fromtheright

Toto, do you have a problem by the way, with parents being concerned with whom their children marry? I would have no problem with your suggesting that your children not marry Christians. If I am dwelling on a side-bar of your argument, please disregard.

fromtheright

Gravitybow, I'd prefer to let Thor Q. Mada speak for himself as above. "Indeed religion has all the definitions of a contageous disease, and therefore those suffering should be put into quarantine to prevent it from spreading and mutating. This should have been done a few thousand years ago..."?
And whether Thor Q. Mada's statement was serious or not, the ongoing marginalization of Christianity, through ridicule and attack by the dominant media elite (oooh, that conservative bugaboo, but your side has yet to counter the Right's evidence of its existence, nay its self-evident existence), is working to do so.

Toto

Fromtheright - I don't watch a lot of TV, can't stand sitcoms, so I really don't know what you are talking about. You can send me one of the AFA newsletters if you like.

Should parents be concerned about who their children marry? When their concern is based on race or religion, we usually call that bigotry.

Vorkosigan

Many of those same surveys would show an increasing disregard for traditional standards of sexual morality. Football players so far are still allowed to pray in public but woe unto the community who allow high school students to pray over a loudspeaker before a football game, however, innocuous or bleached of Christian references such prayers may be.

Traditional standards of sexual morality -- you mean like marriage at during adolescence, polygamy, double standards for sexual behavior, high rates of illegitimacy, high divorce rates...and all the other things we see in our most religious states.

Consider in the SOuth, the most religious part of our nation, we have the highest levels of violence, murder, racism, illegitimacy, divorce (so bad that Okla and Fla recently began gov't programs to do something about it), crime, suicide (except for Lousiana), pollution, and the lowest levels of education, pay, worker protection, environmental protection, and so forth. In every aspect of moral behavior, the south is inferior to the north, and the US, more religious than any industrialized nation, is inferior to almost all of them.

You want to discuss morality? By all means, let's do so.

Explain why religious people constantly form groups like the KKK and the Islamic jihad to terrorize their co-religionists and non-believers. Atheists don't.

Explain why so many religious groups favor candidates who espouse authoritarian positions on social questions.

Explain why the number of atheists in the prisons of the West is disproportionately low. For example, in Britain atheists are 15-20% of the population, but less than 1% of the prison population.

Explain why authoritarian groups, such as Communists, Christians, Muslims, Facists and others, kill those different than themselves and suppress their political rights.

Explain why the most religous areas, whether nationally or globally, are the areas with the highest levels of violence and crime, and the worst social order.

Explain why in the US, religious terrorism, such as the militia groups and the Army of God, is so common, but no atheist groups commit such terrorism.

Explain why, in the US, atheists have the lowest divorce rates (see <a href="http://www.barna.org)" target="_blank">www.barna.org)</a> and evangelicals the highest.

Just for starters.

Michael

fromtheright

You obviously missed part of my note. I don't believe that failure to meet a standard indicates a problem with the standard, only with imperfect human beings, who, the last time I checked are distributed throughout the country. And surely you understand that many of those issues are a little more complex than that.

The last time I checked those problems exist in cities throughout the country, such as Washington, D.C. There are also cultural factors at work as well as political choices; surely you understand that these indications of the "failure of religion" are more complex than that.

It seems to me equally invalid to point to atheists who form such things as Communist and Nazi parties and totalitarian states who exterminate their enemies. I thought you atheists were better debaters than that.

Such as?
And do atheists not espouse authoritarian positions? Affirmative action? Gun control? Opposing tax reductions so that government can spend more of our money?

Because political power, as Jefferson said, is a dangerous thing. It seems that it is at least as dangerous for some atheists to hold as some religionists.

How soon they forget and how quickly they disavow such groups as the Weathermen, Red Army faction and others. "You keep your terrorists, I'll get rid of mine."

[ January 20, 2002: Message edited by: fromtheright ]

[ January 20, 2002: Message edited by: fromtheright ]</p>

SLD

Oh, Gene, give us a break (and I know it's you, Gene). The article itself is evidence of open hostility from the religious right to those of us who don't accept the dominant Christian paradigm!! Those of us who aren't Christians are the ones being demonized; and we do not have the numbers to overcome the open hostility. You need only look no further than Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell's comments that it was our fault that we were attacked on September 11th. When was the last time someone ran for elective office who did not openly proclaim his theistic beliefs - either Christian or Jew? Both Bush and Gore courted the "Christian" vote and overwhelmingly proclaimed their faith - ad nauseum. Siegleman won the governorship by taking away Fob's religious right thunder agreeing with him on his church/state issues. Roy Moore despite his lack of credentials defeats a far more qualified candidate, only because he is seen as God's choice. Bush I had the gall to state that Atheists can't be citizens because we are "one nation under God." And yet we are the aggressors in this debate? Sorry, but Linda Bowles is no better than Robertson or Falwell.

SLD

fromtheright

Sterling, how are you, sir?

Sterling, give me a break. The whole point of the article is the open hostility of the secular and perhaps religious left to those of who don't accept the dominant secular paradigm. The author doesn't complain because some don't accept the Christian paradigm, she worries because it is being attacked. It is quite a stretch to argue that someone's points about being attacked are evidence of hostility.
As to Falwell and Robertson's comments, I think it rather silly to point to remarks that were widely disavowed throughout the conservative movement and the Christian right as the attitude of that movement.
As to Bush's comment, I doubt that he said it but would be interested to check your source.

hezekiah jones

Linda Bowles writes:

Upon closer inspection, you will notice that the "whole point of the article" is based on sheer, unsubstantiated speculation. In other words, it's a load of paranoid horseshit. Unless of course you can cite for us one Democratic politician that has, or will, "attack the Christian paradigm," whatever that is.

This would be a considerable scoop, since:

Better yet, find us Fineman's original article, and see to whom he's attributed the source of his allegations.

Icky

When George Bush was campaigning for the presidency, as incumbent vice president, one of his stops was in Chicago, Illinois, on August 27, 1987. At O'Hare Airport he held a formal outdoor news conference. There Robert I. Sherman, a reporter for the American Atheist news journal, fully accredited by the state of Illinois and by invitation a participating member of the press corps covering the national candidates had the following exchange with then Vice President Bush.

Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?
Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in god is important to me.

Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?

Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?

Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists.

Icky

More details on how the poor Christians are being persecuted by atheists:

<a href="http://www.freethought-web.org/ctrl/news/file004.html" target="_blank">http://www.freethought-web.org/ctrl/news/file004.html</a>