Doctor X

Just as a nitpick:

It was hard to miss it if you entered the courthouse . . . that was . . . apparently his idea.

--J.D.

diana

True. I believe it should be moved because it is espousal of religion--and the myth that our country was founded on J-C values--on public property, and therefore unconstitutional.

My point was, of course, that even when one breaks the law to do it, simply espousing one's religion still isn't "persecution."

d

Doctor X

"Persecution" is in the eyes of the beholder.

--J.D.

crisisGirl

*sigh"

goody - now we're arguing semantics.

there are a significant number of (fundamentalist) christians in this country who wish to dominate this country, and are perpetually attempting to do so. (see how many times you hear "this is a CHRISTIAN nation!" any time a fundy doesn't get his way.) the moronic monument in alabama is a symbol of christian dominance. it is a visual statement that the court prefers those of the xtian faith.

jerry fallwell's "opinion" is a verbal statement intended to cause grief and harm. if he had used the words "niggers" and "spicks" instead of liberals and gays, this probably wouldn't be contested. actually, a lot of ppl do take it seriously.

george bush's "opinion" was also quite relevant and persecutory, as he was running for president! an "opinion" carries a lot of weight when it is applied to public office.

you can't honestly tell me you've never heard of fred phelps picketing funerals? are you serious?! ol' freddy doesn't just hate gays - godhatesfags.com has a sister site, godhatesamerica.com.

the references to gay persecution are pertinent in the sense that they prove acts of christian-based persecution in this country. the fact that any group of christians is able to conduct this kind of persecution on any group of people signifies a threat to every other group that doesn't find favor in the eyes of fundies. to borrow a lesson from nazi germany, "when they came for the jews..." consider the fact that the klan simply doesn't have enough sway to get away with this kind of behavior anymore.

actually, yes, it is perfectly legal to discriminate in hiring based upon religion if your organization is religious. the boy scouts of america are also allowed to discriminate in ways that other organizations aren't, because they are religiously based.

forcing someone to say christian grace before a meal isn't persecution, unless of course you're a hungry non-christian.

actually, in my elementary school, you would get spanked for not saying the pledge unless your parents had written a note to let you out of it. at the very least, other kids would kick the crap out of you.

i've had a gun stuck in my face for being an atheist - do you consider that to be persecution? i didn't use that example as supporting evidence, however, because i acknowledge that it is outside of the norm, even for here.

for the purpose of semantic nitpicking, perhaps the word i should use is "discriminate", but since i don't have all 72 volumes of the braille version of websters sitting here, i'm really not going to bother with wordplay when my intent is obvious.

again, and for crying out loud, i'm not saying that "the sky is falling" for non-christians in this country. there are, however, enough people attempting to make life unpleasant enough for us to warrant vigilance.

simply "espousing ones religion" is persecution of those who don't share it when it is applied to public office. the non-christian "suffers" a loss of personal liberty, because he is treated as a second-class citizen by the involved public official. since public officials may create and enforce the law, or at least determine the quality of life in a community, that's pretty significant.

this is really the definition of persecution? who hasn't been "persecuted" every saturday morning?

and "religion shoved in every orofice" isn't meant to be taken literally for IPU's sake! (although rosary beads can be fun)

Calzaer

The most effective approach is to agressively plant the seeds (in an "all at once" fashion), then back off and let them grow on their own (in a "slowly over time" fashion). Nurture, support, but don't be agressive or foward anymore (unless they end up trying to quote Josh McDowell at you). Answer their questions, but otherwise leave them alone. That way, in the end, it will be their own choice. Your job is to lead them to water, it's their job to drink.

The absolute best weapon against a fundamentalist is to irk them into trying to find something that refutes you. The search is more enlightening than the "information" they'll eventually find.

You can't "Play 2 crush!" with someone's faith and expect it to work. People aren't like that. "A man convinced against his will / is of the same opinion still." (damned if I remember who said that, tho).

crisisGirl

to plunk more of my 2 cents into the pot, i don't really care about changing the beliefs of fundies. i sure as hell wish they'd leave mine alone though!

livius drusus

I live in Atlanta and not only do I agree thoroughly with diana that none of the things crisisGirl listed qualify as persecution, but I have never once been harassed in any way by the local fundies. I have engaged in very amicable and interesting discussions of religion with the handful of co-workers who give a rat's ass. I have one Catholic friend who gets all worried about my immortal soul when I mock god but she's never preached at me once. She simply asks that I not laugh at her fears and I am more than glad to comply since I can't imagine caring.

I am an outspoken atheist living intown. Nobody's put a gun to my head. Nobody's bothered me on Sunday or any other day. Now, maybe I'm just lucky or maybe crisisGirl is just unlucky. Either way, we certainly can draw no particular conclusions about the larger state of the atheist nation based on our meager personal experiences.

As for the OP, I'm not into coverting people. If we're having a discussion I don't need talking points. If I'm being preached at I won't be for long.

wade-w

I agree completely, crisisGirl.

Liv, as you said, you live intown. I grew up in Morningside, and have lived in midtown and Candler Park, and never had a bit of trouble with fundies, except for avoiding the street preachers dowtown whle I was working/attending GSU. But when I lived outside 285, in Sandy Springs, Duluth, and Lilburn, things were very different. The further out you go, the worse it gets, in my experience.

diana

Point taken, Dr X. I tend to quite specific with what words mean, because I think meaning is better communicated--particularly to those you don't know--when you use the right word for the occasion, as opposed to the almost-right word.

As crisisGirl said, "discriminate" is closer to the truth.

crisisGirl, it isn't just a matter of what I think you mean here--it's more a matter of what Those Who Lurk see when they read. I'd rather they not think we think we're persecuted, because it ain't true. (Now what they have is that you think we're persecuted. Fine. That's your monkey.)

Bien sur, mon amie. Like I said, welcome to the board.

Who doesn't? This is not persecution. Nor is it discrimination.

Sure, but repeating a myth ad nauseum brings it no closer to being true. Not persecution. Not discrimination. Mere opinion.

Not really, although I admit it might look that way to someone who doesn't know the history.

Again, it might appear this way, yes. But he didn't get anyone's approval to put the rock there in the first place. He had it moved in after hours. I'm fairly sure he paid for it and paid to have it delivered. It's been there a couple of years, during which time the court has slowly escalated their efforts to have him remove it.

The statement from the court would seem to be that they don't approve.

I do not contest that he intends to invoke bigotry (at least) toward atheists. But it's still his opinion. It isn't persecution. He's discriminating, yes, but the country is not, nor does it condone his discrimination. Our laws demand that, no matter how nutty, unsupported, or hate-filled his speech, he has a right to say what he wants to say.

Yes of course. So? Their believing the words of the nutjob still does not equate to persecution or discrimination.

No. Persecution is more than an opinion, no matter who espouses it, as is discrimination. Both are actions against the object of hate, whether they be depriving him of basic rights or punishing him in some way. Your opinions against him does nothing to him.

I think you're missing the point. Rational BAC stated that atheists are not persecuted, and you responded to that (as far as I can tell). Phelps' picketing a (gay) funeral has fuckall to do with persecution of atheists.

I know Phelps is a homose...homophobe. I know he picketed Matthew Shepphard's funeral. I feel he was waaaay out of line and should have been sued for everything he owns down to his cufflinks. HOWEVER...this does not constitute persecution of atheists.

You were attempting to disprove Rational BAC's comment that atheists aren't persecuted. If you wish to do that, you must show ways in which atheists are persecuted. Not gays.

Yes, but the argument you were attempting to disprove was the statement that atheists are not persecuted. Stating instances in which Christians persecute people is irrelevant.

Hm. Let's see. Some isolated nutjobs beat some gays to death and were (whenever possible) hunted down and prosecuted for it. Yes, this is persecution. Were they "able" to do it? Clearly. But I'm "able" to do just about anything I want, thanks to the fact that I'm not followed around 24/7 by an armored guard that controls my every movement, as are other Americans without ankle bracelets.

By the same token, people are "able" to "persecute" whoever they want--until the law catches up to them.

Some other isolated loonies preach against gays and go way out on an unsupported limb and claim that God used Islamic fundamentalists to punish America for allowing fags freedoms, and almost everybody laughed at the idiocy they preached. This is not persecution. It's freedom of speech.

Well, duh. If one of the goals of my organization is to glorify God in the manner prescribed by my sponsoring religious organization, I should hope I have the right to turn away a perfectly good Luthern candidate if I'm Baptist. This is not persecution. And it's "discrimination" in the same way that I'd hire someone with a degree before I'd hire someone without (not all discrimination is bad).

Yep. So?

OK. You have me there. I concede. Hungry non-Christians who go to religious soup kitchens who are forced to bow and pretend to pray before a meal so they can eat are "persecuted."

Persecution just ain't what it used to be.

How very interesting. You say children are mean and nasty bigots? Only in America.

I am curious, though. Is your family religious? I wonder what recourse was available for the child who was "forced" to say the pledge (AND NOT SKIP THE ONE NATION UNDER GOD BIT)? How would adults justify a forced pledge of allegiance, anyhow? In a free nation, I mean. What an intriguing thought.

And when the other kids beat you up, was that the end of it? Or did you complain to the teacher/principal to give them an opportunity to see justice done? What happened?

Sure. I'm keen to hear the story, though. Did you announce to him you were an atheist and he pulled a gun? Were you wearing an "Atheist and Damn Proud" shirt? What provoked the gun? (And was it an attempt to get you to come crawling to the god you didn't believe in out of abject fear?)

I'd say. I'd also say that, in this free country, people can pretty much do what they want. However, the verdict lies in whether they get away with it. Did you report the person? What happened then?

Thank you. "Discriminate" is better. Never assume someone understands your intent, though. We can't see your face or hear your voice and we're all over the world. That's a huge assumption to make.

If this was your intent when you cried persecution, then yes. I agree completely. Anything I treasure is worth protecting. I treasure the freedom of religion we enjoy in this country almost as much as I treasure our freedom of speech.

Not until that public official makes a law or takes an action that relegates the atheist to second-class status. Up to that point, it's only the opinion of the official. There's no "treatment" of any sort until there's a definite action.

Yes. It's wise to keep an eye on them lest they act to transform their opinions into persecution.

According to M-W. Yep.

Hm. I take it to mean it's more intense of a situation than simply injury, grieving or affliction (else, we could more accurately use those terms themselves). It's harrassment that is designed to do one or more of those things. The Jews were persecuted. Gays are still, to some extent, persecuted. Atheists are generally only misunderstood and disliked.

I didn't take it literally. I took it as too extreme of an expression for the situation.

d

Gurdur

Ah.
No wonder I worship Diana and Livius so much.