Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
The major notion I got out of it was sects of atheism. We have people within a group interpreting what it means to be an atheist. I like the constitution one. But protesting people that violate the constitution is not the same as anti-religion. For example, change the gay marriage law and ban all religion are a little different to me.
people don't like atheist because of what some atheists do = people don't like theist because of what some theist do
|
I think the operative word in your parallel is "do."
What are atheists doing as opposed to some theists?
Only a teeny-tiny percentage of atheists want to ban religion -- and that's a teeny-tiny percentage of group who, themselves, represent only a small percentage of the overall population. Which means those who want to ban religion through laws and criminal prosecution are basically irrelevant.
However, religious fundamentalists are *not* irrelevant. In fact fundamentalists have been creeping ever closer to power over the last few election cycles and, make no mistake, should one ever achieve the presidency, the laws and policies of that administration would serve *only* its fundamentalist base. Even if 95% of the country's population disagreed with a given policy enacted by a fundamentalist regime, the regime wouldn't care.
We're seeing that right now in congress -- we have a House and Senate who have completely abandoned the 70% of the population who disagree with them. They stopped listening to everyone save the members of the GOP cult.
At any rate, in almost every case, atheists want the freedom to make their own choices without having to obey ridiculous religious rules. Believers will still be free to believe -- and to practice their own lifestyles and follow their own moral compasses.
The difference between the average atheist and the average believer is that atheism isn't out to conquer and convert the world. We have a "live and let live" attitude. If, for instance, you believe gay marriage is a sin, then you have the freedom to refrain from marrying a person of the same sex. Allowing gays to marry doesn't force anyone to marry someone they don't want to marry.
The fundamentalists, on the other hand, want to deny that choice to everyone -- and they have no respect for other belief systems besides their own. They approach these problems from the standpoint that God is real; because God is real, his rules apply to everyone regardless of what you believe. Therefore we, the fundamentalists, have the God-given right to tell everyone else what they can and can't do.
As a result, these people want to make moral decisions for the entire nation -- even the entire world. As I've said before, fundamentalist Christianity is merely fundamentalist Islam's opposite number. Fundy Christians might look at Islam and rules forcing women to wear burqas -- and then turn right around and forbid Christian women from wearing pants, make-up, and their hair down.
The Christian fundamentalists are just as oppressive, discriminatory, and hateful as their ISIS counterparts. They just have a different set of draconic rules.
If these fundamentalists lived their own lives and regarded religion as a personal choice instead of a national mandate, militant atheists would cease to exist.
The result is that there aren't any meaningful parallels between atheists and fundamentalists as they work at cross purposes -- one promoting freedom and personal choice, the other trying to curtail and even eradicate it.
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.
