|
|
|
|
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Date: 9/3/2004 3:47:00 PM
From Authorid: 46527
They SHOULD be, but not being American I don't know if they actually ARE.  |
Date: 9/3/2004 3:48:00 PM
From Authorid: 62506
To the perfect letter of the law,even Athiest are protected by the Constitution and the Bill of rights,yet...and there's always a an exception,this does not mean that John Q Citizen will uphold the civil rights of another person,be they Athiest,Agnostic,Christian,Muslim,Jew,Hindu, et al. Unfortunantly, life is unfair and the laws of the land are imperfect.  |
Date: 9/3/2004 3:53:00 PM
From Authorid: 22308
isn't everyone created equal though, this isn't like the 1960s, 70s, or even the 19th century anymore  |
Date: 9/3/2004 5:47:00 PM
From Authorid: 37101
Well, it should. Equal rights and all that other good stuff. -  |
|
Date: 9/3/2004 5:53:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
I don't believe the religious folks really give it much thought BEYOND "their" interpretation of what the word: FREEDOM means. Freedom from what? Freedom for whom? The word is meaningless without a context. They seem to be only concerned with freedom as it pertains to THEM and to heck with anyone who doesn't believe THEIR way. Most believers think religious freedom is freedom (from government interference) for religious establishments. They want their brand of god inserted in everything, no matter who it is against or who it offends; a sort of "might makes right" and majority rules and that is the end of that. Atheists say that religious freedom is freedom from encroachments by the religious establishments. Some varieties of Christianity are very intrusive; thus, we seek help from the State to attain freedom from Christian intrusion. Yes, Neptune, our Constitution does gaurantee the freedom from religion; however, it is not inforced. That is why we have organizations such as the ACLU which is a watchdog for seeing that all our liberties are protected. What a lot of religious folks do not know is that the ACLU will fight just as hard to protect their rights as it does to protect those who do not have religious beliefs. We are ONE nation, UNITED, with freedom for ALL. As for being shunned? There isn't much one can do about that except to try to educate the person who is shunning and condeming the non-believer. Shunning and slandering the non believer isn't a crime, unless it is in the workplace, in public schools, etc., in preventing one from getting a job or some other such discrimination. I do sincerely believe that the recent attempts at a constitutional ban on gay marriage is in violation of the 1st Admendment, since the reasons given for wanting such a ban is RELIGIOUS (its a "sin" against the Bible and 'God').  |
| Date: 9/3/2004 5:59:00 PM From Authorid: 62838 I think it does, yes.... but people will be people. - Kokoro |
Date: 9/3/2004 6:04:00 PM
From Authorid: 62801
I don't feel that atheists and agnostics are shunned or reprised any more than any other group on this planet. When I was an atheist I didn't feel like I was an outcast for my beliefs, if anything I felt like I was in the majority. However, it is impossible to guarantee any group that it won't be shunned because, like it or not, it is human nature to reject that which we don't understand. And of course because God is real and does require humans to live a certain way, He will always send people to correct those groups that don't believe in Him no matter what law the government passes. *LoveisAll*  |
Date: 9/3/2004 6:07:00 PM
From Authorid: 62367
That is what the law says. How people observe the law is something else again. The more private you are about your beliefs the less likely that there will be problems. The more open and vocal people are about personal belief the more likely someone will challenge them or try to convert them. Live and let live is very hard to do. Its against some folks religion to let anyone alone until they believe like they do.  |
|
Date: 9/3/2004 6:12:00 PM
From Authorid: 62367
The people that give me the willies are the so called Christian reconstrucitons (they have other names) that do NOT believe in democracy or freedom of religion. They are willing to use freedom of religion to get their way to take over the country though. Oh and they want to take over the world to. Call them Christianity's answer to the Taliban. |
Date: 9/3/2004 6:13:00 PM
From Authorid: 62100
Yes, I would think that we are, in part due to being protected under the Freedom of Speech act.  |
|
Date: 9/3/2004 6:14:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
LoveisAll, you never were an atheist. You may simply have not had a firm belief, or were in rebellion, or just didn't care one way or the other at one time, etc. Many fundamentalists toss out that "I use to be an atheist" for the same reasons. You don't really know what the definition of atheism is, do you? I assure you, one who has examined the christian Bible, the christian god and christianity with logic, and with reason; who has found it does not make sense, and one who has studied all the different religions, many different gods and histories of gods and religions....and have concluded there is NO EVIDENCE for such beliefs, and thus no reason TO believe....then they can say they are indeed an atheist. |
|
Date: 9/3/2004 6:23:00 PM
From Authorid: 62801
Thanks for pointing out my mistake, I was an agnostic, I always get those terms confused. *LoveisAll* |
|
Date: 9/3/2004 6:23:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
quote: "it is human nature to reject that which we don't understand". Maybe so, but with Christians it is an artform. They not only do not understand what freedom FROM religion means; they do not WANT to understand. This has been my observation. It is much easier to reject something if it has been villainized, and been taught from the pulpit that nonbelievers are doomed to hell, and or are "evil". Its very hard to take a stand against bigotry and prejudice when everyone around you reinforces such beliefs as being "from God". |
|
Date: 9/3/2004 6:29:00 PM
From Authorid: 62801
What's worse, bigotry and prejudice or intellectual pride? *LoveisAll* |
|
Date: 9/3/2004 7:11:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
Please, Give YOUR definition of "Intellectual pride" and I'd be more than happy to respond. |
Date: 9/3/2004 7:25:00 PM
From Authorid: 2030
Freedom from persecution is gauranteed. Acceptance is not, that is hopefully earned over time.  |
|
Date: 9/3/2004 7:27:00 PM
From Authorid: 2030
Perhaps intellectual arrogance would be a better term. |
Date: 9/3/2004 7:48:00 PM
From Authorid: 62876
I would think Atheism is a religion, but a lack thereof. I mean they don't really believe there is a god, devil, or anything, right? So, there is nothing to practice, other than telling others that you do not believe in any higher power, what would they do?......HipChik  |
|
Date: 9/3/2004 7:50:00 PM
From Authorid: 62876
I meant I wouldn't think Atheism is a religion, but a lack thereof....sorry....HipChik |
Date: 9/3/2004 8:12:00 PM
From Authorid: 51173
Reprisals - Yes, they should be free to believe what they wish without having rights or privileges taken away. Shunned - No, because if I choose to not associate with someone because they are an atheist that is the exercise of my right (in this case the right of free association). Shunning is a social sanction which the government has and should have no control over. There are grey areas, but they should be looked at on an individual basis.  |
|
Date: 9/3/2004 8:30:00 PM
From Authorid: 51173
As to whether the Freedom of Religion means Freedom FROM religion... No, it does not mean that at all, at least not in the public sector. Groups like the ACLU seek to ban religious expression in public so that atheists can "practice" their beliefs, but to do that REQUIRES the infringement on religious beliefs that call for specific acts of public expression. If my religion REQUIRES that I tell others about God, or be unashamed to publicly express my devotion to Him, and someone tells me I cannot do these things then they are infringing on my Freedom of Religion to worship as I see fit. Now if the atheist CHOOSES to discuss religion with me, there is no problem, but if I go up to an atheist and attempt to discuss God with them and they say "STOP, I don't want to talk about this." I MUST stop. If I then persist and try to force the conversation THEN I AM VIOLATING THE ATHEIST'S FREEDOM OF RELIGION, AND SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO PUNISHMENT. That is the proper way this issue should be handled. |
|
Date: 9/3/2004 8:32:00 PM
From Authorid: 62801
I agree BCAR, maybe intellectual arrogance would be a better term. *LoveisAll* |
|
Date: 9/3/2004 8:49:00 PM
From Authorid: 51173
The attempt to stop religious public expression also violates the proper place the Founding Fathers of the country meant for religion to occupy. We all know of the system of "checks and balances" between the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of Government, but there is another set of checks and balances to insure that three branches of government COLLECTIVELY don't get too powerful - the Press and the Pulpit. The Free Press had the ability to comment on the actions of government, while the Free Pulpit could comment on the morality of those actions. Both the press and the pulpit could support or oppose the candidates and legislation as it so chose, and with the ability to comment on each other the press and the Church could prevent each other from growing too politically powerful as well. And this system worked VERY well until Lyndon Johnson signed executive orders preventing tax exempt organizations from engaging in political activity (in an attempt to punish a group of political rivals). Johnson's orders, which were violations of both the Constitution and the intentions of the Founding Fathers, warped the system, and every political scandal since - from Vietnam War Protest violence, to Watergate, to Al Gore's attempt at Coup d'etat can be traced to it. |
|
Date: 9/3/2004 9:51:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
LoveisAll, you still don't explain what you mean by "Pride". It has been my experience that most religious people who are taught that ANYTHING that is in disagreement with their doctrine, their Bible is "worldly" and thus to them all knowledge looks like pride. I hear the constant reference to "atheists are just to stubborn and prideful" to accept god beliefs. I think they are the ones that are being prideful and arrogant. Let me try to explain. There are many people who have spent many many more hours of study on certain subjects and have a much greater deal of knowledge on those subjects than I could possibly possess. Instead of assuming people are my adversaries when they tell me I'm wrong about something, when they present evidence contrary to my stance, or demonstrate clearly how and where I am wrong, why shouldn't I be willing to analyze my own argument for the possibility, however remote , that I COULD be wrong? I wouldn't want to let my pride interfere with my desire to learn new things. The exchange of information, sharing of things that we have experienced, things we have learned is good; and I appreciate any and all points of view. What I do not think is good and is even non-productive is to stubbornly refuse to even consider or listen to the other point of view and or arguments. Now, let's say I were to post something that was obviously NOT true and continued to post the same thing over and over again despite many posters attempt to correct me, despite many who put forth much more credible argument and evidence, and suppose I still insisted on clinging to something, saying the same things, making the same ole cliche's and arguments that have been refuted time and time again.....well, who would you say would be more prideful and arrogant? If someone challenges you on a stronge statement you've made or your view on something, it should only either make you come up with BETTER arguments to support your position or realize that you may have been mistaken. So, LoveisAll, you tell me, is bigotry and predjudice worse than pride (whatever your definition is)? |
Date: 9/3/2004 9:58:00 PM
From Authorid: 62787
hmm...intellectual arrogance? i respect people with intelligence..they know stuff, where to find it. there really is no wrong way to use intelligence other than trying to ruin the world..hmm -Blade of the Samurai  |
Date: 9/3/2004 10:24:00 PM
From Authorid: 12341
Absolutely! And most especially in America. We must never forget how diverse USM is, just as small pool of diversity, so how can we possibly not realize the very diversity of society just from our friends here? Life is larger than our own backyard, but of course it always comes down to the place where religion "overtakes" common sense and whenever one's personal belief ever endangers the humanity of others, it can't possibly be right or good. Our own decency will tell us that.  |
|
Date: 9/3/2004 10:28:00 PM
From Authorid: 12341
Throughout society, religion has been no only a belief of many, but a "measuring stick" of conscience, and belief matters little to those who are beaten down without a "measure of conscience". |
|
Date: 9/3/2004 10:29:00 PM
From Authorid: 12341
*not* only |
Date: 9/3/2004 11:07:00 PM
From Authorid: 37900
Atheists and agnostics are not "guaranteed the right to practice their beliefs without fear of reprisal or being shunned." No one should have that right. America was founded on the principle of the free exchange of ideas. That means those that practice religion and those that don't should be allowed and encouraged to discuss and debate the validity of their ideas in open forums. In such contexts, offences are unavoidable. One of the measures of the stability of a belief system is how well its adherents react to opposing views.  |
Date: 9/4/2004 10:35:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
O.K., now that we've got that ^^^ all cleared out of the way, I have to say PapaBryant gave a reasoned response to this debate and I totally agree with him. People are too quick to jump to the government for "protection", when their own demeanor and/or response can go so much farther for them in their desire to protect themselves. The only way the "government" can do any protecting with regard to this issue (i.e., that people have the right of Freedom "From" Religion) is to annihilate everyone. Repeat after me: Jihaad (Just don't spell after me because I'm not sure I spelled that right God Bless.  |
Date: 9/4/2004 3:02:00 PM
From Authorid: 19220
Of course they are or at least should be.  |
Date: 9/4/2004 3:51:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 1225
PapaBryant- how can you say that the 200 election was an attempted coup d'etat by Gore. If anything, it was a series of federal elections fraud by Bush and his brother. A coup d'etat implies that Bush is rightfully President. He is not.  |
|
Date: 9/4/2004 11:09:00 PM
From Authorid: 37900
Neptune, why do you hold the opinion that President Bush is not the rightful President? |
Date: 9/5/2004 9:00:00 AM
From Authorid: 47296
Many people have a misconception as to what the Constitution says regarding freedom of religion. "Congress shall make no law", means the government can make no laws which would further one religion over another. The Constitution does not apply to individuals, per se. The Bill of Rights only guarantees us certain freedoms from government tyranny. Local laws on the other hand may have a religious bias to them, and may be perfectly legal according to how the Constitution of each state is written. Still, local laws cannot deny and individual the right to practice their religion in a proper religious setting for that religion, as long as the practice of that religion does not endanger others. The ony guarantee we have of freedom from religion is that no laws can be passed which furthers any single religious belief. There are laws though which do limit the extent that any religious group can go to in exercising their religion. While some religious groups like to go door to door, a simple "No Soliciting" or "No Trespassing" sign in one's front yard is enough legally in most states to keep any religious group from coming onto someone's property to pass along their word. There are also laws which protect people of different beliefs from harm from groups of other beliefs, and also protect the property of people with different, or no belief system, from harm, and also protects their religious buildings and icons. The burning, defacing, vandalism, or other crime against a religious building or shrine is a serious crime in this country, and one that is not taken lightly. At the same time, a crime motivated by religious beleifs against people of other beliefs is also deemed serious. Most crimes of this nature fall under the Hate Crimes Bill. As for freedom from religion, there are laws and precedents set which establish the extent that any religious groups can go to in practicing their religion on public property or property that the public has access to. Any business which is open to the public cannot deny service to a person of another religious belief, simply based on their differences. A business can display religous icons in acordance with the owner's beleifs, as long as they are not done to infer any discrimination towards other beleifs. As for the owner's discussing their religious beleifs, they can do so as long as the other party is willing to listen. If the other party says they are not willing to listen to any discussion on religious beleif, then the owner must honor the other party's request. On private property, or property not open to the public, property owners are not as restricted, and can openly discuss their religion, and display religious icons as they wish, as long as it does not endanger or harass the general public. Case in point is a property owner about 20 miles from my home who has hundreds of crosses and signs on his property showing his religious beleifs and his distaste for those who think differently. Although deemed an eyesore by most all his neighbors and even government officials, there is nothing that can be legally done, since the display is on private porperty, and to ask for it to be removed as an eyesore would also mean the county would have to go around and have every eyesore in the county cleaned up. At one time, this property owner had speakers which blared out religious music almost constantly, as well as religious messages. He was told to remove the speakers and refrain from this display, since it was a nuisance to those who lived around him, and could be deemed as harassing in nature. There are a lot of gray areas concerning religious freedom, or freedom from. On an individual basis, there is little anyone can do , except have the decency to respect the wishes of others.  |
Date: 9/5/2004 1:56:00 PM
From Authorid: 16671
I think bcar stated things quiet well. However for those that want freedom from religion, they tend to try and take away our freedom to HAVE and display our religion. But all we can do is teach others that are not believers so that through education of what and why the believer , believes like they do, then perhaps they wont shun and ridicule the believer. I've heard many say, " Well I cant say there isnt a GOD a creator" Yet on the other hand they will laugh at you, and call you names because of your beliefs that they deem invalid. Evidence not FOUND by a person, does not mean that evidence is not there. Yes non believers have the right not to believe, just as we have the right to believe in the face of all their so called "valid" explanations that they think to the contrary. IF they have the right to NOT believe without fear or interferrence, then we should have the right to believe without fear of being laughed at, shunned and called names. It goes both ways.  |
Date: 9/7/2004 12:41:00 PM
From Authorid: 31673
Does anyone really have the guaranteed "right to practice their bliefs without fear of reprisal or being shunned?" I think pretty much every religious group has been shunned and reprised in one way or another in the U.S. Atheists shun the religious, the religious shun Atheists, Religious folks shun other religious folks, etc. The U.S. Constitution says "The government shall make no law regarding the establishement of religion." That's all it says. There is no mention of "Freedom OF Religion" or "Freedom FROM Religion." Oh, and from what Atheists have told me... Atheism is NOT a religion or set of beliefs. It is merely the absence of a God belief. So what "beliefs" do they practice?  |
|
Date: 9/7/2004 1:00:00 PM
From Authorid: 31673
Oh, I should have read the comments first. Alfrowi and Papa Bryant said it better than I did. I agree with them. |
|
Date: 9/7/2004 2:32:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 1225
When have Atheists ever shunned the religious? We may consider religious beliefs to be illogical, even silly; but for the most part atheists are content to leave the religious to their own devices and to respect their beliefs out of common courtesy. Most atheists realize that religious people honestly and deeply believe in whatever faith they may espouse, and that any actions they take with those beliefs are with good intentions. Quite understandably we take issue with any attempt to impose a religious philosophy on the government or on ourselves. I think I speak for most atheists when I say we only seek tolerance betwixt religions and atheism; neither should be dictating morals or philosophy through the government. The government should not be a vessle of beliefs or disbeliefs. But rather it should be the device throughwhich all citizens have an equal share in the success of the society. One of the componants of that device is tolerance, and another is respect. We should tolerate one another as well as respect one another. Religious tolerance and respect is acheived through establishing what areas of society are divorced from religion or lack thereof. When this respect breaks down you have problems. The Islamic extremists of 9/11 did not have this respect, they are attempting to make their philosophy supreme and dictate through it. A more benign example of the absence of this respect is when people belittle one another because of philosophies: this could be someone coming to your door and agressively trying to "convert" you or I (and this has happened to me, though only once. But it DOES happen) or by someone like me, an atheist, belittling someone because they are faithful. This doesn't forbid honest and respectful dialogues and debates betwixt disperate philosophies, so long as it stays cordial. Sorry for ranting on so long, I kind of lost track of my point along the way as well as exactly to whom I was responding to. If anyone figures it out, please let me know. |
|
Date: 9/7/2004 3:59:00 PM
From Authorid: 31673
When have Atheists ever shunned the religious? Are you serious? On this site alone I've seen MANY examples of Atheists putting down the religious. Calling them "blind followers" saying they are "desperate to believe" that they "hide behind their bibles," that the bible is full of "inconsistencies and innacurracies." I've seen MANY instances of Athiests calling God a "Myth" and calling those who believe in God "Zealots" and accusing them of not studying and reading and really knowing what they believe. Believe it or not, as much as Atheists believe that saying "Under God" in the Pledge of Alliegence and displaying the 10 Commandments on government property is slighting thier beliefs and imposing other's beliefs on them, religious folks feel that NOT being allowed to say "Under God" or display their religious symbols on government property is slighting THEIR beliefs and makes them feel like others beliefs are being forced on them. So, yes, Atheists shun religious people. |
|
Date: 9/7/2004 4:04:00 PM
From Authorid: 31673
I should clarify... I recognize that Atheists get their fair share of shunning too. I'm just pointing out that Atheists can be and often are just as "intolerant" of religious folks. |
|
Date: 9/7/2004 4:30:00 PM
From Authorid: 16671
A BIG AMEN to that melodious. I think you stated that well. |
Date: 9/9/2004 1:42:00 PM
From Authorid: 4614
I agree with Melodius...I mean, everything she put in "quotes"  .....I asked god this same question a few days ago; I am still waiting for the answer. I will let you know when I hear something; maybe I should yell louder, I dunno...  |
Date: 9/9/2004 1:46:00 PM
From Authorid: 25828
yes...  |
|
Date: 9/9/2004 3:00:00 PM
From Authorid: 31673
Well, there you go Neptune. Case in point. Atheists shun the religious all the time. |
|
Date: 9/9/2004 5:55:00 PM
From Authorid: 47296
Melodious, have you ever been to a Unitarian Church. I have, and have had Atheists sitting next to me. In fact, there were numerous beleif systems present that day, and everyone got along just fine. I wonder what would happen if that same group that was present that day decided to attend a Baptist, Methodist, Mormon, or Pentacostal church. Actually, I don't have to wonder. They would be shunned by the church, the same as most of us were when attended other churhes on our own accord. |
|
Date: 9/10/2004 8:51:00 AM
From Authorid: 31673
TS... did you read any of my responses? I'm not saying athiests don't get shunned. In fact, I said... "Atheists shun religious folks, religious folks shun Atheists, Religious folks shun other religious folks..." Did I not? What's your point? By the way, I don't think a group like that would get shunned in any of those churches, so long as they were respectfully obeserving what was going on. If they created a disturbance, then maybe they'd get shunned. I know that the Mormon church's doors are open to anyone who wants to come in and participate. No one is kicked out, unless, of course, they cause a disturbance or pose a safety risk. In fact, I personally have attended services with friends who were not Mormon, and none of them were treated badly. Are there some Mormons that are self-righteous and shun people who don't believe as they do? I'm positive there are. But that's not the church's fault. The doctrine does not support that behavior. But, again, I never said that religous folks DON'T shun others. Please read ALL my replies. |
|
Date: 9/10/2004 4:57:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 1225
People, we're talking about shunning, not insulting. There's a difference. It is difficult for a minority to shun a majority. |
|
Date: 9/10/2004 7:25:00 PM
From Authorid: 47296
Melodious, my response was concerning your post, Date: 9/7/2004 3:59:00 PM. As for the Mormon church and their intolerance, don't even get me started, especially seeing as how they were behind the murder of a post-operative transsexual in California who was Mormon. She was killed because she revealed the way the church really treated people. If you like, I can find the link to the story as well as the links to the investigative reports to back up the facts. Better yet, maybe you can shed a little light on the term "Dannites". |
|
Date: 9/13/2004 9:32:00 AM
From Authorid: 31673
TS... we already had a LONG debate about that claim and the fact that it's not true. I'm not interested in debating it again. You can go read the debate we already had. |
|
Date: 9/13/2004 9:33:00 AM
From Authorid: 31673
And we also discussed the Dannonites and your misinformation about them. So you can go read that debate again too if you so desire. |
|
Date: 9/13/2004 9:34:00 AM
From Authorid: 31673
Insulting is a form of Shunning, Neptune. How else do you define shunning? |
|
Date: 9/13/2004 3:36:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 1225
shun | tr.v. shunned, shun·ning, shuns: To avoid deliberately; keep away from |
Date: 9/13/2004 4:34:00 PM
From Authorid: 59876
shunning, insulting, it basically comes down to the same treatment so why nitpick people.  |
|
Date: 9/14/2004 2:27:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 1225
"Sometimes it's the smallest nuance that starts a war." |
Date: 9/28/2004 12:19:00 AM
From Authorid: 15319
".. that the bible is full of "inconsistencies and innacurracies." It IS, get the hell over it.  |
Renasoft is the proud sponsor of the Unsolved Mystery Publications website.
See: www.rensoft.com Personal Site server, Power to build Personal Web Sites and Personal Web Pages
All stories are copyright protected and may not be reproduced in any form, except by specific written authorization
