Facts About Atheists according to Pew

[Stosh]

Yes, the ACLU has defended many religious tolerance cases. And the one Jblake notes has nothing to do with religion, as far as I can see. And our athiest friends often do not get the understanding they deserve. And the so-called Christian right often does not allow for other types of faith.

We still have a better time of it than , I think, any other country in the world. We do have the means to discuss (not just cuss) and, depending on what Holy Script you follow (and often what PART of that script), the basis for finding out where we agree and where we part company. And for that, I give thanks.

So then the US government can prejudiciously stereotype Christian groups the way those groups are perceived to stereotype others?

 

Hmmm, do the math. One group is a hate group for stereotyping but the group that stereotypes them is not? Okay, that adds up for me too.

 

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.

 

Stosh

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

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.

 

 

 

"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?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Yes, the ACLU has defended many religious tolerance cases. And the one Jblake notes has nothing to do with religion, as far as I can see. And our athiest friends often do not get the understanding they deserve. And the so-called Christian right often does not allow for other types of faith.

We still have a better time of it than , I think, any other country in the world. We do have the means to discuss (not just cuss) and, depending on what Holy Script you follow (and often what PART of that script), the basis for finding out where we agree and where we part company. And for that, I give thanks.

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.

[Stosh]

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.

 

 

 

"Look, YOU MADE A CLAIM. Back it up or shut up."

 

Hmmmm, so now I'm not entitled to express any opinion on my beliefs? I was wondering how long it was going to take you to finally get around to the real issue.

 

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.

 

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.

 

By the way, feel free to cut/paste any of my comments where I attacked you personally. Want me to do it too?

 

Stosh

[Stosh]

"The line between investigating and persecuting is a very fine one and the junior Senator from Wisconsin has stepped over it repeatedly. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep into our own history and our doctrine and remember that we are not descended from fearful men, not men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes which were for the moment unpopular. This is no time for men who oppose Senator McCarthty's methods to keep silent. We can deny our heritage and our history, but we cannot escape responsibility for the result." - Edward R. Murrow

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

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.

 

 

 

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?

[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.

So let me get this straight. You claim Christians are persecuted and when shown evidence of Christians in government persecuting another religion you chalk it up to "crabby" ?

[Stosh]

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.

 

 

 

Isn't it strange that civility and civilization both come from the same root word?

[AZMike]

jblake47: 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.

 

Merlyn: I know it's futile to ask, but DO YOU HAVE A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE INSTEAD OF YOUR USUAL VAGUE HANDWAVING?

 

Well, for starters:

 

Numerous Christian business owners are being told by the state they have to provide services for LGBT weddings that their religious beliefs oppose, or lose their livelihoods:

 

Some examples:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1721093.html

 

http://www.kcci.com/Wedding-Cake-Bat...w/-/index.html

 

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/A...=video&c=y

 

http://blog.timesunion.com/kristi/li...-couple/51576/

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3720447.html

 

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/new...469e212ca.html

 

http://news.yahoo.com/judge-stays-wa...234245194.html

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/20/us...mont.html?_r=0

 

Catholic adoption agencies have lost their state funding because they can't assist LGBT couples to adopt children, in violation of their consciences.

 

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...wgh.asp?page=1

 

 

[AZMike]

Atheists have sued the IRS over not clamping down on ministers claiming the right of free expression from the pulpit

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/15/atheists-sue-irs-for-pulpit-freedom-sunday/

 

The government claims their HHS contraception and abortifacient mandate trumps an enumerated constitutional right, and that individuals can't claim religious freedoms when operating their businesses (but they just got their hand slapped by the D.C. Appellate Court this week, which may affect some of the cases above...:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/02/us/court-rules-contraception-mandate-infringes-on-religious-freedom.html

 

An atheist pressure group demands the military punish a military chaplain for exercising his First Amendment rights, because their feelings might be hurt:

 

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/07/24/Military-Censors-Christian-Chaplain-Atheists-Call-for-Punishment

 

Atheists in Santa Monica have misused the civic process to prevent Christians and Jews from erecting religious displays, as allowed by law:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/22/us/california-nativity-atheists/index.html?_s=PM:US

 

An atheist group fought to prevent a school from allowing a school to take kids to a church to watch a Peanuts cartoon:

 

http://atlanta.cbslocal.com/2012/11/20/atheist-group-backs-parents-who-are-upset-school-wants-to-take-kids-to-see-charlie-brown-christmas-at-church/

 

Atheists have erected their own monuments to their faith on public land, incidentally, using a nonsensical quote from that old dingbat atheist leader, Madlyn Murray O'Hare:

 

http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/06/28/unveiling-americas-first-public-monument-to-atheism/

 

[packsaddle]

jblake47: 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.

 

Merlyn: I know it's futile to ask, but DO YOU HAVE A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE INSTEAD OF YOUR USUAL VAGUE HANDWAVING?

 

Well, for starters:

 

Numerous Christian business owners are being told by the state they have to provide services for LGBT weddings that their religious beliefs oppose, or lose their livelihoods:

 

Some examples:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1721093.html

 

http://www.kcci.com/Wedding-Cake-Bat...w/-/index.html

 

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/A...=video&c=y

 

http://blog.timesunion.com/kristi/li...-couple/51576/

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3720447.html

 

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/new...469e212ca.html

 

http://news.yahoo.com/judge-stays-wa...234245194.html

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/20/us...mont.html?_r=0

 

Catholic adoption agencies have lost their state funding because they can't assist LGBT couples to adopt children, in violation of their consciences.

 

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...wgh.asp?page=1

 

AZMike, do you think a religious belief is a legitimate basis to break a law?

[AZMike]

State-funded colleges have demanded that religious clubs must allow people must not prohibit those who do not hold those religious beliefs from joining or becoming officers, in violation of the enumerated constitutional right to Freedom of Association:

 

http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/31/vanderbilt-to-religious-students-are-your-beliefs-really-that-important/

 

The American Atheists Association has sued to prevent the 9-11 Cross from being displayed in the 9-11 Museum.

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/316303/atheists-vs-911-cross-nathaniel-botwinick#

 

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:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/25/thomas-menino-boston-mayor-chick-fil-a-letter_n_1703770.html

 

Atheist groups have tried to remove two 13 foot crosses in a remote area of Camp Pendleton erected as a war monument to fallen Marines:

 

http://radio.foxnews.com/2012/04/12/atheist-groups-want-memorial-for-fallen-marines-removed-video/

 

Atheists tried to remove the name "Seven in Heaven" next to a fire station which lost 7 firefighters in 9-11

 

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/07/12/why-religious-freedom-should-be-precious-to-all/

 

An atheist group intimidated a city into dropping a historic Chtristian landmark from its seal (which begs the question - why don't they have a problem with San Francisco, San Diego, Los Angeles, Corpus Christi, and thousands of other historic place names that honor our Christian heritage?):

 

http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/faith-and-morals/item/12277-atheist-group-intimidates-ohio-city-into-dropping-historic-christian-landmark-from-logo/12277-atheist-group-intimidates-ohio-city-into-dropping-historic-christian-landmark-from-logo?start=3

 

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, and the right of religious beliefs to have a place in the marketplace of ideas.

[Stosh]

The philosophy of the basis of their thinking is rooted in the creation of the world without God's intervention, i.e. evolution. According to them, everything we have and are simply evolved from natural causes.

 

No problem with this, except it is diametrically opposite to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, one God created it. They have shed their various mythology stories along the way, but the dynamics of their beliefs have remained constant throughout history. Yes, there are people of these three religious beliefs that believe in evolution, but the struggle against heresies has always been there as well especially when it is packaged as pretty tempting philosophy. Looks good on the surface, but once you peel back a couple of layers, things fall apart pretty quickly.

 

AZMike, you are never going to convince people who do such things that they are doing anything wrong, they are masters of working within and manipulating the "systems" of this world. They are of this world because they have no God. Jews, Christians and Muslims have been persecuted over the years starting right from the very beginning. You are seeing a pretty mild form of persecution compared to what these heresies and human idolatry have done in the past. I have to admit, I admire the religious tenacity of the Jews and Muslims, who have hung on to their faith a lot stronger than Christians have. Of course they have been persecuted a lot more and that may be the reason for it.

 

Christianity was a lot stronger when it was persecuted, so what you are describing in your post doesn't surprise me, but it doesn't concern me much either. It's just a matter of time before they find some new de jour to complain about. Tolerance is not their strong point. For a Christian, it is a virtue.

 

Once you Name the enemy, it looses its power over you. Ask your Jewish friends that that means, they'll know.

 

Stosh

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

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).

 

[skeptic]

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).

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. So, the non-religious rights take precedence over the religious rights? I still have a hard time understanding how these individuals are "harmed" by simply seeing or hearing something with a religious significance or symbolism. Seems that they do not have much self assurance if these things have such emotional impact on them. 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. The scale of justice or whatever is out of balance from my perspective. 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. 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.