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.
Obviously phetaroi's post was the frequently heard comment that religion shouldn't be part of the general public activity, such as government or school functions.
--------------------------
Now, a moderator comment: This isn't a thread about racism Somebody should have alerted us to this problem.
Always seems to me you mods have enough on your hands as it is...
I think a "moral" obligation is to teach how we think. Many people don't understand "weights" applied to observation and how personal emotional state influences those weights. Bad things happen. It doesn't give us the right to screw everybody to get even.
It's hard to teach people not to put their thumb on the one side of the weight scale that best suits them regardless of truth, fairness and/or justice.
The mission is not to destroy religion, only to ensure that people have a choice - to do it or not. To not be penalised or punished even if they don't. The persistent misrepresentation of theism is an example of the 'other side not listening'. If that was about race, it would be called hate - speech.
Atheism is about religion, not race. I would say that bigotry and hate about any group is something a rationalist (which is the ethos of atheism) should reject. But that is as human and member of society, not as an atheist, which is a reaction to the god -claim and not about race.
Which means is isn't really the topic here, though it's so emotive it has been allowed to go on.
The mission of atheism is what now? To ensure people have a choice? Really? In the US we already have choice, guaranteed by the constitution. So what is your role?
Atheism is not about race nobody said it was.
This is the argument, which you know very well and obfuscating:
The thread is about the moral obligation of atheism, do they have one if their goal is to disabuse people of religion?
If that is really a mission then why people turn to religion has to be a factor. Religion is and has always been for the poor and the disenfranchised. They don’t turn to religion for recreation but out of despair and hope.
A big cause of the disenfranchisement is the artifice of race which is used to classify a group of people as inferior and so can be used like cattle. The effect of 200 years of slavery can last for 200 years.
So if the mission is to turn people away from religion then the strategy should be to alleviate their living conditions and open up opportunities for jobs and safety. Atheism should actively support anti-racism and sexism. Instead what i see here is denial that both exists. Perhaps it reflect the 65% atheists who are conservative and sexist. The new wave of atheists are younger and more progressive.
That is what those involved in fighting terrorism do, turn people away from militant religious affiliates, and pressure oppressive governments to liberalize their societies. Attack the system, not the people.
Regarding "school functions"
"Schools cannot endorse or advance a particular religion, but they also cannot inhibit the expression of religious belief. As a general rule, students may pray on school grounds as long as the prayer is entirely initiated and led by students and does not use school resources. The U.S. Supreme Court banned school-sponsored prayer in public schools in a 1962 decision, saying that it violated the First Amendment. But students are allowed to meet and pray on school grounds as long as they do so privately and don't try to force others to do the same"
Regarding "government functions"
"The Supreme Court in 2014 upholds prayer at government meetings. The ruling was based in large part on the history of legislative prayer dating back to the Framers of the Constitution." The majority ruled that opening local government meetings with sectarian prayers doesn't violate the Establishment Clause as long as no religion is advanced or disparaged, and residents aren't coerced.
"As a practice that has long endured, legislative prayer has become part of our heritage and tradition, part of our expressive idiom, similar to the Pledge of Allegiance, inaugural prayer, or the recitation of 'God save the United States and this honorable court' at the opening of this court's sessions," a Supreme Court Justice wrote. The case hinged on these words from the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That has come to be known as the Establishment Clause.
Most state legislatures open their sessions with a prayer, nearly half of them with guidelines. Many county legislatures open meetings with a prayer. The Supreme Court Justice said, "The inclusion of a brief, ceremonial prayer as part of a larger exercise in civic recognition suggests that its purpose and effect are to acknowledge religious leaders and the institutions they represent, rather than to exclude or coerce non-believers," he said.
"The court was divided along ideological lines, with the conservative wing saying the prayers were acceptable, while the liberal justices said the prayers in question violated the First Amendment. The five justices in the majority are Roman Catholic. Of the four dissenters, three are Jewish and one is Catholic."
I was chastised, by a moderator, for responding to a moderator’s comment in red. That was interpreted as commenting on moderation and never to do it again or else
I guess that rule is applied differently to this forum.
The mission of atheism is what now? To ensure people have a choice? Really? In the US we already have choice, guaranteed by the constitution. So what is your role?
Atheism is not about race nobody said it was.
This is the argument, which you know very well and obfuscating:
The thread is about the moral obligation of atheism, do they have one if their goal is to disabuse people of religion?
If that is really a mission then why people turn to religion has to be a factor. Religion is and has always been for the poor and the disenfranchised. They don’t turn to religion for recreation but out of despair and hope.
A big cause of the disenfranchisement is the artifice of race which is used to classify a group of people as inferior and so can be used like cattle. The effect of 200 years of slavery can last for 200 years.
So if the mission is to turn people away from religion then the strategy should be to alleviate their living conditions and open up opportunities for jobs and safety. Atheism should actively support anti-racism and sexism. Instead what i see here is denial that both exists. Perhaps it reflect the 65% atheists who are conservative and sexist. The new wave of atheists are younger and more progressive.
That is what those involved in fighting terrorism do, turn people away from militant religious affiliates, and pressure oppressive governments to liberalize their societies. Attack the system, not the people.
Not sure I get this "mission" business...
Is the effort to distinguish truth from fiction or right from wrong a mission?
I am an atheist plain and simple, but it's not been any sort of mission that makes me an atheist. Not unless learning and understanding the world I was born into can be considered a mission. Never thought of it that way in any case...
I was chastised, by a moderator, for responding to a moderator’s comment in red. That was interpreted as commenting on moderation and never to do it again or else
I guess that rule is applied differently to this forum.
You trying to get me in trouble?
Sometimes when I watch a pro basketball game it's noted that the refs are letting the players play instead of calling so many ticky tack technicals...
Regarding "school functions"
"Schools cannot endorse or advance a particular religion, but they also cannot inhibit the expression of religious belief. As a general rule, students may pray on school grounds as long as the prayer is entirely initiated and led by students and does not use school resources. The U.S. Supreme Court banned school-sponsored prayer in public schools in a 1962 decision, saying that it violated the First Amendment. But students are allowed to meet and pray on school grounds as long as they do so privately and don't try to force others to do the same"
Regarding "government functions"
"The Supreme Court in 2014 upholds prayer at government meetings. The ruling was based in large part on the history of legislative prayer dating back to the Framers of the Constitution." The majority ruled that opening local government meetings with sectarian prayers doesn't violate the Establishment Clause as long as no religion is advanced or disparaged, and residents aren't coerced.
"As a practice that has long endured, legislative prayer has become part of our heritage and tradition, part of our expressive idiom, similar to the Pledge of Allegiance, inaugural prayer, or the recitation of 'God save the United States and this honorable court' at the opening of this court's sessions," a Supreme Court Justice wrote. The case hinged on these words from the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That has come to be known as the Establishment Clause.
Most state legislatures open their sessions with a prayer, nearly half of them with guidelines. Many county legislatures open meetings with a prayer. The Supreme Court Justice said, "The inclusion of a brief, ceremonial prayer as part of a larger exercise in civic recognition suggests that its purpose and effect are to acknowledge religious leaders and the institutions they represent, rather than to exclude or coerce non-believers," he said.
Regardless of what your Supreme Court stated prayers at meetings DO exclude others and there is no place for them at any meeting no concern a religion. Churches have no problem ignoring the Coutts decision on abortion or same sex marriage.
One big difference I see between our two countries is that just about every political speech given there is it ends with God Bless America whereas our Constitution mentions God I don't recall any political speech from a major party ending with God Bless Canada. I don't think our public would accept that. 8m sure that speech start and end the meetings of The Christian Heritage party which never got as high a percentage of votes as either the Marijuana Party or the Rhinoceros Party.
When a HOA or other meeting starts with a Christian prayer the message they are sending to all the non Christians including the atheists is"this is ours and you are damn luckily we tolerate your existence". That is the real reason that meetings start with prayers.
What happened in Florida when a non Christian was selected to lead the prayer, most of the board members walked out saying rpthey were not going to be forced to hear it that and yet they can never understand why they shouldn't be allowed to force others to it every day or ales those others can show the same disrespect by walking out bad mouthing the Christian prayer.
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.
