Freedom From Religion

[mischief]

This is the organization that posts the billboards, the anti-Christmas displays next to the Nativity scenes in the govt offices, the bus signs. It draws a lot of attention to atheism, and I joined the organization because I don't like religious influence on our government. But sometimes, I wonder. Are we atheists alienating people who might otherwise take the time to think about atheism by organizations that are somewhat over the top?

 

[AJMoore]

I'm with you in the sentiment but its kind of like trying to get a smoker to stop, there really isn't anything you can do until they're ready to stop. I live in an area of Southern Babtist, a little scary. But I live my life and they live theirs (although they always try nudge me). When the folks come to my front door to convert me I always take the opportunity to try and convert them. A little uncomfortable for all so they quickly leave.

 

[boondongle]

No despised minority group has ever gained recognition by politely requesting it. As members of a minority group that can easilly "pass" by remaining silent, atheists need to be vocal and visible, showing that we are people just like any other group. If we don't, we let the existing prejudices reign, and have things like a president who can say that atheists aren't fully human (Ronald Reagan did just that).

Just like during the civil rights movement, there are members of the majority who find common ground with the minority. In this case, there are church goers who can understand that the principle of state/church separation protects them just as much as it protects us. Soft selling that issue does everyone a disservice.

 

[Chefdeuce]

To each there own, I'm an Athesit/Earth worship. People in government will be influenced by there own morals and not a nativity in front of their work building. We need to let the Christans be. Treat them like we would like to be treated, we don't want people telling us how to worship. If we take all religion out of government aren't we just turning it into our group, and Athesit government. I think we just need to extend peace to all religions and not bother them but co-exist.

 

[boondongle]

I'm not sure what you mean by allowing atheists to worship, since the position of atheism does not accept the existence of gods, hence nothing to worship.

By keeping religion out of government, we are upholding the principles of secular government established by the founders of our nation and spelled out in our constitution. Government needs to be secular, or it will enable persecution of smaller religions by the dominant one.

 

[Chefdeuce]

Boondongle,
Nice reply.
I don't worship a god, but I do worship nature, not as a god, but as a provider of things, say housing, food, clothes, ect. Things worth worship do not need to be Gods.

As far as larger religions domainting smaller ones....Well I think the drawing out the differences won't help. If we respect all religions, than all will have equal ground no matter the number of followers. That is to say (for porpuse of common ground although not the strongest anology) If non smokers and smokers gave the respect to vapers to do what they choice to be right, then we won't have people trying to ban our activities.

Just a thought.
Go with Peace.

 

[boondongle]

On the worship issue, it really does seem odd to use that word in the context you mention, as most of the definitions reference a god or other religious ritual. Wouldn't something like "respect" serve better?

As to protecting all religious views, the only two ways to go about that are to give equal time, money, and respect to all of them, or just remove them from the realm of government entirely. The first is not nearly as practical and fair as the second. Say we allow government funding of religious groups (actually, we do, in an ongoing and unconstitutional violation that started in the former administration, and has continued in this one). How do we divide the money? By membership numbers? That benefits more established religions, with national infrastructures to allocate the funds. A flat rate? That benefits smaller religions more than larger ones. The only way to be absolutely fair in the degree to which religions benefit from interaction inside the government is to keep them out entirely.

 

[Chefdeuce]

Sorry to be off topic so long, I use the word worship because I do worship, There are rituals, and holidays. Respect seems less active and more just okay with something.

 

[boondongle]

Okay, I see what you are saying. I suppose there are religions that might be atheistic. Personally, I reject those just as much as any other religion, but I take your point on the terminology.

But what do you think about the rest of my post? That the only way to be completely fair is to provide every religion with nothing.

 

[Cocky0]

This is the organization that posts the billboards, the anti-Christmas displays next to the Nativity scenes in the govt offices, the bus signs. It draws a lot of attention to atheism, and I joined the organization because I don't like religious influence on our government. But sometimes, I wonder. Are we atheists alienating people who might otherwise take the time to think about atheism by organizations that are somewhat over the top?

Well those particular folks don't necessarily represent all atheists. While I agree with their intent, the methodology is not preferred one. I like the Atheist Community of Austin. They have a public access talk show aired in the Austin, TX area and replayed as an audio podcast as well as another separate audio podcast.

These folks provide a venue for theists to learn about atheism from a standpoint of logic and reason. They also have a charity organization which helps the homeless I think.

Anyways point being just like radical religious zealots do not represent all theists, the same can be said for atheists as well.

 

[boondongle]

Well those particular folks don't necessarily represent all atheists.

While they don't represent the ideologies and beliefs of all atheists, they don't claim to. In addition to attempting to counter anti-atheist bigotry, they also fight for separation of church and state in court. And that is something that reasonable atheists and theists alike should be able to support.

While I agree with their intent, the methodology is not preferred one. I like the Atheist Community of Austin. They have a public access talk show aired in the Austin, TX area and replayed as an audio podcast as well as another separate audio podcast.

I'm pretty baffled by this comment. I listen to the ACA's podcasts (Atheist Experience and The Non-Prophets) as well as the FFRF's Freethought Radio podcast. I'm not sure how you can find the FFRF less reasonable than the ACA. While I enjoy both, the FFRF is uniformly polite and mellow, while the ACA is often mocking and dismissive.

Anyways point being just like radical religious zealots do not represent all theists, the same can be said for atheists as well.

Interestingly, there was a recent ACA podcast where one of the hosts (I think it was Russell Glasser), made the case that you can draw a logical line between belief in the bible and religiously motivated violence, but you could not do the same between atheism and anti-religious violence.



I'm not sure why people find the billboards so offensive in any case. Here's a few of them:

Compare those with some from the other side of the aisle:

I don't feel that the atheist billboards are even nearly as nasty as the religious ones.

 

[bobtow]

Is atheism evolving into a religion? I always thoutht atheism was a private thing. We could never keep religion out of politics. The reason is that the elite of the religious people tend to be fanatics. And as long as the majority of the people believe in religion and the morals of religious tenets, there will always be a place for religion in all Governments. Free thinkers tend to be in the minority in all nations

 

[boondongle]

Is atheism evolving into a religion?

No. I hear this canard quite frequently, and it just doesn't hold water. Atheism is simply rejection or lack of acceptance about the claim that a deity or deities exist(s). While some atheists may certainly appear dogmatic about their beliefs, this is not the same as a religion, although we quite frequently see religion and dogmatism linked together.

I always thoutht atheism was a private thing.

That's up to the individual to decide. Some atheists don't discuss the issue, others write books. Most fall somewhere in the middle.

We could never keep religion out of politics. The reason is that the elite of the religious people tend to be fanatics.

I suppose that depends on what you mean by keeping religion out of politics. If you mean keeping religious people out of office, I'd agree. We can't do that, nor should we. If you mean creating a political framework that does not take a stand on the issue of religion and instead deals only with secular matters, then I'd disagree. We have that in the US Constitution.

And as long as the majority of the people believe in religion and the morals of religious tenets, there will always be a place for religion in all Governments.

Most believers don't actually believe in the religious morality...they believe in human morality, and simply justify it with religious texts, while ignoring the parts that conflict with their morality.

Free thinkers tend to be in the minority in all nations

Interestingly, the nations that ranked best in social justice and happiness had high percentages of non-believers, while those that ranked worst had very few non-believers.