Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Racism and it's roots in the culture of the conservative church has become such a denial and push under the rug topic that I don't think people would even admit on a poll that they don't want a minority in the family. That kind of talk is only said at home..... Especially since people are being held socially accountable now a days for prejudice views. No one wants to be called something they aren't, but at the same time no one wants to own up to their own prejudices and face them and where/how they came about.
Again @Vastmind I don't doubt that is true of the USA..in most parts of the UK the minority that no one wants to acknowledge are the church goers. Not the atheists. Atheism is the norm among British people under 50 unless they are Muslim..
From a UK population of 65 million just over one million go to church .
@Hamsaka said:
There is plenty enough accuracy in this statement or else I wouldn't have said it.
I used to go to the poll with my grandparents back in the 1950s and saw plenty of Methodists that went to our church voting. The vast majority of the people I worked with throughout my life were Christians, and most of them voted.
How can you even say such a thing?
0
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
I'm a little confused myself about Christians not voting in America. America is mostly Christians; if Christians weren't voting, there'd hardly be anyone voting! Maybe it's a misunderstanding of some sort.
@vinlyn said:
I used to go to the poll with my grandparents back in the 1950s and saw plenty of Methodists that went to our church voting. The vast majority of the people I worked with throughout my life were Christians, and most of them voted.
>
How can you even say such a thing?
I was thinking the same thing. In my home town Everyone voted and except for a Jewish family of three, they were all Christians. If they didn't vote pretty much noone did.
In a population of less than 5000 people there were 5 churches - 1 Methodist, 2 Lutheran, 1 Catholic, and 1 Episcopalian. A sizeable number of people in town went into the city for church. Religion was a big deal. So was civic duty and voting was a big part of it.
0
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
I'm sorry guys, CLEARLY I made a generalization, but with enough truth to support the point I made (about neo-conservatism and the evolution of its relationship to Christianity). Personal anecdotes don't hold any more water than my generalization.
If you are talking about "bloc voting", your statement might be more accurate. But even then, certain religious groups have pretty much bloc voted for decades. Black congregations have voted primarily Democratic since the 1930s. Irish Catholics have similarly been a voting bloc for many decades.
@overthecuckoosnest said:
Sure, there's annoying atheists, but there's also fundamentalist religious groups.
Give me an annoying atheist any day, at least you won't get homophobic bigotry and such like.
People talk about "militant" atheists, but I think that's nonsense, it's just a pejorative term conjured up by over-sensitive theists for somebody who says honestly what they think. Maybe there's some sour grapes too, based on society becoming increasingly secular and theism being increasingly marginalised. There was a time when an atheist would have been burned alive for heresy, but hopefully we've got past that now...
@vinlyn said:
A new poll indicates that about half of Americans don't want an atheist in the family. Oh oh. In fact, atheists were the most stigmatized group in the poll.
@SpinyNorman said:
Give me an annoying atheist any day, at least you won't get homophobic bigotry and such like. People talk about "militant" atheists, but I think that's nonsense, it's just a pejorative term conjured up by over-sensitive theists for somebody who says honestly what they think. Maybe there's some sour grapes too, based on society becoming increasingly secular and theism being increasingly marginalised. There was a time when an atheist would have been burned alive for heresy, but hopefully we've got past that now...
It my be that way in England, Norm, but I honestly doubt what you wrote.
Whether they're atheists, or funadmental Christians they all say what they honestly think. One side isn't speaking the truth while the other is just making shit up as they go.
There's saying in the Bible, " Out of the fullness of the heart, the mouth speaks."
yes there once was a time where atheists were burned for heresy. There were also times when Christians were burned for the same thing.
They weren't martyred for being annoying, althothough I suspect the martyrdom lasted longer than it might have because of it. They were so annoying that noone cared if they lived or died.
Hell, I know Buddhists that are annoying.
The sad truth about human society is that if you don't toe the line, socialy, you are marginalized, even ostracized. Back in the day this was, in effect, a death sentence. Without the support of your group, you would die.
Today, we are, of course, much more enlightened. People, margininalized by society for being a constant annoyance, can go on the internet and continue being an annoyance there for as long as they like.
I haven't heard of any Christians being burned in the Bible Belt, and I'm pretty sure the Spanish Inquisition wasn't run by militant atheists.
But seriously, yes, free speech is important. I just get the impression that some theists would rather turn the clock back, they really don't think it's acceptable that people have the freedom to say "what you believe in is complete and utter nonsense".
@SpinyNorman .....Right on! .... In the South, it's this whole "back to good old days".
Good or bad...they want them back....and they're fightin' like hell, hahaha
I'm involved in alot of civil rights work and the church is giving me a boot in the mouth every chance they get. Yes, your allowed to think that some people will go to hell...but laws cannot me made for that purpose. I'm getting so tired of the same arguments getting used now againest gay rights that were used againest black rights. Sorry..it's been a rough week having talks/protests and when your outnumbered....damn...I feel so defeated sometimes. Progress can be hard...especially when the Tea Party is just minutes from where I work. Oh well...The struggle continues and I have to remind myself...someone already paid the price for me.
"America is a/was founded by Christians, therefore (insert argument like religion in schools or something here)"
We get similar arguments in the UK, they seem to forget that most Christian churches were built over pagan sites and that Christian festivals were originally pagan ones, etc etc.
What's even worse IMO is when religious types say: "Without religion there would be no morality", conveniently forgetting all the horrendous oppression and wars caused by the Abrahamic religions over the last 2000 years.
Oh god, the whole morality thing. That drives me insane. It's like saying you can't swim if you don't have fins or something.
1
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited July 2014
@Captain_America said:
Oh god, the whole morality thing. That drives me insane. It's like saying you can't swim if you don't have fins or something.
Or you can't learn to ski unless it's a competition sport with rules. :screwy:
People that say morality has to be ordained by a higher authority are saying it's out of the hands of the very beings it affects: us! They're saying that we can't determine whether actions are good or bad (or at least better/worse) unless we're told so. And if morality could only come from a higher authority, we'd then be back to the problem of which higher authority, something the entire species is divided about.
I think the only approach to morality where we find common ground is a humanistic one, where we accept that humans are indeed the arbiters of morality, but not alone. Morality is intrinsically social; we're all in this together, and morality being about how we treat one another must necessarily involve all of us. Of course there will be disagreement about what's best, but if we're focusing on human well-being (instead of attempting to interpret divine fiat) we'll be able to use reason, logic, empathy and understanding to construct arguments that are based on real-world circumstances... on human lives and happiness (and hopefully take the suffering of other sentient beings into consideration too!).
@AldrisTorvalds said:
I think the only approach to morality where we find common ground is a humanistic one, where we accept that humans are indeed the arbiters of morality, but not alone. Morality is intrinsically social; we're all in this together, and morality being about how we treat one another must necessarily involve all of us. Of course there will be disagreement about what's best, but if we're focusing on human well-being (instead of attempting to interpret divine fiat) we'll be able to use reason, logic, empathy and understanding to construct arguments that are based on real-world circumstances... on human lives and happiness (and hopefully take the suffering of other sentient beings into consideration too!).
Precisely. Sadly there are a few billion people who don't quite see it the same way we do. As long as there are people's whose minds are clouded by such religious things, there'll be unnecessary conflict that will hinder progress in many aspects of life. It's a damn shame, too.
Comments
Racism and it's roots in the culture of the conservative church has become such a denial and push under the rug topic that I don't think people would even admit on a poll that they don't want a minority in the family. That kind of talk is only said at home..... Especially since people are being held socially accountable now a days for prejudice views. No one wants to be called something they aren't, but at the same time no one wants to own up to their own prejudices and face them and where/how they came about.
Again @Vastmind I don't doubt that is true of the USA..in most parts of the UK the minority that no one wants to acknowledge are the church goers. Not the atheists. Atheism is the norm among British people under 50 unless they are Muslim..
From a UK population of 65 million just over one million go to church .
The OP is a poll about US/American. I cannot speak on the UK.
Of course. I was just making the point that its a cultural phenomenon..
There is plenty enough accuracy in this statement or else I wouldn't have said it.
I used to go to the poll with my grandparents back in the 1950s and saw plenty of Methodists that went to our church voting. The vast majority of the people I worked with throughout my life were Christians, and most of them voted.
How can you even say such a thing?
I'm a little confused myself about Christians not voting in America. America is mostly Christians; if Christians weren't voting, there'd hardly be anyone voting! Maybe it's a misunderstanding of some sort.
I agree with @vinlyn. In fact, @Hamsaka's statement is so strange, I wonder if s/he had something in mind other than what the words purvey.
>
I was thinking the same thing. In my home town Everyone voted and except for a Jewish family of three, they were all Christians. If they didn't vote pretty much noone did.
In a population of less than 5000 people there were 5 churches - 1 Methodist, 2 Lutheran, 1 Catholic, and 1 Episcopalian. A sizeable number of people in town went into the city for church. Religion was a big deal. So was civic duty and voting was a big part of it.
I'm sorry guys, CLEARLY I made a generalization, but with enough truth to support the point I made (about neo-conservatism and the evolution of its relationship to Christianity). Personal anecdotes don't hold any more water than my generalization.
If you are talking about "bloc voting", your statement might be more accurate. But even then, certain religious groups have pretty much bloc voted for decades. Black congregations have voted primarily Democratic since the 1930s. Irish Catholics have similarly been a voting bloc for many decades.
Give me an annoying atheist any day, at least you won't get homophobic bigotry and such like.
People talk about "militant" atheists, but I think that's nonsense, it's just a pejorative term conjured up by over-sensitive theists for somebody who says honestly what they think. Maybe there's some sour grapes too, based on society becoming increasingly secular and theism being increasingly marginalised. There was a time when an atheist would have been burned alive for heresy, but hopefully we've got past that now...
How depressing.
It my be that way in England, Norm, but I honestly doubt what you wrote.
Whether they're atheists, or funadmental Christians they all say what they honestly think. One side isn't speaking the truth while the other is just making shit up as they go.
There's saying in the Bible, " Out of the fullness of the heart, the mouth speaks."
yes there once was a time where atheists were burned for heresy. There were also times when Christians were burned for the same thing.
They weren't martyred for being annoying, althothough I suspect the martyrdom lasted longer than it might have because of it. They were so annoying that noone cared if they lived or died.
Hell, I know Buddhists that are annoying.
The sad truth about human society is that if you don't toe the line, socialy, you are marginalized, even ostracized. Back in the day this was, in effect, a death sentence. Without the support of your group, you would die.
Today, we are, of course, much more enlightened. People, margininalized by society for being a constant annoyance, can go on the internet and continue being an annoyance there for as long as they like.
Are these Great Times we live in, or what? lol
I haven't heard of any Christians being burned in the Bible Belt, and I'm pretty sure the Spanish Inquisition wasn't run by militant atheists.
But seriously, yes, free speech is important. I just get the impression that some theists would rather turn the clock back, they really don't think it's acceptable that people have the freedom to say "what you believe in is complete and utter nonsense".
@SpinyNorman .....Right on! .... In the South, it's this whole "back to good old days".
Good or bad...they want them back....and they're fightin' like hell, hahaha
I'm involved in alot of civil rights work and the church is giving me a boot in the mouth every chance they get. Yes, your allowed to think that some people will go to hell...but laws cannot me made for that purpose. I'm getting so tired of the same arguments getting used now againest gay rights that were used againest black rights. Sorry..it's been a rough week having talks/protests and when your outnumbered....damn...I feel so defeated sometimes. Progress can be hard...especially when the Tea Party is just minutes from where I work. Oh well...The struggle continues and I have to remind myself...someone already paid the price for me.
Speaking of arguments I'm tired of:
"America is a/was founded by Christians, therefore (insert argument like religion in schools or something here)"
Ugh.
Still not as bad as that whole "under God belongs in the pledge" nonsense.
We get similar arguments in the UK, they seem to forget that most Christian churches were built over pagan sites and that Christian festivals were originally pagan ones, etc etc.
What's even worse IMO is when religious types say: "Without religion there would be no morality", conveniently forgetting all the horrendous oppression and wars caused by the Abrahamic religions over the last 2000 years.
Oh god, the whole morality thing. That drives me insane. It's like saying you can't swim if you don't have fins or something.
Or you can't learn to ski unless it's a competition sport with rules. :screwy:
People that say morality has to be ordained by a higher authority are saying it's out of the hands of the very beings it affects: us! They're saying that we can't determine whether actions are good or bad (or at least better/worse) unless we're told so. And if morality could only come from a higher authority, we'd then be back to the problem of which higher authority, something the entire species is divided about.
I think the only approach to morality where we find common ground is a humanistic one, where we accept that humans are indeed the arbiters of morality, but not alone. Morality is intrinsically social; we're all in this together, and morality being about how we treat one another must necessarily involve all of us. Of course there will be disagreement about what's best, but if we're focusing on human well-being (instead of attempting to interpret divine fiat) we'll be able to use reason, logic, empathy and understanding to construct arguments that are based on real-world circumstances... on human lives and happiness (and hopefully take the suffering of other sentient beings into consideration too!).
Precisely. Sadly there are a few billion people who don't quite see it the same way we do. As long as there are people's whose minds are clouded by such religious things, there'll be unnecessary conflict that will hinder progress in many aspects of life. It's a damn shame, too.
oops wrong thread