No God, No Rights? You betcha.

[H Romberg]

Several points we're not going to agree on:
-Definition of religion I define it as any epistemology that relies on the supernatural. Your argument suggests a significantly different definition.

- You say I have the freedom of choice when it comes to religion. I don't see it that way, as long as I am coerced into subsidizing the religions of others by having them use resources paid for with my tax dollars when they should be using their own. This offends me at a visceral level. Picture being forced to fund the local Satanist church out of each and every paycheck you make if you want to try on my shoes for a while.

-You say Atheists should not be able to "rezone the Commons so as to exclude theists" citing tax funded schools as an example. I see that as an absolute necessity. The commons are a part of the state, which has been prohibited from having any religion. In other words, the state must be non-theist in nature in order to comply with the 1st Amendment. If you wish to change that, don't play semantics with the definition of "religion". Try honestly to change it at the constitutional level. Good luck.

When I discuss freedom of religion with the religious people, they often seem to equate losing the power of the state with losing their right to practice their religion. I sincerely believe these to be two separate things. The same thing seems to happen again when I'm accused of hating christianity when I advocate severing its links to the state. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I was raised with Christian values, in a nation founded on Christian principles, and I do my best to live up to many of those values and principles because they are at the core of my personal ethics. I think however, that those principles are poorly served when the church becomes part of any creature as inherently violent and corruptive as the state The Founding Fathers were wise to create a wall between those two parts of our society. We do ourselves a great disservice when we erode it.

 

[H Romberg]

Having read the thread you referenced, I'm not sure if I should be offended. Can you explain the link you see, because it seems that in referencing it, you lump objections to subsidizing others' religions together with the whinings of people who want to control what they don't own.

I think (or at least I hope) I'm missing something here.

 

[MeekandMild]

H, we must agree to disagree, unless of course you disagree in which case we must agree. We agree that various theisms are epistomological sets however we diverge in our basic assumptions as to the nature of religion versus the establishment of religion.

If you we can set up an experimental model whereby we can prove or disprove my thesis that operationally speaking atheism is a religion. I would propose we find a sample of a half dozen religious philosophers and half dozen atheist philosphers. We will then put them into a PET scanner and let the first group think about their deities and the second group think about their lack of deities. My bet is that there would be no difference between which areas light up in the respective brains. We could then find a half dozen religious zealots and the same number of atheist zealots. Same experiment and I'd bet that a different area would light up in the zealots brains.

I don't see it that way, as long as I am coerced into subsidizing the religions of others by having them use resources paid for with my tax dollars when they should be using their own. This offends me at a visceral level.

Perhaps that visceral response may prove interesting in a PET scanner. One immediately thinks of the word "intolerance", or is it "intolerence"? I wonder also how you decide when it is your duty to be offended? Is there a rule book or do you just follow your biological urges?

Can you explain the link you see, because it seems that in referencing it, you lump objections to subsidizing others' religions together with the whinings of people who want to control what they don't own.

Both are subsets of the Problem of the Commons which has enthralled philosophers from Aristotle to Mao.*** is Meek babbling about now?

 

[H Romberg]

I pretty much follow my biological urges when it comes to being offended. My ethics take over when I decide what to do about it though. As an illustration of the problem of the Commons (Do you like Adam Smith's work too?) I agree that it's a thorny issue.

Intolerance: I'm very tolerant of others who believe differently than I do, so long as they don't hurt me or anyone else. This extends all the way to being willing to risk my life in the defense of their right to believe differently than I do. On the other side of that coin however, I am equally intolerant of anyone (let alone the state which has no rights but only granted powers) using coersion to proselytize. I view the privileged use of state resources acquired via coersion (taxes) as a coercive act.

If those resources were equally available to all, Pagans, Satanists, Weasel Worshippers, Elvis worshippers, and yes even Atheists, I'd be left with just the economic objection that it's dumb to tax and spend when you don't need to. That's seldom the case though, in my experience. Where is Allah mentioned on our money? How about Satan, Zeus, Bhudda, and the Great Pumpkin? Why is it only the Christian sabbath that is observed by the Federal Government? In short, our government has adopted a religious character that reflects the religion of the majority. This is a natural trend, but it is dangerous. I know modern Christianity is an enlightened, kinder, gentler religion, but I still don't trust it when it's mixed with the state. I cite the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, the IRA, and the KKK as examples of what happens when Christianity gets into the business of coersion.

When the FF wrote the Constitution, they recognized the corruptive influence religion and government have on each other, and declared that the government power, unlike the rest of the Commons, would be protected from the influences of religion, in order to keep people from using the government to beat "infidels" over the head. I think that was a stroke of genius, because its the main reason we can have jews, muslims, christians, hindus, bhudists, hindus, and pagans living on the same block without killing each other. Given the historical body count attributable to religious differences, and our population's religious diversity, I'm VERY reluctant to see that balance eroded any farther than it already is. The government is the biggest weapon of all, and I don't think anyone, not even the majority, should be using it to hurt fellow citizens because of their religion, so hands off!. If that makes me intolerant, I've got to reply with a hearty MEA CULPA!



Atheism as a religion note:
If
We view "Atheism" is a religion.
And
The 1st Amendment prohibits establishing a state religion.
Then
The state cannot be "Atheist" and still comply with the Constitution.
Therefore
The state must be "Theist" in order to avoid establishing a state religion.
And by extension
The 1st Amendment is meaningless with regards to religion.

I don't think that's the logic the Founding Fathers had in mind. I think they intended an atheist (note the little "a") state.

 

[Marko Kloos]

If you we can set up an experimental model whereby we can prove or disprove my thesis that operationally speaking atheism is a religion. I would propose we find a sample of a half dozen religious philosophers and half dozen atheist philosphers. We will then put them into a PET scanner and let the first group think about their deities and the second group think about their lack of deities. My bet is that there would be no difference between which areas light up in the respective brains. We could then find a half dozen religious zealots and the same number of atheist zealots. Same experiment and I'd bet that a different area would light up in the zealots brains.

Zealotry is not the benchmark of a religion. There are Beanie Baby collectors who are as zealous about their hobby as some religionists are about their faith. Once again, if you define "religion" to include every group that has one trait or interest in common, then everything can be classified as a religion, and the term becomes meaningless. You are just playing semantics to somehow prove that a non-religious government is somehow religious because "secularism is a religion, too". Following your line of reasoning, a government cannot be impartial in matters of religion, and then it may as well be the majority religion that's favored, right?

Besides, it doesn't matter whther all the members of a government are uniformly religious or non-religious, as long as they don't pass any laws advancing their faith by state mandate, or hindering other faiths in the same fashion. The key here is not the religion (or lack thereof) of the legislators, but their willingness (or lack thereof) to make their particular dogma into law for everyone else.

 

[Cosmoline]

I would like to see a government so small and focussed that it simply does not have time to worry about issues like this. Keep the roads clear and leave me ALONE

 

[Mike Irwin]

"Once again, if you define "religion" to include every group that has one trait or interest in common, then everything can be classified as a religion."

And that would mean that I'm a member of quite a few religions...

The First Church of the Wobble Trap

Apostolic Church of Older Smith & Wesson Revolvers

Pentacostal Church of the Anti-S&W Sellout Agreement

Brethren of Subaru Outback Owners

Primitive Church of Canine Handlers

And I could probably be a Bishop in the Unitarian Church of ExWife Haters...

No wonder I'm poor. All my money is going into the collection plate...

 

[MeekandMild]

Mike, you left out the Seventh Day Horizontalist Fellowship, of which I happen to be the High Priest and Oracle of the NonProphet. In fact I am the NonProphet himself. Donations are welcome.

H, I still think you're missing one of my key points that there is a major ontological diffence between 'religious observations by citizens using the Commons' and 'Establishment of religion'. I cannot argue further without becoming offensive. I despair of ever convincing you there is a difference between religion and establishment of religion and would suggest you meditate on the concept of subjunctive clauses.

On another note, I would suggest you look at the historical issue of what happened to Catholic church properties during and after the time of Henry VIII then get back with me later about the historical background.

Once again, if you define "religion" to include every group that has one trait or interest in common, then everything can be classified as a religion, and the term becomes meaningless.

Marko, I'm not talking about one trait in common, I'm talking about one's major undergirding philosophy of life. The Atheist has a recognizable Controlling Intellignece in his life; the human intelligence within him. He merely internalizes the concept of god and introjects it.

As long as there is no religions hierarchy controlling government I really think that if 90% of the taxpayers are XYZ religion it should be none of the business of the 10% who are ABC if 90% of the use of the commons is by XYZ.

Cosmoline, ditto. I find it frightening to the nth degree that such things are even discussed. I'm sure that if we were all sitting on the front porch drinking beer and/or cola we would never bring them up.

 

[Byron Quick]

It doesn't, it offends me in the same manner that the Klan would when they take ancient religious and cultural symbols and use them for their own purposes.

The Klan took this from the custom of the Scottish clans' method of calling the members of the clan and the allies of the clan to gather in time of war or emergency. It predates Christianity in Scotland. The original effigy was of a large double bitted battle axe set upright on a mountaintop. It metamorphosed into a cross over the centuries but was never considered by the Scottish clans to be burning a Christian cross...after all, after they converted, that would sacreligious, now wouldn't it? Besides, the Scots remember what it really represents...a war axe.

On that note, you still haven't answered the question I asked earlier....what's your take on the religious intolerance experienced by LawDog?

I don't have a clue about it, considering I haven't been following that corner of THR.

Uh, it's LawDog's posts in THIS thread. ???

Some of the colonies already had established religions. Virginia, if I remember correctly, was Anglican. The other Christian sects were pretty upset about being taxed to support it. Thomas Jefferson was part of the effort that disestablished it as well as writing Virginia's formula for the separation of church and state.

Marko might be able to shed some light on this, as my cousin's English is minimal and my German is abysmal. But if I understood her correctly, Austria has a state religion and Austrian citizens are taxed to support that church whether they are believers or not.

Is that what you want? For that is the historical meaning of establisment of religion.

 

[Marko Kloos]

Marko might be able to shed some light on this, as my cousin's English is minimal and my German is abysmal. But if I understood her correctly, Austria has a state religion and Austrian citizens are taxed to support that church whether they are believers or not.

Germany has a "church tax", a few percent of your income that will come out of every paycheck and then go to either the Catholic Church or the Lutheran Protestant Church, the two "established" religions in Germany. You have to indicate your preference on your tax form, but those taxes get subtracted by default.

You have a choice to opt out of the church tax, but the process is deliberately annoying and requires you to get a notarized declaration form the church in question that you have left that particular church officially. (Your name will be read from the pulpit or displayed on the community billboard if you leave the church officially.)

Sweden has a similar system, I believe.

You know what this system did to organized religion in Germany? It stagnated it. The priests, pastors, deacons, and bishops get their paychecks from the state every month, whether they hold a good sermon or a bad one. They have a guaranteed income, and as a result they are content with inaction, and they seldom "rock the boat" in societal issues, lest they call attention onto themselves and possibly jeopardize their state funding. Most Germans belong to one of the two Christian denominations there by default, but religion has taken a largely ceremonial role; it's all about keeping up social conventions and appearances. You get together for a child's christening or First Communion, but only because everybody does it, and it's an excuse to get gifts and throw a party. Many German "paper Christians" state that they don't believe in God or the divinity of Jesus, and religion ahs largely turned into social lip service.

The reason why religion is so much more lively and active in the US is because all the religions have to compete on the free market, so to speak: they all rely on private funding. The absolute worst thing you can do to your religion is to establish it with the State, and to rely on state funding in any way.

 

[H Romberg]

As long as there is no religions hierarchy controlling government I really think that if 90% of the taxpayers are XYZ religion it should be none of the business of the 10% who are ABC if 90% of the use of the commons is by XYZ.

I agree with you. I'm not saying your church or any other entity shouldn't be allowed to use public parks for its ice-cream social. (even though parks really ought not to be part of the commons, but don't get me started on the state's land-grabbing tendencies) What I don't want is a situation where anybody not of the majority is excluded from the commons. (What about nudists in the park? They don't hurt anyone, but they are excluded from most parts of the commons because our nation's religions tell us nudity is bad.) Since the Commons are controlled by the state, and the state operates largely on "majority rules", having religions play an active role in the state will tend to cause exactly that.

The state however, is not a standard version of "The Commons". It shares some traits, but the one that makes it different is its inherently violent nature. Because of that, and because of the especially strong opinions we tend to hold about religion, it was thought wise to make the state and its powers off-limits to ALL religions. The Commons are one thing. The power to take resources without asking (taxes) is quite another.

I despair of ever convincing you there is a difference between religion and establishment of religion

You don't have to convince me. I agree that there is a big difference. I have zero desire to keep anyone from his or her religion. OTOH I have a great desire to keep anyone from establishing a state religion in my country. The crux of our disagreement seems to be what constitutes establishing a state religion. I see it as any preferential treatment of any religion or religions by the state. The Tax-free status "recognized" churches enjoy falls within that category for me.

History of Catholic Church:

The Catholic church raped and was in turn raped by the people of England repeatedly over the centuries. That's exactly what I hope to avoid by guarding jealously the segregation of church and state.

 

[MeekandMild]

Uh, it's LawDog's posts in THIS thread. ???

What he says is pretty self explanatory. This is just a little bit of the whole and I've not focussed on it. There have been several posts through the months elaborating in more detail but I just don't recall enough of the discussion about them to comment.

I tend to be narrow in my disagreements and wide in my agreements and just happen to have been disagreeing with Marko for many months about aspects of what we've been discussing here. Which is interesting because I tend to agree with him on much else and we seldom exchange cross posts other than on this subject.

What about nudists in the park? They don't hurt anyone, but they are excluded from most parts of the commons because our nation's religions tell us nudity is bad.)

That's absurd. Nudists are excluded because there is a long history of sexual approach and assault of children and allowing nudism would make rape too easy to accomplish in anything but a chaperoned and heavily armed environment.

It just happens that in this country the majority of parents who want to protect their children happen to speak their political opinions using religious language.

Though I don't think it is coincidence that Hugh Heffner espoused secular humanist dogma when he coached a generation of men in the philosphy that whatever feels good is good...and in the process allowed a generation of women to be molested by their brothers, cousins and the boys down the street. This was such an ubiquitous process that as religious training became more secular and humanistic even priests and clergymen learned the behavior of the playboy philosophy with disastrous results.

Which brings me to another pet peeve of mine. Irreligious people appear to resent and demean people who use religiously based allegory, illustration and argument to make their points. I don't know why the standard language of public debate should automatically exclude the large numbers of persons who speak in terms of their religious tradition, whether they are Pentecostal Holiness or Hasidic or Gardnerian. Why must we use the foreign language of the agnostic/atheist minority to retain any credibility in public debate? Sounds like raw discrimination to me.

I see it as any preferential treatment of any religion or religions by the state

I agree, however I consider Atheism, Humanism and Agnosticism to be religions.

Going back full circle, the problem in developing just law is that either one agrees that there are absolute moral values or one agrees that moral value is relative. With the former comes orderly development of a civilization and with the latter comes chaos and the decline of civilization.

The absolute worst thing you can do to your religion is to establish it with the State, and to rely on state funding in any way.

We seem to agree on this.

 

[NickEllis]

Interesting Thread....

Hey,

Wow, interesting thread. Its been good to see some people approach this at times highly explosive topic by taking the high road. Which is one of the reasons that I hang around here most of the time.

One thing that I would like to add is that the definition of Tolerance is not that I have to accept your religion or even recognize your religion as having a drop of truth in it. In fact, the truth be told, no matter what your Harvard philosophy prof told you, by definition if I think my religion is right, then I also have to believe that everyone else's religion is wrong. If some of you Athiests believe that you are right, then by definition you believe that anyone who believes in God or a god is also wrong. When I disagree with you because of my religions beliefs, I do indeed think that you are wrong, and if I am a Christian, that means that I believe you are going to suffer the consequences of that error.

This, however, does not give me any liberty to infringe upon your right to err. True Tolerance isn't accepting that everything is right, but accepting that even those who I consider to be wrong in their religious or "epistimological" beliefs are deserving of respect and every God given right that I have.

What really gets me is when people in the name of Tolerance get all rilled up because I happen to think that they are wrong. Well of course I think they are wrong, in the same way that they think that I am three days over the hill and past the coon tree. We can indeed agree to disagree, but that means that one of is is by definition wrong. Heck, maybe both of us are wrong. But anyone that tells me that "all ways are the right way" or that "whatever works best for you is best" is just taking the cowards way out. If you believe what you stand for, then have the balls to believe in it and stand for it, rather than selling out in the name of subjective post-modernism.

What this all boils down to is that regardless of our beliefs, those beliefs automatically exclude a large portion of the American society, a society that has just as much right to free access of all the rights and privilages that anyone else has. That means, if a Christian prayer group in Georgia (who might just happen to be in majority) wants to meet on the Commons and have a Bible study, they have just as much right to be there as a Muslim (who might just happen to be in minority) has to spread his carpet and say his daily evening prayers. Those two groups are in direct polarity in beliefs, and both think the other is going to burn for it, but they both have the right to enjoy that Commons. To disregard the rights of any of those beliefs from "past experiences in the locker room" or "a bad experience from Baptists" is to disregard concrete, objective God given rights off of subjective, circumstancial experiences, which, while admittedly wrong and something that should never have happened (like the Spanish Inquisition) do not invalidade the rights of a majority of people to exercise their rights of free speach and freedom of religion.

Ok, that was way too long, and now I'm going to shut up and have another beer (which is my excuse if none of this made sense... )

Gaiudo

 

[Byron Quick]

Why must we use the foreign language of the agnostic/atheist minority to retain any credibility in public debate? Sounds like raw discrimination to me.

Depends on your religion/denomination. I was raised Southern Baptist. I've had discussions with folks from some Christian denominations whose "religious allegories, illustrations, and arguments" were like Babel to me. I had no idea what their arcane allegories, illustrations, and arguments actually meant. So, if you're talking to someone outside of your religion and you wish to actually communicate...maybe it might be a good idea to use allegories, illustrations, and arguments that they have the background to interpret.

On the other hand, if your goal is not to actually communicate...

I think atheism is a belief system that is similar to religion. However, it is not necessary to use the "foreign language of the agnostic/atheist." English will do very well.

 

[MeekandMild]

Gaiudo, well said.

...maybe it might be a good idea to use allegories, illustrations, and arguments that they have the background to interpret.

So, the generic outsider who comes to town and starts to denigrate the good people therein and to demand they change the way they have done things for 200 years to accomodate him should have the duty to make his plea/plaint/argument in the common patois? Or must they adapt to Washington legalese, current PC feelgood talkand DSM-IV-R psychobabble?

Added 7/19 about 8:15 PM Central Time:

The Catholic church raped and was in turn raped by the people of England repeatedly over the centuries.

I forgot to ask, what are your specific references for this assertion? (Please, not just single cases but statistics and numbers and major trends.) This sounds like the sort of think I see floating about unchallenged all the time on the internet. People always say they learned such things from their undergraduate history teacher or "everybody knows it" or some other verbage. But to me it sounds like the sort of defamation that would be pretty hard to defend if you said it about a popular and politically correct group.

 

[Byron Quick]

Just read a history of England. Check out the laws against English Catholics after the split from Rome. Note the religion of the king who was beheaded...you know, things like that.

Or must they adapt to Washington legalese, current PC feelgood talkand DSM-IV-R psychobabble?

And no, you are under no obligation to speak a language that the people you are talking to can understand. As I stated earlier: "On the other hand, if your goal is not to actually communicate..."

If your goal is to actually communicate, then the answer is also no, you do not need to adapt to any of your examples quoted above, as plain, standard English will suffice quite nicely.

It depends on whether your goal is to communicate and have your target audience understand or simply to hear yourself talk while you preach to the choir.

So it's merely a matter of asking,"What's my goal?" and the answer to which type of language you will choose to use becomes crystal clear.

 

[pax]

Why must we use the foreign language of the agnostic/atheist minority to retain any credibility in public debate? Sounds like raw discrimination to me.

MeekandMild,

If you don't speak the common tongue, it isn't surprising that those who hear you think you are less than literate and not intelligent enough to bother with.

If it's true, it is true in more than one language.

pax

Scintillate, scintillate, globule vivific,
Fain would I fathom thy nature specific,
Loftily poised in ether capacious,
Strongly resembling a gem carbonaceous.

 

[MeekandMild]

Oh, but the common language IS based on Judeo-Christian customs, beliefs and idiom. (Or at least it WAS before it became politically incorrect.) I don't think it is at all obscure not hard to understand. There are specific basic ethic and moral ideas which don't vary much from Hasidim to Holy Rollers to anything in between. These ideas happen to be the basis for our US culture, government and rules of conduct.

On the other hand the preferred language of debate over church/state issues, like many other issues incited by the progressive wing of the Democratic Party bears a curious resemblence to communist boilerplate idiom. The goal of the left appears to be making Judeo-Christian language, ideas and ethics no longer of use in discussing nor debating. These old ideas are to be defined out of the argument, replaced with atheist/agnostic/humanist idiom.

I was looking for my copy of Mao's Little Red Book, but have lost it somewhere in the move. Perhaps someone could help me in coming up with quotes of his ideas regarding removing the "four olds" from the people: old habits, old customs, old beliefs, old ideas.

 

[H Romberg]

allowing nudism would make rape too easy to accomplish in anything but a chaperoned and heavily armed environment.

(yellow light flashing) My BS detector just went into overdrive. Are the mechanics of clothing a deterrent to rape? I doubt it. Are people so base that the mere sight of an unclothed human is enough to undo all our socialization and cause us to become slavering rapists? I think not. In fact, the naturist comunity is pretty well known for being nice peacable honest folks that don't want to hurt anybody. I seriously doubt you could point to ANY evidence that the naturist community has an elevated rate of sexual predation. I'd be fascinated to see it, if you can find some. Good luck. Now the Catholic clergy on the other hand.....

As one who is NOT a nudist but spent a fair abount of time in European countries and was exposed to it a good bit, I can't say I really care much for it. OTOH, I stand by my statement that they're a non-harmful peaceful comunity that is being discriminated against on largely religious grounds (aesthetic too, but that's not the part I take issue with). Either one is fine to do on your own property, but in the Commons, I think it's wrong to exclude some people based on religion while you accept others.

It's the same thing you say is happening to Christians.

Notes on the "sexual revolution":
There are costs to any change but on the whole, I think our society is a lot better off for the changes made in the 60's.I'd rather not go back to the days when women couldn't purchase birth control pills without getting married, when half the population was expected to remain barefoot and pregnant, and had to pledge obedience to their husbands. Oh yeah, those were the good old days when rolling queers was an acceptable practice, blue laws ruled, and it was illegal to ship "certain literature" through the mail because a judge somewhere thought it was sinfull. I applaud Heffner, because he pointed out what we should already have learned; that human sexuality isn't something to be ashamed of, but when you repress it it's powerful enough that the effects are more harmfull than whatever you were trying to fix.

England:
How many people died each time the "established" religion changed in GB? I don't have the stats at hand, so I have limited credibility on this, but I do recall reading that it was a pretty dangeroud time for the losers each time it happened. Lots of blood spilled, and lots of property re-distributed. You had a point that you wanted to make about it though. I'd be interested in your take on the phenomenon, especially since you take a different lesson from it than I do.

Linguistics: (never thought I'd get to use this when I took the class)
The general rule is that in the long run usage paterns drive the evolution of language, and are very difficult to control. A term that falls out of use eventually dissappears, and a term misused often enough acquires new meaning. "Assault Weapon" is a good example. (Tag! Now it's gun related again!) Anyway, calling the lack of religion a "religion" is a good tactic for doing an end-run around the Constitution. If the label eventually sticks, the 1st Amendment will be rendered meaningless, and majority rule will put the Christians in charge of all our morals. I hope that doesn't happen, because it will mess up our country and the cults involved.

Definition of the word "CULT" : Any religion stranger than mine.

 

[MeekandMild]

In fact, the naturist comunity is pretty well known for being nice peacable honest folks that don't want to hurt anybody.

I would suppose the high membership fees they pay and their joint and several liability might have something to do with that. As opposed to the relative anarchy of a public park.

I also find your European analogy inadequte. As Bill Murrey once said, "We're Americans, we're mongrels, we've been thrown out of every decent country in the world." Seriously, this is the US, a country in which the 'pregressives' have kicked 90% of the schizophrenics out of the mental hospitals in the last 20 years and where child molesters have filed court briefs requesting to be considered discriminated minority members. Puleeze!

Now the Catholic clergy on the other hand.....

Was that supposed to be funny?(red light flashing)My chauvanism detector just overloaded and shorted out.

England: Establishment of religion = State Religion, not majority of population who are religious.

More notes on the sexual revolution: high risk Human Papilloma Virus infection rate is now over 75% with concomittant rise of vulvar and cervical cancer cases. HIV and Hepatitis C virus rates over 50% in some sub-populations, breast cancer (which increases with pill use and abortion) has the same relative death rate as in the 1930's, rape videos and bestiality videos receive top billing, porn star Linda Lovelace dies after a car crash.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/1948196.stm

Concerning atheism as a religion, it wasn't considered one as long as theists had control of the debate. It was only after the it became the state religion of the communist nations that it was redefined as such. You don't have a copy of the Little Red Book, do you? We're going to be stuck on the linguistics problem until we have the arguments available from the greatest atheist thinker of the 20th century.

Gun related? Mao said that political power flows from the barrel of a gun?

 

[G&R Tactical]

deleted

 

[Daniel]

G&R Tactical's post above is mine ... how the hell did that happen? (God or the rifle.)

Clicked reply to thread, and was logged on as G&R Tactical. Weird.

 

[G&R Tactical]

Hey Daniel, I have been noticing that people are posting under my name! I am not sure how that happens! When I see one, I just delete it so you can post your comments again...



Thanks,

Grant

 

[H Romberg]

Was that supposed to be funny?(red light flashing)My chauvanism detector just overloaded and shorted out.

It was supposed to be a biting commentary on the relative dangers to society posed by the Catholic Church and people who don't wear clothes. From the looks of it, I touched a nerve. How about we apply the acid test of seeing which group has killed more people? No? How about just putting people on the rack, or burning them alive?

BTW, clothing optional places are all over the world, and a lot of them don't have membership dues, liability issues or any other controls in place. I don't think that's a mitigating factor. It's ironic that something as innocuous as the choice not to "cover up" is capable of carrying so much emotional baggage for folks. I bet Freud would have something to say about that.

England: Establishment of religion = State Religion, not majority of population who are religious.

Whether or not a religion is "established" is a semantic issue. I don't care nearly so much about that as the functional loss of the freedoms those semantics were put there to protect. That's what happens when church and state mix. Applying Majority (read "mob") rule to religion via a democratic state like ours is functionally no different from "establishing" the religion of the majority, and it's something worth fighting to stop. If that means rendering the power of the state off limits to all religions, so be it.

Just for the record, Communists may be atheist as a matter of policy, but the reverse has no basis in fact at all. In fact, while I agree with them on religion in some cases, I view communism as perhaps the most dangerous philosophy yet devised. Tag, you touched a nerve too.

You've pointed out some of the more serious costs of the sexual promiscuity that was a part of the social changes of the last few deckades. They are indeed unfortunate, but they are preventable in the future without resorting to the fundamentalist teachings of the far-right. What's more, they pale beside the costs of repressing the sexuality of an entire society.

One last question: Is it really your contention that Heffner and the sexual revolution are responsible for Linda Lovelace's car accident?

 

[longeyes]

Let's hear it for Hef, the Stepford Stud. Hef's vision of erotic
paradise is about as naive as expecting 72 virgins to unstrap your
bandoliers after you reach a desert version of Valhalla.

Hey, America, are we having fun yet?