private), government buildings and public property, because the government isn't being neutral if they have religious items displayed as if the government is promoting that religion. But SINCE YOU STILL HAVEN'T GIVEN ANY *SPECIFIC* EXAMPLES, I'M NOT GOING TO GUESS WHAT SPECIFIC EVENTS YOU ARE REFERRING TO. Oh, my, the list goes on and on and on and on and on. And yet, no specific examples. So, if one take God out of everything associated with religion in government, what have you established? A god-less nation. Nope. A blank wall does not promote godlessness. You may change your tune when the bomb goes off and gunfire starts at your local mall. What's that got to do with the fact that the US is not an atheist or a Christian country? Are you trying to demonstrate by example that it's impossible to reason with religious fanatics?

Separation of Church and State which means the US is non-religious, i.e. according to atheistic principles, godless. No, it means the government is neutral on religion. examples? Attach anything that smacks of religion, Christian, Judean, Hindu, or Buddhist. Islam is off limits right now because they don't want to be seen anti-Muslim in the light of today's political environment. You don't even know what an example is. You have to relate an actual event. The above is just handwaving, you've cited no actual events. And what make one think the world of Islam thinks we are the Great Satan? Oh, yeah, they see us as godless as well. So what?

I don't think anyone else on this forum agrees with your peculiar view of evolution, much less actual scientists. By the way, do you have a specific example of how the US is an atheist country, as you claim?

No, I can't, because that's your delusion. Evolution is science.