Facts About Atheists according to Pew

[Stosh]

It's a bit higher than that, as the poll also says "More Americans say they do not believe in God or a universal spirit (7%) than say they are atheists (2.4%)", so it's more like 7% and 93%, but I assume part of jblake47's definition of "impact" are things like the removal of ten commandment monuments from public school property, so you can't simply compare 7% vs. 93% as part of that 93% agree with the government being neutral on religion. The head of Americans United for Separation of Church and State has been a UCC minister for decades.

I gave you the answer. Just because you didn't like it doesn't mean it wasn't an answer.

 

Stosh

[ghjim]

It's a bit higher than that, as the poll also says "More Americans say they do not believe in God or a universal spirit (7%) than say they are atheists (2.4%)", so it's more like 7% and 93%, but I assume part of jblake47's definition of "impact" are things like the removal of ten commandment monuments from public school property, so you can't simply compare 7% vs. 93% as part of that 93% agree with the government being neutral on religion. The head of Americans United for Separation of Church and State has been a UCC minister for decades.

I agree in that the 2.4% don't have that much impact on the "rest" The "rest" aren't all religious fanatics. There are a huge number of Christians who want separation of church and state.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

It's a bit higher than that, as the poll also says "More Americans say they do not believe in God or a universal spirit (7%) than say they are atheists (2.4%)", so it's more like 7% and 93%, but I assume part of jblake47's definition of "impact" are things like the removal of ten commandment monuments from public school property, so you can't simply compare 7% vs. 93% as part of that 93% agree with the government being neutral on religion. The head of Americans United for Separation of Church and State has been a UCC minister for decades.

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

[King Ding Dong]

It's a bit higher than that, as the poll also says "More Americans say they do not believe in God or a universal spirit (7%) than say they are atheists (2.4%)", so it's more like 7% and 93%, but I assume part of jblake47's definition of "impact" are things like the removal of ten commandment monuments from public school property, so you can't simply compare 7% vs. 93% as part of that 93% agree with the government being neutral on religion. The head of Americans United for Separation of Church and State has been a UCC minister for decades.

How is requiring a territory to conform with US law if it wants statehood persecution ? Just because a religion has certain beliefs and practices does not mean it gets to ignore US law. Should we allow honor killings ? Marriage of minors ? slavery ? All in the name of religious beliefs and practices ?

 

Has the US Government persecuted religions in the distant past ? Sure, history is full of examples. What current persecution does it practice ?

[packsaddle]

It's a bit higher than that, as the poll also says "More Americans say they do not believe in God or a universal spirit (7%) than say they are atheists (2.4%)", so it's more like 7% and 93%, but I assume part of jblake47's definition of "impact" are things like the removal of ten commandment monuments from public school property, so you can't simply compare 7% vs. 93% as part of that 93% agree with the government being neutral on religion. The head of Americans United for Separation of Church and State has been a UCC minister for decades.

"Oh, and by the way, the Church of Jesus Christ, Latter Day Saints is not Christian? What say ye, LDS scouters?"

 

I am not LDS but I asked this question years ago in these forums. Stosh might not have remember the answer but I do. The result was mixed. Some LDS persons consider themselves to be Christian, others don't. The response wasn't large enough to try to calculate what fraction each represented but suffice to say....even LDS members are mixed in their answer to that question.

[walk in the woods]

It's a bit higher than that, as the poll also says "More Americans say they do not believe in God or a universal spirit (7%) than say they are atheists (2.4%)", so it's more like 7% and 93%, but I assume part of jblake47's definition of "impact" are things like the removal of ten commandment monuments from public school property, so you can't simply compare 7% vs. 93% as part of that 93% agree with the government being neutral on religion. The head of Americans United for Separation of Church and State has been a UCC minister for decades.

From lds.org: We bear testimony, as His duly ordained Apostlesâ€â€that Jesus is the Living Christ, the immortal Son of God. He is the great King Immanuel, who stands today on the right hand of His Father. He is the light, the life, and the hope of the world. His way is the path that leads to happiness in this life and eternal life in the world to come. God be thanked for the matchless gift of His divine Son. (http://jesuschrist.lds.org/SonOfGod/eng/testimonies-of-him/articles/the-living-christ-the-testimony-of-the-apostles-of-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints). My understanding is the Mormon Theology doesn't hold up the triune God but that's just my understanding.

[walk in the woods]

I'm just a simple IT guy but to Stosh's point, there are a couple of ways to deal with religious elements in the public space. The first and easier is to remove them, the second and harder is to welcome all comers. My understanding is either will pass muster in the public square. 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.

[SSScout]

Well, how 'bout a ""Faith and Chaplaincy Sub Forum""?

As a Jambo Chaplain, I can say there is alot of religiosity out in Scout Land. I think the difference is more in people seeing less necessity in ritual, than in belief. I have met alot of "I'm a catholic but..." folks of late. And similarly in other faiths, " I'm an XYZ but...". Have you read the new MoU from the Lutheran Missouri Synod? There has been a raprochment (sp?) between the BSA and the late anti-BSA synod. http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/lutheran_misso_synod.pdf .

In the District I Commish, I sense a desire among Units to accomodate (yes, there is one home school evangelical Catholic Troop that is very exclusionary and may not recharter this year.) different faiths, even the professed agnostic or athiest.

 

 

 

 

[King Ding Dong]

I'm just a simple IT guy but to Stosh's point, there are a couple of ways to deal with religious elements in the public space. The first and easier is to remove them, the second and harder is to welcome all comers. My understanding is either will pass muster in the public square. 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.

For some reason when you insist on equal time for the FSM the former usually gets chosen.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

I'm just a simple IT guy but to Stosh's point, there are a couple of ways to deal with religious elements in the public space. The first and easier is to remove them, the second and harder is to welcome all comers. My understanding is either will pass muster in the public square. 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.

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.

[walk in the woods]

I'm just a simple IT guy but to Stosh's point, there are a couple of ways to deal with religious elements in the public space. The first and easier is to remove them, the second and harder is to welcome all comers. My understanding is either will pass muster in the public square. 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.

Not so sure Merlin, seems to me like Liberals talk out of both sides of their mouths on most issues. Three weeks ago a small group of house conservatives, representing their constituents, were excoriated on this site because a small minority of the government were holding the budget hostage. In this case liberals are excoriating the majority (70+%) for being the majority. 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. KDD, if the pastafarians want a monument then they should get up off their asses and demand equal access, instead, no, they demand the removal of others. Again, typical Liberal logic. If you don't agree with me I will destroy you rather than build my own. I believe all religions or non-religions should have free access to the public square. I'll deal with mine, you deal with yours.

[Stosh]

It's a bit higher than that, as the poll also says "More Americans say they do not believe in God or a universal spirit (7%) than say they are atheists (2.4%)", so it's more like 7% and 93%, but I assume part of jblake47's definition of "impact" are things like the removal of ten commandment monuments from public school property, so you can't simply compare 7% vs. 93% as part of that 93% agree with the government being neutral on religion. The head of Americans United for Separation of Church and State has been a UCC minister for decades.

Kinda sounds like any other Christian group to me. Of course, every Catholic, Lutheran and Baptist follow the letter of the law of their denominations too.

 

And I'm the accused of attaching other faith groups? Yeah right. I'm not Mormon, but I defend their right to be anything they want to be, if they claim witness to Christ, then they are Christian. I think there is a biblical verse that addresses this whole issue when the disciples of Jesus were complaining that others, not of their group, were witnessing about Him. Jesus' retort was not what they wanted to hear.

 

AND, just for fun, show me where in Biblical Scriptures, polygamy is prohibited. It's just man-made rule, not a Biblical principle.

 

Polygamy - having one too many wives.

Monogamy - having one too many wives at times.

 

 

Stosh

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

I'm just a simple IT guy but to Stosh's point, there are a couple of ways to deal with religious elements in the public space. The first and easier is to remove them, the second and harder is to welcome all comers. My understanding is either will pass muster in the public square. 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.

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.

[Stosh]

I'm just a simple IT guy but to Stosh's point, there are a couple of ways to deal with religious elements in the public space. The first and easier is to remove them, the second and harder is to welcome all comers. My understanding is either will pass muster in the public square. 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.

The Public Square used to be a place where everyone was allowed to gather for the exchange of dialog amongst free thinkers. I think this was at one time allowed in the US. Any ideas EXCEPT religion. I don't remember that little bit of bigotry being in there.

 

I guess it would look pretty stupid to put up a "God is Dead" monument right next to a Cross.

 

Stosh

[King Ding Dong]

I'm just a simple IT guy but to Stosh's point, there are a couple of ways to deal with religious elements in the public space. The first and easier is to remove them, the second and harder is to welcome all comers. My understanding is either will pass muster in the public square. 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.

DC, I think you will be hard pressed to find an instance of Pastafarians demanding the removal of religious symbols. Quite the opposite. Christians tend to get very upset when FSM displays are erected.

 

One example of Pastafarians being persecuted by Christians.

 

http://www.examiner.com/article/pastafarian-holiday-tree-rejected