Welcome to the club Takeda. You will not be invited to join Skybirds ever shrinking circle of friends... :)

I read this the other day and it seems to apply to your comment.

Going to Church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a mechanic.

How we should treat eachother ? That shouldnt even be a question.

Yeah, looks like we're never going to get that Team Skybird tee shirt. Damn.

Wow. I go to work and this! Seven pages.

I didn't vote either. The answer is to obvious. Call me old fashion but I think you should treat anybody who disagrees with you with respect. The issue is not important. If you don't get respect in return, it's not your problem.

I also think healthy, respectful debate is good. Even enjoyable. An exchange of opposing views can lead to a better understanding and you might even learn something. That being said, I realize that this is a polarizing issue and few people are willing to give ground.

I'm sorry, but this is not freedom of expression or freedom of religion. It is the exact opposite. I live in a free democratic society. I can put a billboard on my front lawn, I can write a letter to the editor or I can stand on the street corner and say whatever I want. And so can you. The subject matter is irrelevant. When this right is taken away, look out. What you're suggesting is suppression of thought and expression. If you start with religion, what's next? Political opinion? And who decides?

There you go.

There you go again. :up:

Well whether you are a atheist, into buddism or part of a druid society doesn't bother me, we're all Gods people even if some of us believe they can fly or shapeshift into cat form...:haha: Try and get on with everyone as a people on this earth we all have the same ending. Death. Then for some there is the afterlife. :)

Sorry this took so long, I was enjoying the discussion here and wanted to continue.

Quite. I've always been a staunch admirer of the US constitution. I'm not sure where I heard it myself, but it was fairly recent (last 2-3) years. Might have been a Dawkins doc, or it might have been a Theroux doc. It might have been an atheist forum or some such. Actually it may have been a caller on 'The Atheist Experience' show that I follow intermittently, which would not lend any particular credibility to it of course. Anybody else follow that show at all?

And indeed, like I said - I do not generally trust it. It is much better to hear from the horses mouth so to speak, about attitudes in a foreign country. Even then, everyone (including myself) has their own bias.

Just a quick web search gave me this though, from early 2011. Certain posters do certainly feel that atheists in USA are generally not trusted etc. and are convinced that were their views made public they would likely be discriminated against for it. I would appreciate your opinion as to the validity of it, since I have only scanned briefly:

http://live.washingtonpost.com/why-d...silverman.html

If for nothing else, Herb Silverman has some excellent replies to the questions posed (mainly by atheists) I would like to hear if any religious folks here look down on atheists generally, or distrust them generally, and if so, why? conversely I must retract my statement regarding physical violence, as I cannot find much about that at all, though I am sure I have heard it. Thinking about it it was likely a Bill Hicks routine...

And this from Wikipedia, how true is this? -

The constitutions of these six US states ban atheists from holding public office:

Arkansas:
"No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court."

Maryland:
"That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.”

Mississippi:
"No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state."

South Carolina:
"No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution."

Tennessee:
"No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state."

Texas:
"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."

A seventh state constitution discriminates against atheists by affording special protection to theists only.

Pennsylvania:
"No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth."

If that's not blatant discrimination against atheists I don't know what is. Interestingly, Texas' line also states everything in the masculine, does this mean women need not apply?

Just remember Sammi it's a lot more difficult to rally the troops (so to speak) if you don't have some injustice to rally around. Religions do this all the time so it should hardly be surprising that an anti-religious organization would use the same tactics to generate support for their cause too.

Bad choice of words perhaps? Just because one is an Atheist doesn't make one anti-religious, merely a non-believer.

You were chosen from a list of candidates for the job

Voting with your wallet, voting with your feet:yeah:

That works both ways:03:

That's because Catholics are not Fundamentalists. I attended a Catholic high school, possibly before your parents were born, and it was true even then: Catholics in general fall under what more hardcore believers describe as 'Liberal Christians'. Catholic scholars like to study all branches of faith, and publicly recognize that there is a chance they might not be right.

This of course is a generalism if not a generalization, and doesn't apply to all individuals. The fact remains that, informally at least, the Catholic Church is nowhere near as hardcore as it once was.

Very true but I was talking about Atheist organizations, not Atheists themselves..

#
I say your freedom ends where your freedom claims to grow at the cost of the freedom of others. And that is the problem. Unlimited freedom is not possiblewhere oyu live not all alone and independent, but in social community with others from whom you take and whom you give and they trake from you and give to you. Social life to some degree is unfree life. Total freedom can only be had at the cost of total absence of social life. And that is a form of anarchy then, and law of the jungle.

In case of the US, the first amendment also makes sure that the state is not allowed to make laws and administrates not on behalf of interests of religious groups and organisations. This is to make sure the state and it'S bodies, services and offices, stays secular and neutral. Freedom of religion includes the right of freedom from religion - else religion turns into a dictatorship, a theocracy. And history shows us how badly all three theistic world religions behave and what incredible cruelty and fanatism they give birth to when being allowed to run states and govern societies according to the dogma of their priests' organisations and own interests. Terrible cruelty, intolerance, fanatism. The worst crimes and disasters and wars in the West were committed in the name of religion. No terror that was too terrible as if not to excuse it by religion. Inhumane barbarity. Discrimination of the non-conformist as moral duty. Intolerance and hate as a viurtue.

No, we should not wan to go back to that. We have Saudi Arabia and Iran to have living reminders of these reasons in modern time.

See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahlquist_v._Cranston

Compare:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/22/us....html?hp&_r=2&

Why bible quotes in public schools tax payers pay for? What has religious club ideology to do with school sport competitions? Public school shcould be secular, and clean from such propaganda. Their curriculae shall stay free from religious ideologic content as well.

Earlier this year there was a story about school students being mobbed for their atheism, even threatened with murder. And atheist families in certain parts of the US need to hide their atheist thinking and need to act "as if" because in their social neighbourhood they else would need fear for being avoided, mobbed, discriminated, and stripped of jobs and opportunities at school. Certain laws in several states of the Us until today discriminate agaiunst athgeists. And high politicians are allowed to say in public that in their opinion atheists are not even real Americans without these politics suffering a ****storm that would teach them to be more humble. and since a long time there is stiff lobbying done to turn the Us into a non-secular country. Coins and notes were supplemented with God-relating texts. The pledge of allegiance was supplemented accordingly. Creationism tries to win equal reputation beside sciences.

Freedom of expression yes- for religion. All others have to care for themselves. That is exactly the same attitude as expressed in the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam. Which is a document of tyranny and subjugation, and has nothing to do with human rights and freedom. Christian fundamentalists have more in common with Muhammeddan totalitarianism than they can want to realise. In the end, the three monotheistic desert dogmas all are one and the same breed.

Sorry, but there has to be drawn a line, and laws protecting it. Else you end up in a theocratic regime sooner or later. And the freedoms and rights of religious people shall have no higher value and respect than that if believers of others sects, or atheists or whomever. The basic rules of living in a state and a society need to safeguard the secular basic nature, else you get into trouble. Religion has to accept this. But religious people, if they are fundamentalist enough, don't agree to that. Since they see the benefit for their faith if society gets changed in its favour, they want right that. The violation of rights of non-believers and different-believers and atheists they care the less for the more fundamentalist they are themselves. And so the double -standards begin to get accepted.

Everybody playing his radio at a volume setting that all others can listen tom theirs without being disturbed. That way, all conflict is avoided. Just one foul apple pumping up the volume can ruin it for all others.

the conflict comes from when people try to nudge into other people's business. Just because you believe something doesnt mean you get to ram it down everyone's throat.

just because you believe gays are immoral and sinners doesnt mean you get to deny them a right to marry

Just because you think abortion is immoral doesnt mean you get to limit people's right to have one (to a reasonable extent)

Just because you believe in a god doesnt mean you should involve him in governing.

Thats why they are incompatible. because the separation of things like church and state dont ring home with some people. You have every right to believe absolutely anything, just keep it to yourself. Having an impartial government is essential to democracy for those who dont believe in your religion.

I believe its a very simple concept. your right to do what you want exclude anything that interfere with mine. John Stuart mill put it pretty well, "The liberty to move your arm ends where my nose begins".

This raises a good point.

It's comparatively easy in this country to dismiss just about anything if you cast it as a religious issue.

There are non religious people who oppose abortion and gay marriage for reasons that have nothing to do with religion. It doesn't have to be about those two hot button issues, religion is used against people just because they oppose a political candidate. Anyone remember Obamas "clinging to guns or religion" comment?