The Sad Radicals- atheists with a deep, abiding faith in their own oppression

[indiucky]

I never understood the outrage to religious symbols...ANY religious symbols. As long as I not forced to bend to one religion or the other, I'm good with religious symbols in schools, gov buildings, even public prayer. Being exposed to them or viewing them does not infringe on my rights and beliefs. I always opt out of praying with the groups but who would know without reading my mind...and then we all happily move on. Religious beliefs, or lack thereof, come from the inside out, not the outside in. Arguing about their beliefs or seeing religious symbols has likely NEVER changed a person's deeply held beliefs. It is a choice from within. People get wound too tight these days.

You're a good man Denny......

The best argument I ever heard regarding teaching the bible in Western Schools came from Christopher Hitchens on C Span...Blew the interviewers mind...then Hitch made his case...

 

[KG1]

I never understood the outrage to religious symbols...ANY religious symbols. As long as I not forced to bend to one religion or the other, I'm good with religious symbols in schools, gov buildings, even public prayer. Being exposed to them or viewing them does not infringe on my rights and beliefs. I always opt out of praying with the groups but who would know without reading my mind...and then we all happily move on. Religious beliefs, or lack thereof, come from the inside out, not the outside in. Arguing about their beliefs or seeing religious symbols has likely NEVER changed a person's deeply held beliefs. It is a choice from within. People get wound too tight these days.

This comes from someone that is comfortable and confident in what they believe. I can respect that and I appreciate the respect in return.

I’m not trying to get into anybody’s face when I celebrate my beliefs.

Well said Denny.

 

[KLB]

I never understood the outrage to religious symbols...ANY religious symbols. As long as I not forced to bend to one religion or the other, I'm good with religious symbols in schools, gov buildings, even public prayer. Being exposed to them or viewing them does not infringe on my rights and beliefs. I always opt out of praying with the groups but who would know without reading my mind...and then we all happily move on. Religious beliefs, or lack thereof, come from the inside out, not the outside in. Arguing about their beliefs or seeing religious symbols has likely NEVER changed a person's deeply held beliefs. It is a choice from within. People get wound too tight these days.

Couldn't have said it better. This is exactly how I feel about the subject.

 

[NKBJ]

Religious symbols...

If I know that there are religions that need to be stomped out should I know that the symbols of that religion need to be banned?
That gets into some pretty sticky wickets.

And what symbols are those orthodox atheists using these days?

 

[Trigger Time]

I didn't lie to my kid. Never did the Santa bull****. I guess I'm a dick.

I never celebrated holidays growing up at all. I never knew it so besides being different from the other kids, it never bothered me because I never knew of celebrating it to ever lose it. I dont think you are a dick for not lying to your kids about Santa but I'm sure you wouldnt walk into an elementary school and tell the class that Santa is made up. Right?
I firmly believe in a parents right to raise their kids how they see fit. Not the government, but parents. As long as that child is well cared for, not neglected. I think we can all agree here.
Like I said though, I do not have a problem with a person who doesnt believe. I'm a very non hard core Christian. I dont like it when other believers constantly stand on a pulpit or throw it in peoples faces good natured or not. Same thing for non believers.
I rarely tell someone publicly "I'll pray for you" even. I try to do it via rep comment. If I'm out of rep I'll say it openly rather than bug someone with a 4 word or so PM. I'm a laid back dude when it comes to faith. I truly want us all to get along and be able to believe the way we want.
And I certainly 100% do not believe I am better than anyone else because I believe and they dont or one person is more Christian than another ect. No no no. I dont think that way. My beliefs actualy I believe tell me NOT to judge anyone.

 

[Denny347]

And what symbols are those orthodox atheists using these days?

 

[Denny347]

Amen! (See what I did there? )

 

[jamil]

Religious symbols...

If I know that there are religions that need to be stomped out should I know that the symbols of that religion need to be banned?
That gets into some pretty sticky wickets.

And what symbols are those orthodox atheists using these days?

Whi are you to judge what needs stamped out? In a free society we regulate rights infringing or objectively immoral behaviors, not beliefs. You can believe in human sacrifices all you want, but you behave that belief, and we lock you up.

 

[NKBJ]

Whi are you to judge what needs stamped out? In a free society we regulate rights infringing or objectively immoral behaviors, not beliefs. You can believe in human sacrifices all you want, but you behave that belief, and we lock you up.

I am me, an individual in a representative republic that has a form of government only suited to a people that is self-regulating, moral and religious. It's my responsibility to decide what what will be accepted or not (and therefore stomped out) and to provide (through voting) representatives who reflect my value judgements to maintain and to safeguard the culture and the social structure that I hold dear. To do any less is to be negligent. As religion is the source of all laws our religion dictates our beliefs in what is right and what is wrong.
Now, what part of that did were you sleeping through class or were you in school after the commies took over education?

 

[indiucky]

And a Hymn....

[video=youtube;xmwAD7nHqaY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmwAD7nHqaY[/video]

 

[DoggyDaddy]

And a Hymn....

[video=youtube;xmwAD7nHqaY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmwAD7nHqaY[/video]

South Park was running a Mr. Hankey Christmas marathon of sorts last night and one of the episodes had Jesus and Santa on stage singing a medley of Christmas songs. Jesus was singing the traditional Christian hymns ("jazzed up" of course), then Santa would sing a song about him. Anytime "St. Nick" or "Santa" or "Jesus", "God", "The Lord", etc. were in the song, each would substitute "me" in the lyrics.

Shortly into the medley, Santa ran out of songs and got ticked, saying "C'mon! There's like 300 Jesus songs and only 4 Santa songs!" and stormed off stage. Jesus then started singing one of the "religion neutral" seasonal songs (might have been "Let it Snow") and off stage, you could hear Santa let out an "Awwww..." and he comes back on stage and joins in again. I thought of this thread and was cracking up.

 

[indiucky]

South Park was running a Mr. Hankey Christmas marathon of sorts last night and one of the episodes had Jesus and Santa on stage singing a medley of Christmas songs. Jesus was singing the traditional Christian hymns ("jazzed up" of course), then Santa would sing a song about him. Anytime "St. Nick" or "Santa" or "Jesus", "God", "The Lord", etc. were in the song, each would substitute "me" in the lyrics.

Shortly into the medley, Santa ran out of songs and got ticked, saying "C'mon! There's like 300 Jesus songs and only 4 Santa songs!" and stormed off stage. Jesus then started singing one of the "religion neutral" seasonal songs (might have been "Let it Snow") and off stage, you could hear Santa let out an "Awwww..." and he comes back on stage and joins in again. I thought of this thread and was cracking up.

I remember that episode....

[video=youtube;6t51qibwnmE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6t51qibwnmE[/video]

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I remember that episode....

[video=youtube;6t51qibwnmE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6t51qibwnmE[/video]

That's the one!

 

[jamil]

I am me, an individual in a representative republic that has a form of government only suited to a people that is self-regulating, moral and religious. It's my responsibility to decide what what will be accepted or not (and therefore stomped out) and to provide (through voting) representatives who reflect my value judgements to maintain and to safeguard the culture and the social structure that I hold dear. To do any less is to be negligent. As religion is the source of all laws our religion dictates our beliefs in what is right and what is wrong.
Now, what part of that did were you sleeping through class or were you in school after the commies took over education?

Well, I wasn't sleeping through the part where the 1st amendment was discussed. You can ban some behaviors. You can't ban belief. You can't stomp out beliefs you don't like. At least not yet. We've not been completely overrun by authoritarian **********s. Yet.

 

[ajeandy]

Some of the posts in this thread are on a cult-like level and that's the problem I have with some peoples' idea of organized religion. Practice and believe in what you like, but when you start talking about stomping things out that you don't agree with or believe in based on your religious views that's where you cross the sanity line and find yourself in the cult circle.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Some of the posts in this thread are on a cult-like level and that's the problem I have with some peoples' idea of organized religion. Practice and believe in what you like, but when you start talking about stomping things out that you don't agree with or believe in based on your religious views that's where you cross the sanity line and find yourself in the cult circle.

Or stomp out things you don't agree with and don't believe in based on your non-religious views. Same same.

 

[ajeandy]

Or stomp out things you don't agree with and don't believe in based on your non-religious views. Same same.

There’s a big difference when you’re trying to mandate what people can and can’t do by law.

For example, many things people try to do in the name of religion RESTRICT others.

I’ll give you a prime example that has certain people up in arms.

Allowing marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

Some say this violates the “sanctity of marriage”

If you truely believe this then you should have no problem abolishing any mention of marriage from any law and absolving any medical or governmental benefits from being “married.”

 

[DoggyDaddy]

There’s a big difference when you’re trying to mandate what people can and can’t do by law.

For example, many things people try to do in the name of religion RESTRICT others.

I’ll give you a prime example that has certain people up in arms.

Allowing marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

Some say this violates the “sanctity of marriage”

If you truely believe this then you should have no problem abolishing any mention of marriage from any law and absolving any medical or governmental benefits from being “married.”

How was that stomped out? It's been allowed, especially recently, not stomped out.

If you want to talk about "stomping things out", let's talk about removing things from public display that have been on display for decades with no issue. Now all of a sudden those things are offensive? Why weren't they offensive 20, 40, 100 years ago? That's happening now. Statues being torn down, anything remotely "religious" being removed from the public square so to speak, etc. Are you trying to say that we've all been wrong for over 200 years and "some" people have now become enlightened enough to declare that their non-belief should be the law of the land? Talk about a first amendment violation. That's the very definition of "establishing a religion". Calling it non-belief doesn't make it anything less than a belief, aka a religion.

 

[Mongo59]

The premise of law from Biblical times (until recently) operates under the assumption that people will be trying to get along with each other. This is the only way for any lawful system to prevail.

The way this was taught/instilled in the population was Levitical law required there cannot be a "tie" when suits were brought. There had to be a winner and a looser.

For example: I charge my neighbor with killing my goat. I need to have two witnesses that come before the elders with me and present my case. If the elders find for the neighbor, saying my case had no merit, then I owe my neighbor a goat just like what I was trying to get from him. I get pissed and rant and rave to everyone in the whole community about the wrong the neighbor and the elders have done to me. The neighbor has no trouble finding at least two witnesses to the slander I have been bringing against him and at the same gate where the elders sat when I brought my original case, I will be judged and fined further for my infraction.

No one says you can't bring suit, but you have to be willing to pay the price. This is why you find verses in the Bible pertaining to: "Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still together on the way, or your adversary may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison."

Frivolous cases disappear. We all just try and get along. We teach people that you are to be held accountable for your own words. No person is an island unto themselves and like it or not they do become a part of the society in which they choose to live.

This means it is all of our jobs to "drain the swamp" but to do it in a empathetic loving kind of way. A way that encourages participation rather than separates and drives apart. That gets everyone understanding and pulling together rather than a tug of war or a pissing contest.

This is how things get done, with the understanding and voluntary assistance of all parties involved rather than despite the resistance of the weak or minority.

Boy oh boy, it sounds so simple, doesn't it? The problem is that "we" have been lavished in entitlement so long it doesn't even make sense anymore. We lavish in a system provided by the service and sacrifice of others and then defecate on the laws that these servants had provided us.

Don't you find it odd that the way we preserve our way of life is to get the young to sign away the very rights we will be having them fight for, to live under a separate set of laws than those we want them to defend. To divorce themselves of the unique individuality provided by the founding articles they swear to preserve.

Maybe it is time that we all wake up and realize that what we demand of these youth is a conundrum their own minds sometimes break trying to rationalize, that being: for us to have "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" in the end will require them to deny someone else of "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness".

Even having to consider this is painful. It contends with everything that was taught in those classes we took in school on society and social activity, it will make most Americans gasp at the mention, but that doesn't make it any less true.

So, when we use these "rights" to bash, stomp out, restrict or otherwise subjugate ANYONE, that is not what "rights" mean... it is what we have made them.

 

[jamil]

How was that stomped out? It's been allowed, especially recently, not stomped out.

If you want to talk about "stomping things out", let's talk about removing things from public display that have been on display for decades with no issue. Now all of a sudden those things are offensive? Why weren't they offensive 20, 40, 100 years ago? That's happening now. Statues being torn down, anything remotely "religious" being removed from the public square so to speak, etc. Are you trying to say that we've all been wrong for over 200 years and "some" people have now become enlightened enough to declare that their non-belief should be the law of the land? Talk about a first amendment violation. That's the very definition of "establishing a religion". Calling it non-belief doesn't make it anything less than a belief, aka a religion.

Government should take an agnostic approach to religion in terms of public policy while recognizing that government employees are individuals and also have a right to religious beliefs of their own. As long as government does not favor one religion over another, or prefer having no religion over having any religion, I see no reason to try to purge religious expression from the public square. Of course religious people would have to accept that other people get to express their religious belief or non-belief too.

The militant rabid atheist **********s who think they’re “changing the world” for the better by purging society of religion should consider that they could be full of ****. Not that I think they should become religious—I’m not religious myself. But maybe the world doesn’t need their meddling to get along just fine. Maybe purging religion despite human wiring will make society worse.

Maybe in the absence of the religious institutions which have evolved away from the barbarism of dark ages, to become mostly of benefit than harm (not withstanding some religions of “peace”), new religious zealotry will emerge. And what follows could be in the form of, oh, Idunno, let’s call it “social justice”. And then all the lessons socially evolved to remove the truly oppressive tendencies over the last few thousand years, particularly in the West, will need to be re-learned. Maybe people shouldn’t **** with what has taken humans their existence to develop.

I think in evolutionary terms, the end of a species may be eminent when the species learns how to override the behaviors which has made it successful, before it understands what made it successful.

Utopia is just a wet dream. If we can ever wake up from it we’ll have a real mess on our hands.