The Glade 4.0

We've had people on this very board claim that billboards with religious messages are "forcing it down their throat"... as if there's something stopping nonreligious types from hiring their own billboards.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

They do. And they're met with protests and petitions to get them removed and occasionally arson.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/0 ... f=religion

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/1 ... 74823.html

http://www.examiner.com/article/floridi ... eo-updated

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/12/19/ar ... olice-say/

Rejected by property owner. No oppression here.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/1 ... 74823.html

Billboard was put up. Yes, there was controversy. Your article does not indicate any violence or protests, or anything more, other than controversy.

http://www.examiner.com/article/floridi ... eo-updated

No violence, but there was a protest. So yeah, ok.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/12/19/ar ... olice-say/[/quote]

Ok, arson attempted. Bad form.

Here's atheists going after a Christian school. There were even threats.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2013/04/30/atheists-attack-christian-school

Atheist attacks pastor

http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/10/23/Cops-Self-described-Militant-Atheist-Violently-Attacks-Pastor-After-Sermon

Threats on Church for church sign:

http://massresistance.org/docs/gen2/12b/acushnet_church/

Church sign arson:

http://www.wafb.com/story/22441762/sierra-vista-police-searching-for-church-sign-arson-suspect

I'm not sure what your point is. Atheist signs are relative rarities--the few that do exist are targets. Only a fraction of a percent of pro-religion boards are targeted.

Many Christian groups (or pro-Christian organizations, such as Fox News) in this country go around playing the wounded party, acting as if they're some sort of oppressed minority. (Declarations of "war on Christmas" and other such nonsense) or claiming that they're beliefs are being stifled.

Until your system of beliefs is an ACTUAL minority, don't whine to me about it.

Only a fraction of atheist signs are targeted. They are not targets in general. That's why you are citing anecdotes, and then erroneously drawing a generalized conclusion from it.



Being a minority or not is entirely irrelevant. Minority status is not a license to decide what is and isn't acceptable from the majority, or to complain about the behavior of the majority while having one's own completely overlooked.

There is no "wounded party" on either side here, and while some people on either side will pretend to be so, that is not what anyone here is talking about. People here are talking about the blatant double standard, and attempts by the minority to pretend that their behavior is immune from scrutiny - which is exactly what you are doing here.

As for stifling beliefs, atheists would happily stifle a great deal of religious beliefs if they could. Richard Dawkins and others have, in various forms, proposed that teaching children about religion is somehow abusive, and I seem to recall a thread in which you wanted to call it brainwashing or something of the sort - thinly-veild attempts to say "well, children shouldn't be taught about religion until they are older.. so that there's plenty of opportunity to teach them to avoid it while they're young and impressionable". People around here occasionally talk about religion having "no place in public life" or some such, which is tantamount to saying religious people should not be able to influence public policy - since religious people's political choices are informed by their belief.

Stop putting your preferred groups on a pedestal. I've been critical of religious people's behavior plenty of times in the past; the inability of the nonreligious to do so to their own side is telling.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Loss of privilege is not the same as loss of rights.

I will bet you money that you have NOT been asked to verbally (and publicly) affirm, on a daily basis, by a public institution, (even if its not coerced) something you do not believe, ie. the non-existence of a deity.



I will also bet, though I have no idea where anyone is going to find the statistic so its sort of a hollow bet, that as a percentage of targets, Atheist signage is a more frequent target of protest, destruction, etc, than Christian signage. But since I'm guessing neither of us can come up with the statistics to prove the statement, lets both just agree that A) you cannot state that number of Atheist signs blocked or opposed or destroyed is on par with the rate at which Christian signs are blocked, opposed or destroyed. B) I cannot state the reverse. That of course, leaves us ONLY with anecdotes.

No one is saying that it is. Stripping people of the ability to raise their children as they see fit would certainly be "loss of rights" though, as are the implications of "keeping religion out of public life".

"Loss of privilege" is a loaded term used by minorities to dominate the discussion, in any area.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

No idea what you're talking about here.



Except that I'm not making any assumptions about the percentage at all, other than "there's no evidence to support the diea that one is proportionately more targeted than the other, therefore the default assumption is that they're about the same." You're the one that made an assertion unsupported by anecdotes, now you're coming back with "but that's all either of us have!"

Furthermore, your lumping of protest (constitutionally protected activity) in with destruction (criminal, and not protected) indicates a disturbing view that there is something inherently wrong with religious people expressing their viewpoint simply because there are a lot of religious people.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Pledge of Allegiance.

Regardless of the whether or not the State can force people to recite it, in essence, atheists are asked, on a daily basis, to affirm the existence of a deity. It may be their right to refuse, but how much more 'in your face' can you get than when you're asked hundreds of times per year to state you believe something you don't?

If every day your CO asked you, "Hi. Would you like to commit blasphemy by denying the existence of your God today?" you might get a little testy about the subject.

Either don't say it or skip the part you don't like. I skip a certain set of words in the Nicene Creed because they represent an untoward insertion of a certain viewpoint into it by one church faction against another a long time in the past.



Since it's not mandatory to recite it, it pretty much isn't "in their face" at all. Some people object to pledging allegiance in the first place; they aren't forced to either.



Seeing as how that would constitute a direct inquiry to me, personally, about that subject specifically, rather than a group activity proclaiming loyalty to the nation in general in which only one pair of words is the target of objection, that would pretty much not be comparable at all. A moment's thought might have revealed this to you.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

God forbid (yes, that's deliberate irony) I use reductio ad absurdum to make my point. We can pare back the analogy if you're really having problems seeing the parallels. I suspect you see it and are just trying to nitpick the analogy to avoid dealing with the larger point, ie. that as a matter of public policy, we (as a nation) force people to participate in religious (even tangentially so) activities, imply that minority beliefs are not welcome or not acceptable, or simply try to create a perception of a de facto Christian nation where none exists.

And don't forget they still pay no taxes!

Oh, ****. Christians pay no taxes? I've been doing something wrong.

BTW, neither does Planned Parenthood. Another organization which likes to evangelize and influence public policy.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

I'll keep an eye out for any Planned Parenthood employees asking if I've accepted a vacuum cleaner as my personal Lord and Savior.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

Coro, your Pro-Choice iconography is getting pretty pushy and in-my-face.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

It's not my fault you have a closet full of them that you hang your shirts from.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

These ones?
http://wonkette.com/544473/abortion-rig ... es-on-them

_________________

US census data disagrees with you.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/ ... 2s0075.pdf

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

If you had made an analogy that was actually appropriate, that might be a valid point.



I'm having a hard time seeing them because they are there only in a vague, general sense. Another point you may not have considered is that a military commander has UCMJ and command authority over me, and his order presents legal pitfalls for both of us, that could turn out very badly depending on how things went. If you're suggesting anyone is subject to legal penalty for not reciting the pledge of allegiance, I'd like to see your evidence.



A) I suspect you are using the word "nitpick" to avoid dealing with the fact that your analogy sucks, and that you are shifting the issue over and over in order not to admit that either nonbelievers engage in behavior just as obnoxious as believers, or that you aren't actually having anything forced on you; you're just whining because you don't like social pressure to conform.

Guess what? EVERYONE is a minority and feels social pressure to conform in some area of their life. Furthermore, a free country means freedom from legal coercion to conform, not freedom from social pressure. You have absolutely no right, no legal expectation, and no justification to complain about the majority making their view known, or disapproving of your views, any more than they have a right to demand you be silent. Basically, suck it the **** down, and quit making excuses and double standards.

B) No one is being forced to do anything; you already admited this and now are coming up with this "tangenitally forced" thing (an absurd concept) to complain that minority beliefs are "not welcome". Well, unfortunately neither are majority beliefs which are subject to various sorts of ridicule all over the place. That ridicule is then excused by minorities who seem to think that their behavior is acceptable, and any comparable behavior by the majority or objection to minority actions is necessarily some sort of oppression just because they are a minority.

This is the exact approach taken by every minority in this country to stifle debate; even minorities that re not actually a minority (i.e. feminists who appoint themselves as speaking for women in general). Just screech at every counterpoint that it's <insert complaint of victimization here> loudly and repeatedly until the other party just gets tired of it.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Because somehow that particular form of evangelism is magically worse than any other.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

The reason you never see belligerent behavior from atheists is because there is 1 atheist for every 100 Christians. Of course you're a lot less likely to encounter them. The fact that they don't have strength in numbers probably also discourages them from acting like assholes because they have no one to back them up if someone gets angry.

The real problem is that unlike atheism, religious fundamentalism basically gives fundies a shield to hide behind. Atheists cannot make absurd claims like that the Earth is only 6000 years old or that God sends natural disasters to punish us for legalized abortions and gay rights, (These two claims courtesy of the Illinois Republican 9th district House nominee) and then hide behind their faith when people call them on their bullshit. "Men and dinosaurs lived together at the same time" being taught in "science" classes to millions of children is an utter farce. It would be like having a History class where you teach that World War I was fought in 1872. But it's grudgingly accepted by everyone else, because faith.

So global warming proponents hiding behind "consensus", or certain democrats hiding behind "racism" is somehow different than what you describe?

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Please tell me you are not attempting to compare exaggerations about the scope of racism or humanity's contribution to global warming to people believing that Genesis is not allegorical and is literally true, and then butchering every scientific discipline in existence to make them fit the farce that every land-dwelling species on the planet descends from a small founder population contained on a magic boat floating on magic water that appeared from nowhere.

No, I'm trying to compare how some secular people act about the issues of debate that are important to them vs. some religious people. The merit of the ideas has no standing on the fact there are parallels in their behavior. Staunch ideologues are staunch, regardless of their ideology. I can no more convince you of the merits (or lack thereof) of the ideas listed above than you can me, because the belief or disbelief in them are central to our core beliefs, as the dripping sarcasm of your above post confirms.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"