response 50 of 92:

Sep 10 17:48 UTC 2003

<grin>

response 52 of 92:

Sep 10 18:47 UTC 2003

Re #47: a non-sequitar, if inresponse to #46: putting religious symbols on
display in pubolic venues does  not "teach tolerance of other people and
cultures". In fact, it teaches religious division. Our "founding fathers"
understood this well by adopting the first amendment. But teaching tolerance
is very desirable, and  can be done in many contexts that do not require
the unrelated display of religious symbols. A course on the US Constitution
and history would be a good format.

response 54 of 92:

Sep 11 04:07 UTC 2003

In all apparent seriousness, Bruce asks:

>What about the Ten commandments in a public park?  How does that
>violate your civil rights?  Tell me which right is violated.

So I'll tell him:  it violates my Constitutional right to not have
one religion (Christianity, which I understand is the only one to 
find exactly ten commandments in that text!) established as superior
to other religions, or no religion.  They, and their adherents,
become unequal in the park and before the law.  Someone is favored
with the priviledge of putting their religious symbols on public
land (which is *my* land *too*), and others (including me, more
likely than not - what would I put there?) are disfavored.

I don't expect Bruce to see the virtue in strict adherence to the
Establishment clause, to see how it is the grease which keeps
religious friction from igniting the fires of conflict and even
civil war.  He's too dense, too blind, to see how others would
be forced to react if the power of the state could start telling
them that their faith makes them second-class citizens.  He just
follows instructions as best he can.

This is ideal for his job, but as a citizen...  best not to go there.

And atheism is a religion just like teetotalling is substance abuse.

response 56 of 92:

Sep 11 13:22 UTC 2003

Actually, i agree with the notion that atheism is a religion.  It just 
isn't an organized one.  The logic is that atheism is defined as the 
belief in the absence of deity, which is no more proven or provable than 
the presence of deity.  Agnosticism, on the other hand, is the proper 
path of the true skeptic.  It is merely the acceptance that we just don't 
know.  Of course, Occam's Razor makes the Agnostic tend to lean toward 
the atheistic position, but the difference is that both ends of the 
spectrum involve acceptance without proof.

#55 slipped in, so:

Your interpretation of the Establishment Clause is not consistent with 
the interpretation of the Supreme Court.  What makes YOUR interpretation 
superior?

response 58 of 92:

Sep 11 14:55 UTC 2003

There is a lot more evidence for the absence of gods than for the presence
of gods, in the same way there is more evidence for the absence of (say)
fluorescent green elephants than for their presence. 

response 60 of 92:

Sep 11 16:41 UTC 2003

Rane's arguments about green elephants rely on this assumption:  If
flourescent green elephants exist, then we will eventually find evidence that
they exist.  He concludes that since we have found no such evidence, they
don't exist.  A reasonable conclusion.  The same logic does not work, however,
with respect to god.  If a god exists, it is certainly capable of concealing
its existence from the prying scientific eyes of the Rane Curls of the world,
and quite possibly motivated to do so.  
  The existence of green elephants is a falsifiable claim, and as such belongs
to the problem domain of science.  The existence of god is not a falsifiable
claim.  

response 62 of 92:

Sep 11 18:45 UTC 2003

Although more or less an atheist myself, I can't escape the feeling 
that these militant atheist types are just making themselves look like 
half-wits. The American Constitution does of course say that there 
should be no mixing of church and state, and thus it makes sense that 
no religious icons or things of the sort should be placed on public 
grounds, as that may give the notion that the organisation prefers one 
religious group to another. But all the same, I cannot help thinking 
that these guys are making mountains out of molehills and making 
assholes out of themselves in the process. Same thing when the "Under 
God" phrase of the Pledge of Allegiance came under fire. I mean, these 
atheists screech and scream about these things like there was some 
serious discrimination going on. Hell, if I walked into a hospital that 
had a statue of Parvati or St. Peter or Anton LaVey for that matter, I 
wouldn't feel oppressed. As long as the hospital did their jobs right 
and treated me like anyone else, who the hell cares about what 
religious icons they put up? If they think that this kind of thing 
oppresses them, why not try moving to Saudi Arabia for a few months, 
where females aren't even allowed to drive cars, or to Nepal maybe, 
where killing a cow, even accidentally, can net you life in prison? 
Female Genital Mutilation is religious oppression, the arrest of Shi 
Enxiang, the killing of Graham Staines, the making pariahs of Hindu 
widows . . . that's oppression. It seems to me all they are doing is 
making a mockery of the very idea of "religious oppression" by taking 
those who really suffer oppression and forgetting them, while focusing 
on trifles that don't degrade the quality of anyone's 
life. "Oppression" is not the same as having your own set of religious 
(or non-religious) ideas offended. If you don't like the statue or 
don't believe in the commandments, look in the other bloody direction. 
It's all a big to-do over absolutely nothing. I wonder how much dough 
went to fighting these silly court cases that could have been used for 
educating some inner-city kids or feeding the hungry? We can see the 
kinds of priorities these people have . . . 

response 64 of 92:

Sep 11 19:37 UTC 2003

Re #62:
I'm curious who you think is a "militant atheist" in this item.  (Other
than Rane, I mean.)

Rane is right in #63 that this is just the camel's nose under the tent.
 You don't have to listen to people like Pat Robertson for long to
realize that the eventual goal is to have the U.S. become a Christian
theocracy.  These things start in small ways.

response 66 of 92:

Sep 11 20:18 UTC 2003

I'm not "militant" about practically anything - in fact, I am a member of
Handgun Control and don't even have bullets for my Colt 45. 

response 68 of 92:

Sep 12 00:03 UTC 2003

Hadn't Mr. rcurl previously argued *agains*t the "slippery slope" when 
it comes to abortion or, perhaps, cloning for fetal stem cells?  Now, 
he's here arguing *in favor* of it regarding religion and government!

Which is it, sir?

response 70 of 92:

Sep 12 02:49 UTC 2003

Re 68, I told him so.  Did he listen?

response 72 of 92:

Sep 12 03:30 UTC 2003

If you're talking about capital-A Atheism, the positive belief that
there is not and cannot be such a thing as a deity, you are right
that it can be considered a religion.  The mere small-a version of
disbelief until evidence is presented is not, and the difference
cannot be honestly overlooked.  (Agnosticism is the belief that a
deity cannot be found, perhaps because it does not want to be; the
evidence in that case would be indistinguishable from Atheism.)

To be truly fair to all religions, the state cannot take a position
on any one of them unless the evidence for it meets a rather high
standard.  I suggest that the standards required for confirmation of
a scientific theory are sufficient.  Until any, some or all are so
confirmed, they should all be treated as personal preferences to
which people are entitled, but which confer no rights in interactions
with either other people or the government.

response 74 of 92:

Sep 12 13:22 UTC 2003

Funniest statement in Agora right now:

>Budhism ... and any number of other minor religions