Why send your children to private school?

Not over here they are not. That is one of those myths that really irritates me.

You would have thought that the huge atheist horde from the east that Hitler was trying to save the world from would tip the foxhole balance.
That of course being Adolf Hitler of Nazi Germany, not the other Hitler August mentioned.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Also, as an aside, I've tend to find those who are driving with conservative, religious imagery or slogans displayed to be far more polite and considerate than the others.

I view them as warning labels. Because they either drive like complete idiots, or complete a-holes.

[DarkFish]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Atheist harrass - via lawsuit - people who they have no connection with - all in the sake of FURTHERING their OWN desire - remove God from everything... Take crosses off the gravestones of fallen military heroes, remove crosses at war memorials, etc etc....

well, if I were a war hero, I'd turn over in my grave if someone put up a cross on my gravestone or at a memorial my name was on.

Even if there's only one non-christian involved, you should not put up crosses. Doing so would be highly disrespective of their own religion/beliefs.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by [B

CaptainHaplo[/B]
Atheist harrass - via lawsuit - people who they have no connection with - all in the sake of FURTHERING their OWN desire - remove God from everything... Take crosses off the gravestones of fallen military heroes, remove crosses at war memorials, etc etc....

Slow down a bit.

First, displaying religious symbols in public space, and not wanting to need to tolerate others (relgious people) pushing their relgious symbolism into public space, are two different things. The first is an offense, if you want to call it that. The second is just a defense to reach a state of neutrality again. and in a secular society such as the American or almost all european, the public space and the state's bodies indeed must show religious neutrality.

Read again what I said in that example with that guy in the neighbourhood playing his radio so loud that all others cannot escape to listen to it. Demanding that guy to lower the volume until he does not annoy others anymore, does not compare to pumping up the volume in the first. Nor is there any claim to make that the others have to live with it or have to move away. the right and freedom of the radio owner do not weigh heavier than that of the others.

Second, again I repeat that reference of legalised state discrimination, written down in laws, in several states of the nation you live in. you see, the problem atheists like me have with you religious people is that you reserve all rights to drive forward your thing, and when others say they just do not want to need living in a place were they constantly must take note of your action, then you complain. Like I said earlier - you are very much about all freedoms for you, and considerably less freedoms for others not wanting to share your faith.

U.S. State Laws That discriminate against people who don't believe in a god

Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, Section 1
"... No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

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."
Article 19, sect. 1 of the 1874 constitution

Maryland
"That as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty.. nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief; provided, he believes in the existence of God, and that under His dispensation such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefore either in this world or in the world to come." Bill of Rights: Article 36

Massachusetts
"As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the public worship of God, and of public instructions in piety, religion and morality: herefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily."
Declaration of Rights: Article III

North Carolina
"The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God...."
Constitution Article 6 Section 8

Pennsylvania
"No person who acknowledges the being of 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".
Declaration of Rights Article 1 Section 4

South Carolina
"No person shall be eligible to the office of Governor who denies the existence of the Supreme Being..."
Article 4 Section 2

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."
Bill of Rights: Article 9 Section 4

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."
Article 1 - Bill of Rights: Section 4

Freedom for religion (your religion, that is) is called "freedom" by you. But freedom from religion in your book is anti-religious discrimination, while by law in these states the state himself discriminates massively on the basis of somebody's denial to submit to a faith with a theistic dogma. Here in Germany we do not have that much issues with evangelicals and fundamentalists. But we have something different that absolutely behaves like I just described: Islam.

You know how those two ways of defining your freedom and that of others is called? It is called: double standards. It is called: bigotery (Scheinheiligkeit).

Why do atheists care about religion:

Religion always is and should remain to be a personal, private belief system only. Never should it be allowed to become a political belief system, like in Islam, and like it is wanted by evangelicals and Christian fundamentalists alike. Because in this case, intolerance and worse things not only would become a possibility (and always have become that in history), but a compulsory obligation for the community. And that is the worst tyranny possible.

Many Christian fanatics like the above are so very, very hostile to Islam. It is ironic that they do not see how very very much they are the same like Islam that they complain so much about.

I reject the claims and accusations made against atheists in this thread. Atheists like me do not drive an active atheist agenda of enforcing atheism on others or giving it a high public profile, nor do we missionise in the name of atheism like religious missionise in the name of their faith - as long as the other side does not drive an active theistic agenda of enforcing theism on others or giving theistic faith a high public profile. Atheists like me also do not tel others what they should believe, or that they should believe like we do. Atheism like I describe and understand it is no religion, atheists like me are not in defence of an ideology ("ours"), but we are in defence against an ideology (religious people's). All atheists like we want is that we are being left alone, that public space is protected to remain a religiously neutral space, and that we must not constantly take note of other people's private businesses and must not constantly manouver to evade their actions. I would also complain if I always must witness how my neighbour sleeps with his girlfreind and to realsise what positions they prefer - it simply does not interest me at all, and I would feel offended if they expect me to tolerate them when displaying their nudity or sexual life in the public garden behind our house.

You do not want to bother for us atheists - then do not make us needing to bother for you theists. You do not want a loud neighbourhood disturbing your life, then reduce the volume of your own radio so that we must not pump up the volume of ours so that we must not listen to yours. Keepm your freaking religion were it belongs: in your damn private shere. where oyu insist on making it a public affair, you are not about spirituality anymore, but about powerpolitics and your camp being in control. If you think you must try to anchor your theism in the public space more and more, and discriminate those not wanting to bother for your belief, do not complain if you meet more and more resistence. This resistence has a name. It is called: self-defence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity

P.S. maybe one should remind again of a difference between Europe and America, that is that in America, like with so many other things as well, the two camps seem to be far more polarised and extremist, than in most of Europe, at least in Germany. We do not have any active wide-spread atheist organisation or organised pro-atheism movement here that I am aware of, but we also do not have any major evangelical or fundamentalist Christian movement here, and the two churches maybe are annoying, but are not powerful enough anymore to cause major rifts in society. The only religion-related major problems being raised here in Germany, come from Islam.

but that does not change the fact that any major changes to the philosophical and cultural fundament in the US would cause cultural and social and lifestyle effects that would be felt in all other Western nations as well. We cannot afford not to be interested in the religious-atheistic debate in the Us, therefore. With some delay, any major changes in the US most likely would impact on us over here , too.

[DarkFish]

Originally Posted by Skybird

First, displaying religious symbols in public space, and not wanting to need to tolerate others (relgious people) pushing their relgious symbolism into public space, are two different things. The first is an offense, if you want to call it that. The second is just a defense to reach a state of neutrality again. and in a secular society such as the American or almost all european, the public space and the state's bodies indeed must show religious neutrality.

Read again what I saidin that example with that hguy in the neighbourhood playing his radio so loud that all others cannot escape to listen to it. Demanding that guy to lower the volume until he does not annoy others anymore, does not compare to pumping up the volume in the first.

That quote from Haplo looks familiar.
It wouldn't by any chance be relaterd to those chain e-mails that did the rounds in several versions last year?
Its not surprising he got so many google hits about atheist law suits as lots of people forwarded them and posted them on blogs without realising that surprisingly the claims made in the e-mails were simply fabricated bull.
Though of course the Caps Lock should have been a clue to the validity of the statement as the e-mails seem to be originating from "religious" people who were lying with the aim of errrr.....

FURTHERING their OWN desire

[August]

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

Not over here they are not. That is one of those myths that really irritates me.

No disrespect intended by how many of your countrymen have been in a foxhole since the end of WW2?

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by August

No disrespect intended by how many of your countrymen have been in a foxhole since the end of WW2?

To be hones, I don't know. But right now my brothers in arms are active in Afghanistan and Kosovo + other areas that are not public knowledge for obvious reasons. Wether they actually fight in foxholes or not is allso an unknwn to me, I doubt they do, we shouldfield mobile units, recon and explosives disposal only.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Again, how do you intend upon addressing the very first flaw in your argument?

By saying that I responded to your post in haste. Your experience is your experience, and there is no real answer to that. I apologize.

The truth is that tolerance, like intolerance, knows no boundaries or ideologies, and is probably about equal in every part of a population.

On the other hand, my response does have some validity. Christianity has a long history of intolerance, not unlike that shown by a lot of other religions.

[tater]

Hitler was a Catholic, actually. He was never excommunicated, either—though another high Nazi WAS excommunicated... for marriage to a non-Catholic. What do you have to do to get kicked out of the Catholic Church, lol? Mega-mass murder doesn't make the grade for that, I guess. (after the war, the Pope excommunicated ALL communists with one stroke of the pen, for a reality check)

Stalin was trained in the seminary. He was well aware of how to use belief to his advantage.

While the greatest mass-murders in human history have been not explicitly in the name of religion (Nazis, CCCP, and PRC), they used a religious methodology—replacing god and religious dogma with "head of state" and "political dogma." Belief in communism was quite simply "faith." You can meet commies in universities all over today who believe in such a system contrary to every RL version of it. What else but faith could that be, lol? (insanity is another option, clearly, since it requires trying the same thing and expecting different results).

Also, regardless of the leadership, the PEOPLE were in fact religious in both the Soviet and Nazi societies—and that didn't stop them from willingly doing all the actual murder in either system.

[CaptainHaplo]

@ Sailor Steve - I didn't forget about the "Seperation of Church and State" - in fact I answered your challenge in Post #42....

@ Skybird - try rereading your cut and paste - might want to take Pennsylvania out since all it says is that you cannot disqualify a religous person because they believe - nothing discrimanitory there... Also - as for NC - In Asheville, NC, a local sitting councilman is a vocal athiest - yet even in the "Bible Belt" you don't hear people raising a ruckus - because the "INTOLERANT" Xtians seem to be rather tolerant after all - having been a part of him being elected - and not one lawsuit. How bout that...
There are laws in most states against homosexuality - under "Crimes against Nature" - but when are they enforced? Seems that those with moral beliefs are not out there harrassing and targetting others near as much as people like to claim in threads like this...

As for those who want to say wars and other violence are mostly about religion - sorry - that is demonstratably false.

The rise of the Macedonian (Greek) empire.
The rise of the Roman empire.
The Punic Wars.
The fall of the Roman empire.
The Hundred Years War.
The Spanish Civil War
The US Civil War
The Great War (WW1)

Etc Etc - and those are off the top of my head. War is predominantly about power (who has it) and control (usually of resources). The only reason so many wars have a religious conentation is simply because organized religion has been one means of control over mankind - and so any struggle for power and control will usually have a religious facet - as a way to claim authority. Don't confuse the root cause with what the foundational reasons are hiding behind. Even the Crusades (Most - the kids crusade being an exception) were about power and control. Winning a Crusade meant power (through prestige) at home as well as control over commerce to and from a focal point in the Middle East - all hiding behind a religious facade.

Back to the original subject, it would seem that USA's educational problems began when both unbiased History and Geography, were replaced by History and Physical "Education".

[Skybird]

Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights: Article 1, Section 4:
"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."

This seems to imply that a person who denied the existence of all Gods or who denied the existence of heaven (or equivalent) or who denied the existence of hell (or equivalent) had no protection from being held ineligible to hold office or be a member of the PA civil service because of their religious beliefs.

3.htm

[CaptainHaplo]

Now - back to the original post topic....

How many posting about how horrible this all is - have actually READ what changes are being made?

In case you want to - you can:

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=3643

If you read - you will see additions like the word "VALID" when citing a source - so no talking to your buddy in the second grade and taking his word for it... Yep thats horrible....

The addition of historical figures - guys like George Washington and "GASP!" Martin Luther King - uhm wait - I thought they were taking him out - nope - he actually is being ADDED to the curriculum - how bout those white supremecist right leaning bigots???

Another man talked about as a great inventor that gets added - George Washington Carver - hmmm - how was HE not in there before? And how dare those republicans try to include him - they must be racist for trying to hold him up as an example of what a man - regardless of color - can do if he wants. Bastids!!!!!

Now later you find what really bugs the liberals - teaching kids their responsibilities in maintaining "a constitutional republic"! Oh my GOD they are going to teach kids FACTS - can't have that can they?

But the liberal media wants to run with it - just like they want to run with an arizona law that enforces what the feds have - as racist. And some people swallow it - hook, line and sinker. Because they don't go read it themselves.

[CaptainHaplo]

Skybird - no it does not - it means what it says - just because a man says he believes in god doesn't mean you can use that as a reason to keep him out of public office. Your trying to say that because it says one thing - the opposite of that one thing must be true - thats not gonna work. It may be a translation thing - but I doubt any native english speaker with no dog in the fight would agree with your interpretation.