Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm glad you mentioned this, because I actually meant to include the concept of push-back in my other post in another thread about over-reach. In general, people are willing to tolerate quite a bit before they finally decide to push-back. The Evangelicals were tolerated for a long time until the likes of Jerry Falwell began pushing things way too far. That's when one push-back began.
There needs to be a Side -room in the Atheist Hall of Fame: "Theists who were worth two divisions to us".
If Christians want to believe in creationism, have unwanted children, and stay virgins until marriage, which they cannot leave, I am completely ok with that.
I object when they want to require me to follow these same rules.
Truthfully, if Christians wanted to keep their rules to themselves, I wouldn’t care too much about tax exemptions for churches either, and I probably wouldn’t make a big deal out of bakers discriminating against gay weddings. Neither is right, but I might be willing to shrug it off as crazy people being crazy, having a very limited impact on society as a whole.
Christians have shown that they are unwilling to do that however. The politically active groups among them keep creating a new crisis, then expanding it as a Christian Right, then pushing it onto society, and that I cannot stand for.
Birth control coverage by insurance is one of those things. Catholic schools have been providing health insurance for decades, and those insurance plans provided birth control. Nobody cared until recently, and now it is a big deal and Christians are trying to get birth control removed from insurance plans.
Well stated. They push. We push back. The difference now -- I think -- is that social media provides us with a platform we didn't have before.
If Christians want to believe in creationism, have unwanted children, and stay virgins until marriage, which they cannot leave, I am completely ok with that.
I object when they want to require me to follow these same rules.
Truthfully, if Christians wanted to keep their rules to themselves, I wouldn’t care too much about tax exemptions for churches either, and I probably wouldn’t make a big deal out of bakers discriminating against gay weddings. Neither is right, but I might be willing to shrug it off as crazy people being crazy, having a very limited impact on society as a whole.
Christians have shown that they are unwilling to do that however. The politically active groups among them keep creating a new crisis, then expanding it as a Christian Right, then pushing it onto society, and that I cannot stand for.
Birth control coverage by insurance is one of those things. Catholic schools have been providing health insurance for decades, and those insurance plans provided birth control. Nobody cared until recently, and now it is a big deal and Christians are trying to get birth control removed from insurance plans.
It's the same here. The BA dress code kerfuffle allowed Christianity to Get Away with it, not only because "We can't pick on Christians", but it was considered too minor to make a fuss about (1). But the Registrar who refused to marry same sex couples was Crossing the Line, Son, and got No support. And nobody made a big public outcry about it as happened with Kim Davis in the US. Religious persecution of Gays, etc. (that is what it is, folks, and let nobody tell you different) gets no National support, though there are a few loudmouthed anti -abortion, anti sex education, Let's Open Council Meetings With prayers, anti porn, get religion back in school Brexiters....they only have to open their mouths and you can write their frickin' CV...who hog the letters page of the daily press.
That's the difference. The Kim Davis - type supporters here, can only write letters to the Editor. In the US, they have a well -funded Fundamentalist Right wing bigotry lobby (there, I've Said it ) who will turn it into a National Outrage Campaign.
(1) though I'd risk a monkey on those saying 'what a fuss about nothing' would, if interviewed, have showed a particular View on the matter. "Well, Of course I'm a Christian, but that's nothing to do with it..."
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-01-2018 at 10:18 AM..
Yes, I am reasonably familiar with religion in the UK. I have family there and spend a week or two in England every year.
I have in-laws that are reasonably devout. CofE christenings for the children, marriages in the local church, where they know the vicar by name, all that stuff. We politely don’t speak of religion at the dinner table, because the family ranges from atheist to CofE, with a few odd diversions between.
When religious discussions happen, one group or another, if mildly offended, withdraws to a different room. Nobody tries to convert the other, and that makes it all work.
I kept my attitude about religion to myself until my mother died. She was a devout Christian, and I wouldn't have hurt her feelings for the world. Since then, I only discuss religion when I am confronted by someone who starts the conversation. Then I just mention that human consciousness requires a functioning human brain, so there is no afterlife, and any religion that promises one is a fraud. That normally shuts them up.
I just now saw this thread so I’m a bit late to the party. I thought though that I’d share something from a book I once read that is relevant to this topic. It made quite an impression on me at the time and I still think it’s a worth while read. Here’s the quote, it’s by Ayn Rand.
********
“One must never fail to pronounce moral judgment.
Nothing can corrupt and disintegrate a culture or a man’s character as thoroughly as does the precept of moral agnosticism, the idea that one must never pass moral judgment on others, that one must be morally tolerant of anything, that the good consists of never distinguishing good from evil.
It is obvious who profits and who loses by such a precept. It is not justice or equal treatment that you grant to men when you abstain equally from praising men’s virtues and from condemning men’s vices. When your impartial attitude declares, in effect, that neither the good nor the evil may expect anything from you—whom do you betray and whom do you encourage?
But to pronounce moral judgment is an enormous responsibility. To be a judge, one must possess an unimpeachable character; one need not be omniscient or infallible, and it is not an issue of errors of knowledge; one needs an unbreached integrity, that is, the absence of any indulgence in conscious, willful evil. Just as a judge in a court of law may err, when the evidence is inconclusive, but may not evade the evidence available, nor accept bribes, nor allow any personal feeling, emotion, desire or fear to obstruct his mind’s judgment of the facts of reality—so every rational person must maintain an equally strict and solemn integrity in the courtroom within his own mind, where the responsibility is more awesome than in a public tribunal, because he, the judge, is the only one to know when he has been impeached.”
*********
I just now saw this thread so I’m a bit late to the party. I thought though that I’d share something from a book I once read that is relevant to this topic. It made quite an impression on me at the time and I still think it’s a worth while read. Here’s the quote, it’s by Ayn Rand.
********
“One must never fail to pronounce moral judgment.
Nothing can corrupt and disintegrate a culture or a man’s character as thoroughly as does the precept of moral agnosticism, the idea that one must never pass moral judgment on others, that one must be morally tolerant of anything, that the good consists of never distinguishing good from evil.
It is obvious who profits and who loses by such a precept. It is not justice or equal treatment that you grant to men when you abstain equally from praising men’s virtues and from condemning men’s vices. When your impartial attitude declares, in effect, that neither the good nor the evil may expect anything from you—whom do you betray and whom do you encourage?
But to pronounce moral judgment is an enormous responsibility. To be a judge, one must possess an unimpeachable character; one need not be omniscient or infallible, and it is not an issue of errors of knowledge; one needs an unbreached integrity, that is, the absence of any indulgence in conscious, willful evil. Just as a judge in a court of law may err, when the evidence is inconclusive, but may not evade the evidence available, nor accept bribes, nor allow any personal feeling, emotion, desire or fear to obstruct his mind’s judgment of the facts of reality—so every rational person must maintain an equally strict and solemn integrity in the courtroom within his own mind, where the responsibility is more awesome than in a public tribunal, because he, the judge, is the only one to know when he has been impeached.”
*********
Am I correct that you are claiming that those who do not believe in god practice moral agnosticism?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There needs to be a Side -room in the Atheist Hall of Fame: "Theists who were worth two divisions to us".
) who will turn it into a National Outrage Campaign.
