Friday morning February 26th, 60 representatives from the Secular Coalition of America met with White House staff to discuss three issues of concern to it’s members which consists of non-religious Americans. Those three issues included protecting children from religiously motivated neglect and abuse, ending proselytizing in the military and working to ensure that various faith based initiatives don’t cause religious discrimination to individuals in need.
While that agenda seems fairly benign and something most individuals regardless of faith or lack thereof would agree with, that didn’t stop the right wing smear machine from spreading fear and lies about the meeting. Apparently the idea that non-religious Americans should be treated with the same respect all other citizens expect from our government is enough to cause right wing hysteria. Sean Hannity of Fox News was found to have made at least 4 factual errors in his quick statement about the meeting falsely claiming that this meeting in some way meant that the nonreligious were getting special treatment from the Obama adminstration. Sean’s statement was nowhere near as inflammatory as what occurred in the right wing blogosphere, which basically labeled the groups participating in the Coalition as hate groups. For perspective on this issue, it is important to realize that one of the groups runs a summer camp and another one is the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers.
#6 – dusanmal.
You’re kidding, right? Obama has increased funding for the faith based
discriminationinitiatives that W started. If he were not Christian, why would he be funneling more money into churches?#5 Ah_Yea,
Sorry, as of this post, you had not said anything worthy of comment.
The fact is: I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can an Atheist or Religious person.
That being said, Atheists seem to be crippled by the notion that only religion can define what a “creator” is, how it behaves, and what it desires, or how it rationalizes.
Atheists try to answer the unknown with a logical approach to the unknown.
Religious people try to answer the unknown through their holy book and morality (even though many aspects are recycled from older religions).
Although an atheist’s approach may seem to be logical, an atheist’s conclusions are based on the assumption that the atheist has covered all their bases in this great universe of ours (which seems to be a tad hasty).
In the end, atheists and religious people share something in common. Their belief hinges on faith that they have found some sort of universal “truth”. Both feel their stances are justified. But in the end, the reason why both beliefs still exist today is that neither side can prove their point nor disprove the other’s point.
What I do see (as an Agnostic) is the proselytizing is usually unwelcomed from both sides, but the religious folks tend to be well-intentioned while the atheistic folks tend to be mean-spirited or self-absorbed in their perceived intellect.
If I had to pick the lesser of two evils, I would say I can tolerate religious people much more than the atheists who tend to come across as self-absorbed “intellectual” whiners. Having seen topics like these on DU, I have noticed the atheists tend to be the most vocal about their views and take pot shots to bait anyone of faith so you can practice your mean-spirited “intellectualism”. The religious folks? They don’t tend to be as vocal here and when they are, they tend to be a lot more civil. I’ve found the same to be true in real life.
#12 – Guyver,
The forefathers had no problems with religions influencing our government. They just didn’t want government influencing religions.
And, that is all that the Secular Coalition for America is fighting to preserve. Right now, we have government sponsored discrimination in the form of faith based initiatives.
What did faith based initiatives do for churches? Not give them money. The government already had a long history of that. What it did was remove the requirement that they prove that they were hiring for such initiatives without discrimination. So, faith based initiatives is all about discrimination.
http://tinyurl.com/yblbghc
#22
“Also, the atheists would dearly love to force their minority opinion on the masses if they could.
RBG”
You got me! I WOULD like to force my minority opinion on the masses, that being; you are free to believe OR not believe whatever the hell you want. Just don’t use the government to make laws that are exclusive of every viewpoint but your own (abortion, contraception, legal recognition of gay marriage, etc.).
And just because atheists write books too, explaining their viewpoints, which people are free to read or NOT read, that does not equal proselytizing. Now if they were knocking on your door Saturday mornings, then maybe you’d have an argument.
Sorry, meant to aim my previous comment at post #28 (GlassHalfFull)
29, Nobody, it may be prudent to point out that Communism is an atheistic government. Conversely speaking, I’m not saying that atheism or atheists are communists. Just that Communism is an atheistic government.
30, Dallas, Like with everything else Hollywood touches the remake will probably suck due to reinventing of the wheel. Last trailer I saw, Liam Neeson was dressed up like he belonged in Camelot.
31, Misanthropic Scott, probably because the majority of charities in this country with the widest impact on our populous are faith-based?
#33 – Guyver,
In the end, atheists and religious people share something in common. Their belief hinges on faith that they have found some sort of universal “truth”.
Actually, atheists merely have a universal standard of evidence. Show me a single shred of hard evidence that there is some divine being or beings and I’ll instantly become an agnostic rather than an atheist. As yet, no one has been able to come up with even the least shred of evidence for any god(s).
That said, I’m not preaching atheism. I just want people to stop using my tax dollars to preach at me, or worse, have the actual dollars themselves preach at me.
E. Pluribus Unum: Out of many, one. That’s a unifying principle.
In God We Trust. That’s an inherently divisive principle. Which god? Why only one? What about people who don’t believe in gods, not all of whom are atheist. Some are Buddhist. Hindus believe in multiple gods. Both are excluded in this motto, but were included in the older motto.
Stop using my tax dollars and the bills themselves to preach at me!
#33 Guyver
Are you agnostic about leprechauns as well? Fairies? How about Santa? I, nor you, can disprove those either.
Your lack of understanding what atheism is, is showing mightily there.
“an atheist’s conclusions are based on the assumption that the atheist has covered all their bases in this great universe of ours (which seems to be a tad hasty). ”
Really? That’s your understanding of what an atheist believes, or in reality doesn’t believe? I’ll leave it to you to look up the definition of atheist/atheism in a dictionary.
“In the end, atheists and religious people share something in common. Their belief hinges on faith that they have found some sort of universal “truth”.”
Any atheist who claims an universal truth, isn’t an atheist, their a deluded person claiming to be an atheist.
I could go on, but it seems you’re married to your media provided view of what atheists and atheism is, so I’d rather not keep talking to a wall.
34, Misanthropic Scott, I’m not familiar with the Secular Coalition for America. That being said, I don’t have a problem with faith-based initiatives getting funding (since the majority of this country is religious).
Are there any secular charities which have been denied tax payer dollars?
If faith-based initiatives are denied government aid to continue their charities, are there enough secular charities which can step up to the plate right now and provide the same services for the poor?
35, Mikey Twit, I won’t support any federal funding of abortion or contraception. People should pay to either prevent or deal with the consequences of their recreational activities.
On the matter of gay “marriage”, IMHO the government should be out of the business of marriage and leave it up to religion. If that is not possible, then allow gays to have “civil unions” which effectively is the same thing (legally speaking).
36, JeffoftheMushroomCult,
Which is why communist governments are atheistic.
#40 – Guyver,
I’m not familiar with the Secular Coalition for America.
Hmm…. And, you didn’t read the article.
That being said, I don’t have a problem with faith-based initiatives getting funding (since the majority of this country is religious).
The problem with faith based initiatives is not that they give money to churches, temples, and mosques. The problem is that they don’t have to prove that they’re non-discriminatory with the money, as I said in my prior post.
Consider an atheist social worker. Where would said social worker find a job? Certainly no longer in a church, though pre-W, they could have. What about a homeless atheist? Would s/he be subjected to a sort of a time-share like lecture on religion prior to getting soup? Faith based initiatives make it possible.
Are there any secular charities which have been denied tax payer dollars?
Unless you believe tax dollars to be in endless supply, as both the W administration and the Obama administration seem at times to think, certainly dollars shifted into faith based initiatives have been denied to the secular organizations who used to get them.
If faith-based initiatives are denied government aid to continue their charities, are there enough secular charities which can step up to the plate right now and provide the same services for the poor?
Um … if you fund them, there will be plenty. Yes.
Even if not and we end faith based initiatives, religious organizations can still fill the gap, providing that they show that they were non-discriminatory in both their hiring and their use of funds. That was the only change from faith based initiatives, the lack of reporting about discrimination.
38, Misantrhopic Scott, Atheists may have a universal standard of evidence, but the conclusion they make is not based on covering all the bases.
As I said before, The fact is: I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can an Atheist or Religious person. If you claim to know one way or the other, then I’ll be receptive but at some point you will have to make an assumption(s).
As for the tax dollars being spent on faith-based services, I’m okay with it so long as the amount does not exceed what is proportional to the religious demographic in this country.
39, Mikey Twit, I don’t care one way or the other. I have a pretty good understanding of atheism (which is why I am an agnostic).
Is there intelligent alien life on other worlds? If you’re an atheist, then surely you realize that your “logical” approach dictates that there is no intelligent alien life on other worlds. There’s no evidence to support it. You will argue the belief of such a thing or entertaining of the idea revolves around magic.
In the end what do you CLAIM TO KNOW? What are your conclusions based off of to support that there is no such thing as a creator / deity / god? I can ask the converse to a religious person and both of you will end up in the same way. You both don’t have any concrete evidence to prove your point. At best you both try to use examples to discredit the other viewpoint. In the end, you may rationalize things to support your FAITH that your way is the right way. You will argue your approach is more logical, but in the end there is no proof one way or the other.
In science, you should understand that any conclusion you make is based on your current level of ignorance.
As an agnostic, I have it easy. I have nothing to prove. But I am receptive to hear viewpoints from either side.
#40
I wasn’t referring to funding by governments for any of those things. All I was meaning to say is that these religious types want to prevent others, by law, who don’t hold their viewpoint on the issue, even they are going to “pay for it” themselves.
As far as marriage, it is/was not an exclusively religious institution. There is legal marriage (you can call them civil unions as well, but colloquially, it’s still marriage all the same) and a religious marriage. You can and should be able to be married legally, hetro or gay, and still not be “religiously” married. Nor should any religion be forced to offer same sex marriage. But as a government of the people, all the people, there should be no exclusion of gay marriage/civil union.
We atheists are a bigger minority than blacks and yet we don’t even have a cable TV channel. Hm!
#40 – Guyver,
On the matter of gay “marriage”, IMHO the government should be out of the business of marriage and leave it up to religion. If that is not possible, then allow gays to have “civil unions” which effectively is the same thing (legally speaking).
Um … you do know that atheists and agnostics are allowed to marry in this country, right? Leave marriage up to religion? Marriage is a contract. In most locales in the U.S., it is the only legally binding contract involving sex. However, it is a state recognized contract, nothing more, nothing less. How could the government possibly stay out of it?
In reality, the government should stay out of determining what a marriage is … one man one woman … two people of the same sex … a couple of nullos … or fourteen people of assorted sexes and genders who happen to want to be life partners. It’s all fine with me. Just write a fair tax code to handle it and it’s none of my business.
41, Misanthropic Scott,
The problem is that they don’t have to prove that they’re non-discriminatory with the money, as I said in my prior post.
Has there been any actual cases of discrimination or is your argument entirely academic?
Where would said social worker find a job?
Apparently Government has a ton of jobs for this line of work.
What about a homeless atheist? Would s/he be subjected to a sort of a time-share like lecture on religion prior to getting soup?
I haven’t heard of any problems with homeless being subjected to a time-share (not that I really look into this either). As for the lecture on religion, I have not heard anyone on the receiving end actually gripe about this. Again, this sounds like an academic argument for someone who’s essentially getting something for free.
Um … if you fund them, there will be plenty. Yes.
Faith-based charities have been around before there was government help. The funding is there last time I checked. Has any secular charity even bothered to try and get government funding? Or is this another academic argument?
45, Misanthropic Scott,
Um … you do know that atheists and agnostics are allowed to marry in this country, right? Leave marriage up to religion?
Yup I sure do. But marriage has been essentially a religious ritual (even when many marriages were strategic / political in agenda). Government eventually got into the picture, but the way I see it religion has a “social copyright” on the word “marriage” which if you recall I suggested a civil union for gays.
I personally think the big deal revolves around tax credits (which tax-paying gays are denied). This is why I suggested government should be out of the business of marriage (and that if we can get a tax credit on marriage, that we are all over-taxed). IMHO the big hang up is around tax credits / rights which is why gays are pushing for marriage.
#42 Guyver
“I have a pretty good understanding of atheism (which is why I am an agnostic).”
I’m pretty sure you don’t based on your alien argument.
“Is there intelligent alien life on other worlds? If you’re an atheist, then surely you realize that your “logical” approach dictates that there is no intelligent alien life on other worlds. There’s no evidence to support it. You will argue the belief of such a thing or entertaining of the idea revolves around magic.”
Using my atheist “logical” approach, there is actual evidence of that could support the existence of intelligent life on other worlds. It’s called planet earth and homo sapiens. It’s called possibility and probability. Look it up.
An atheist, based on all available evidence come to the conclusion there are no deities, and lives their life as such. If EMPIRICAL evidence becomes available that can prove otherwise, then atheists would all have to revisit their stance in light of such EMPIRICAL evidence. This doesn’t seem to hold true the other way for religious types.
After careful reading of a large number of related articles and comments I have found a fundamental problem, that no one seems to understand:
Freedom OF religion must include Freedom FROM religion.
#49 mark
AMEN!
So Mikey Twit, I have a question. My view of God is that it really doesn’t matter if he/she/it exists since it has no tangible difference on anyone’s life. To me asking the question whether God exists and has any relevance in anyone’s life is like asking whether a bowling ball has relevance is a salmon’s life.
Basically, the answer is “it doesn’t matter so let’s get on with it” to me. So, am I an atheist or agnostic? I’ve never figured it out. Thanks in advance.
43, Mikey Twitt, “I wasn’t referring to funding by governments for any of those things. All I was meaning to say is that these religious types want to prevent others, by law, who don’t hold their viewpoint on the issue, even they are going to “pay for it” themselves.”
I believe in a level playing field. If a woman can choose to abort a baby due to having the baby would be socially inconvenient for the woman. Then I think it would be fair to give would-be fathers a similar right in that they can legally abort their relationship with the mother and baby (against the mother’s wishes) should the mother choose to keep the baby for the same social inconveniences. That would be fair, no?
You can and should be able to be married legally, hetro or gay, and still not be “religiously” married. Nor should any religion be forced to offer same sex marriage. But as a government of the people, all the people, there should be no exclusion of gay marriage/civil union.
Aside from the marriage tax credit and adoption rights, what EXACTLY do gays not already have that married couples enjoy?
Ooh… OOh…OOOH….OOOOOH…..
OOOOOH CA-NA-DA…
#46 – Guyver,
Has there been any actual cases of discrimination or is your argument entirely academic?
How could we possibly know since there is no way to prove it due to the fact that religious organizations need not keep records? It’s just like proving there is no god. The rules are written to prevent such proof.
Apparently Government has a ton of jobs for this line of work.
And you have the statistics to show that it has not been declining since and because of faith based initiatives? And, what government has tons of this? Local? State? Federal?
I haven’t heard of any problems with homeless being subjected to a time-share (not that I really look into this either).
http://tinyurl.com/yz632on
Has any secular charity even bothered to try and get government funding?
Red Cross? http://tinyurl.com/ygtbghj
48, Mikey Twit,
Using my atheist “logical” approach, there is actual evidence of that could support the existence of intelligent life on other worlds. It’s called planet earth and homo sapiens. It’s called possibility and probability.
…
An atheist, based on all available evidence come to the conclusion there are no deities, and lives their life as such. If EMPIRICAL evidence becomes available that can prove otherwise, then atheists would all have to revisit their stance in light of such EMPIRICAL evidence.
All you had to say was your belief is based on the UNIVERSAL possibility and probability (due to lack of empirical evidence you have gathered here on Earth) that there COULD be no God / Deity in this universe.
Now you see? It wasn’t that hard to make a universal conclusion based on lack of empirical evidence. Now was it?
In the mean time, I’ll refrain from making such universal conclusions until someone can prove their point one way or the other with empirical evidence. When that day comes, “then agnostics would all have to revisit their stance in light of such EMPIRICAL evidence”🙂
#47 – Guyver,
Since Judaism is the oldest sub-sect of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religion, here’s a bit of history.
The marriage contract was originally in Aramaic so that it would stand up in the courts of the time. It was always intended to be a legal document consistent with the laws of the land.
http://tinyurl.com/ycu8k33
#51 qb
Based on your description of your viewpoint I would have to say you’re agnostic since you choose (in a polite manner, I’m not being condescending) not to deal with the “existence” side of the argument.
Myself, I was raised catholic so try as I might I couldn’t avoid the existence question. After years of learning/researching/thinking, I arrived at my atheist viewpoint because I made a determination on probability of existence. Could I be wrong? Of course I could be, but I’ve made a conscience decision that I surmise there are probably no deities to speak of.
#52 Guyver
Man, you must keep a lot of straw around.
#51 I’m with you qb. We need a name.
“God exists”: Theist
“God doesn’t exist”: Atheist
“I don’t know if God exists”: Agnostic
“I don’t care if God exists”: ???
#49 – mark,
Freedom OF religion must include Freedom FROM religion.
That’s axiomatic. Though, I realize it’s not necessarily the majority viewpoint. Still, it is indeed true by definition. True freedom of anything must include the choice none-of-the-above.
54, Misanthropic Scott,
“How could we possibly know since there is no way to prove it due to the fact that religious organizations need not keep records?”
All you had to say was your argument was entirely academic. You didn’t have to answer a question with a question. 🙂
“And you have the statistics to show that it has not been declining since and because of faith based initiatives? And, what government has tons of this? Local? State? Federal?”
I thought your question was about where an atheistic social worker can find a job?
On the homeless link, I visited it. It was some guy’s blog. I tried to go to the original article he linked, but it was dead.
On the Red Cross, there was no link to where they were denied funding. On a side note, I stopped donating blood to the red cross after I found out that they charge patients for the blood I donate freely.
#51 – qb,
Tough call. I’d say you’re an atheist since you are clearly making the comparison of the bowling ball to a fish that has absolutely no contact with a bowling ball and would never see evidence of it. However, the analogy breaks down because a bowling ball could be dropped into a river full of salmon causing the death of at least one salmon.
So, it depends. If you mean that god has and can have no relevance in your life under any circumstance, you’re an atheist. If you believe that god might possibly drop out of the sky like a bowling ball, landing on your head and causing your death, thus making a believer out of what used to be you, then you’re an agnostic.