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 don't think for the general population in the US that's true. I think she was pretty much universally hated just because she was so very, very obnoxious.
I do think if the movement had been led by kind, caring and level headed people it would have taken a little longer to eradicate church in schools, but it would have left a much better taste in people's mouths.
Like Ellen DeGeneres. She has done more for the cause of lesbians than a 100 screaming activists ever could.
Because you just can't not like Ellen. Had O'Hair been as universally likable as Ellen, things would be different now.
You argue persuasively, but I am not convinced. O Hair is just the excuse used (or indeed not - if i ever hear of a Hate figure it's Dawkins and he is a real nice guy, though outspoken) to criticise atheism as we have Law Constitution and reason on our side. And while the Law is the reason religion is kept out of school (or should be) Somebody has to start the case. Very often that is AA, and that is why it is hated, and O' Hair is hardly ever the reason why.
I was looking just now for a vid of toxic things Christians say about atheism (I didn't post it before as it had Falwell and other who might have been considered Not representative) can't find it now - only a string of show conversions of 'atheists' using the 'look at the trees, flowers..' apologetic.
No - can't find it. But I thought I'd post this. Quite amusing. Not because of her points - easy to answer, after all. But the idea (after all the talk of pushy and aggressive atheists trying to force their views on believers), that Christians shouldn't Force their views on atheists.
I'm not making a polemic point here, but it just reminded me of something that came up a while ago, that believing is not what is really important, but pretending that you believe. happens all the time in the family 'Look you can be an atheist if you want, but just pretend like you were a Christian.'
P.s don't want to derail into feminism or ancient history, but I supported feminism - always did. 70's? There were some strident Feminists and a lot of weird, hateful and toxic stuff, but the basic rightness of it, not the loudmouths and haters, kept me a supporter as I am now. I suppose that sounds like it supports those who say the loudmouth and aggressive atheists won't help atheism but the Rightness of it. But Feminism had to be pushed. If it wasn't things would stay the same. I see myself as someone 'talking'. I do not see myself as someone advocating chemical castration of Christians to make humanism safe or removing all references to religion from human society and culture. That would indeed be extremist.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 03-06-2019 at 12:01 PM..
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 9 days ago)
35,635 posts, read 17,975,706 times
Reputation: 50665
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
You argue persuasively, but I am not convinced. O Hair is just the excuse used (or indeed not - if i ever hear of a Hate figure it's Dawkins and he is a real nice guy, though outspoken) to criticise atheism as we have Law Constitution and reason on our side. And while the Law is the reason religion is kept out of school (or should be) Somebody has to start the case. Very often that is AA, and that is why it is hated, and O' Hair is hardly ever the reason why.
I was looking just now for a vid of toxic things Christians say about atheism (I didn't post it before as it had Falwell and other who might have been considered Not representative) can't find it now - only a string of show conversions of 'atheists' using the 'look at the trees, flowers..' apologetic.
I don't agree that's the intent of the First Amendment. The founders were trying to create a country where the citizens had freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.
The First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That seems pretty clear, to me. Translated in current language, "Congress will not create laws with respect to (or regarding) an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion".
So I can't imagine how it has turned into: Congress shall make the law that no religion can be mentioned or practiced in the public buildings. In my observation, that's not what it says at all. Exactly the opposite. The phrase "separation of church and state" never appears in the Constitution, or as far as I know, in any writings by the founders.
I found his link. I believe allabouthistory.org is a secular, balanced website that doesn't have a Christian or NonChristian agenda - it's just focused on historical context.
I don't agree that's the intent of the First Amendment. The founders were trying to create a country where the citizens had freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.
The First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That seems pretty clear, to me. Translated in current language, "Congress will not create laws with respect to (or regarding) an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion".
So I can't imagine how it has turned into: Congress shall make the law that no religion can be mentioned or practiced in the public buildings. In my observation, that's not what it says at all. Exactly the opposite. The phrase "separation of church and state" never appears in the Constitution, or as far as I know, in any writings by the founders.
I found his link. I believe allabouthistory.org is a secular, balanced website that doesn't have a Christian or NonChristian agenda - it's just focused on historical context.
You will have to take that up with the Law and indeed government, as they Have considered that the constitution means that Government shall not endorse, support or promote any particular religion, and has recently ruled that atheism has equal rights in law and religion is not an excuse to break the law.
I don't agree that's the intent of the First Amendment. The founders were trying to create a country where the citizens had freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.
The First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That seems pretty clear, to me. Translated in current language, "Congress will not create laws with respect to (or regarding) an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion".
So I can't imagine how it has turned into: Congress shall make the law that no religion can be mentioned or practiced in the public buildings. In my observation, that's not what it says at all. Exactly the opposite. The phrase "separation of church and state" never appears in the Constitution, or as far as I know, in any writings by the founders.
I found his link. I believe allabouthistory.org is a secular, balanced website that doesn't have a Christian or NonChristian agenda - it's just focused on historical context.
You will have to take that up with the Law and indeed government, as they Have considered that the constitution means that Government shall not endorse, support or promote any particular religion, and has recently ruled that atheism has equal rights in law and religion is not an excuse to break the law.
No point to argue it with me.
byw - not that it makes any difference to the argument you make, but 'about' this secular, balanced website:
Many people refer to us as “Christians,” but we consider ourselves followers of Jesus. Like Jesus, we reject many of the issues found in “organized religion” (man-made attempts to reach God through rules and rituals). Actually, we believe religion has kept more people from the truth than anything in history.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 9 days ago)
35,635 posts, read 17,975,706 times
Reputation: 50665
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
No, Ozyy just throws out thee irrational arguments without any thought.
No, it is deeper than that.
People in general do balk at the notion "we don't want it so you can't have it" that seems prevalent in O'Hair's movement.
I honestly don't think any Christians would care if you stated at cocktail parties that you're not a believer, or said it on websites, or developed "congregations" of non believers where you sing songs, promote moral and ethical behavior, and had pot lucks, making it obvious in your signage, mission statement and website that this group is for people who don't believe in any form of spiritual higher power. In fact, Christians would welcome that almost universally.
People do rail, though, when a minority says we don't want it so you have to stop doing it around us. For heavens sake, look at the peanut allergy thing. Look how up in arms some short-sighted people get even when they KNOW someone in the area has a deathly peanut allergy, and they get told they can't have their little package of peanuts on a plane. There is REAL push back on that, even though the people know someone could DIE from exposure, and the only thing they have to give up is a silly packet of peanuts.
That's how Christians feel, with much less need to take away our "peanuts" (which is a totally understandable prohibition around allergy sufferers). Having a Santa Claus decoration or candy canes in the Christmas Party is not going to kill any of you, and we want it. Why should we have to stop having what we want?
Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe in celebrating birthdays, but you certainly don't see them screaming when kids bring cupcakes to share with the class on their birthdays, or pass out birthday party invitations, or kids get to wear a cute little crown to school on their birthdays. The class may well sing Happy Birthday to them, as well. Oh, Jason, you don't celebrate birthdays? Ok, we'll do something else special for you next month that's not birthday related.
Oh. You're vegan? Ok, don't eat the hamburger on the lunch tray - you might want to bring lunch from home.
See how easy that is?
Sometimes, it feels like Christianity is treated like pedophilia or some other vile construct. If the majority doesn't want candy canes at the school Christmas parties, that's one thing. But from what I saw, the majority DO want Candy Canes and elf pictures.
Honestly, it feels like the tyranny of the minority here.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 9 days ago)
35,635 posts, read 17,975,706 times
Reputation: 50665
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
You will have to take that up with the Law and indeed government, as they Have considered that the constitution means that Government shall not endorse, support or promote any particular religion, and has recently ruled that atheism has equal rights in law and religion is not an excuse to break the law.
No point to argue it with me.
byw - not that it makes any difference to the argument you make, but 'about' this secular, balanced website:
Many people refer to us as “Christians,” but we consider ourselves followers of Jesus. Like Jesus, we reject many of the issues found in “organized religion” (man-made attempts to reach God through rules and rituals). Actually, we believe religion has kept more people from the truth than anything in history.
Thanks, I didn't see that. I breezed through their offerings of articles, and didn't notice any sort of religious theme in the topics.
putting him on ignore??? But, depending on your mood that day, he can be so amusing..
No...because to ignore is to allow sometimes despicable things to go unchallenged.
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.
