Charles Darwin is too controversial for the U.S.

Remove all ads!

I think that many Christians in the US feel the atheists are organized based on the fact that they have been successful in eliminating prayer from schools and religious references from public places.

This is a feeling based on emotional frustration and not on fact, because as has been pointed out, many christian groups and other religious groups started the ball rolling by eliminating "the wrong kind" of religion from schools, and atheists of all stripes managed to finish the job. So the theists of all stripes, who tried to band together late in the game, found that they had done too little too late and that they had shot themselves in the foot. So they lashed out at their perceived enemies, who as has been established, are a rather heterogeneous group of people.

 

LKD, I think the reason so many believers in the US see the atheist movement as organized is because a single entity (the ACLU) has been behind almost all of those challenges. Now, the ACLU isn't an atheist organization, in fact it has defended religion in many cases, but they haven't been nearly as public cases as the cases that opposed religion.

On top of that, there are a number of organizations who directly promote the atheist view on religion, and several that even promote the more drastic view that religions are all evil and destructive and stupid and should be abolished.

Pplr, while such groups of atheists do exist, I consider them to be the atheist counterpart to a particular religion. They're organized, they teach particular values, and they generally actively recruit/spread their message.

 

One word: (mis)perception.

Choose as you wish.

 

If you're talking about the perception of the ACLU and the consequences thereof, I'll agree, it's a misconception. It is, however, one resulting primarily from news coverage and not from propaganda.

 

...or it could also be the result of large and influential christian groups making tremendous amounts of noise each and every time a christian group comes under ACLU "assault". Christian groups have the capacity to make far more noise than atheists, muslims, hindus, jews, etc -- simply because their numbers dwarf those of all the other groups put together. The christian majority comes with more than just numerical benefits. Because they have more people, they have more funding. Because they have more funding, they have more media access and wield greater political power. This misconception doesn't exist because of any media bias or a lack of interest on the part of the press. It exists because of the membership, funding, and clout of the religious right.

 

I cannot speak for most Christians (being only one of them), but I argued there was organization going on among some atheists (not all) because I've seen people from widely different geographic regions make use of the same talking points. That implied to me that a script and an attached ideology were laid out and circulated.

It was a position I only came to this year after talking online with some atheists-not in relation to discussion of school prayer and with some distance between the religious right and myself.

 

Drew, I think you need to look more at the bigger picture with the media:
Liberal news groups present stories of ACLU vs Religion as ACLU defending Freedom of Religion. When the ACLU defends religious actions, they ignore it. It doesn't fit their agenda.
Conservative news groups present stories of ACLU vs Religion as ACLU attacking Free Worship. When the ACLU defends religious actions, they ignore it. They've portrayed the ACLU as the bad guys, and this would break their image.
The moderate news groups just don't pay much attention to either side.

You notice how, above, no one's publicizing the ACLU defending religion?

Pplr, I think we can argue that those extremists who avidly press their ideas on others (such as those you've run into) are probably about as organized as a loose political body (think conseratives in general, not the GOP). That means they don't really have conferences or such, probably don't even have a newsletter, but news gets around, and so do talking points.

 

Speaking of misperception, that then would be a misrepresentation to rile the base for partisan gain. The ACLU has for example fought cases for the Mormons or the Six Day Adventists - who, as I like to suggest, like gays or lesbians or organised Atheists are actual minorities in America. Majorities need not enforce their rights and protect their civil liberties in court.

Knowing that, that suggests to roam more freely when trying to get a feel of the news. I imagine one must get odd ideas when one solely informs oneself through FOX News, New York Times, National Review, the Weekly Standard, let alone World Net Daily or the Examiner.

The point is, and that has Frum said just a few days ago in an interview, and I think he's right, that the right, the Christian conservatives in particular, see themselves as a party of cultural opposition and who have, that's my addition, not Frum's, a siege mentality. The conservative media wouldn't vilify the ACLU as they do if it was different. They serve their customer i.e. their target audience. And more important for conservative corporate media is that it pays. Perfect example for that is Glenn Beck who rode to wealth and superstar status playing to that sentiment.

 

Yes, well:

is just as much a part of the problem, and just as much a partisan misconception to support their base.

 

No NOG, you can't just turn that one around to conjure up a counterargument.

Them liberals here do have the advantage of having the facts on their side. The cases that the ACLU files do aim on defending religious freedom. Just read the statement of claims they bring to the courts. When the ACLU then wins in court its because they made a compelling case, generally suggesting that indeed, their plaintiff's rights have been violated.

To get over that one, the right then had to invent 'liberal activist judges' - yes they won that case, but not because they were right but because the evil liberal activist judge colluded with them and distorted the law! Or, in Orly Taitz words, is a traitor. IMO that's an irresponsible thing to say because it undermines the legitimacy of the legal system. There is a whole cottage industry of people in the US living from that.

The right probably tends to deny that the ACLU is really defending Religious Freedom because they are often at the receiving end of such claims and have been unwilling to accommodate such minorities (i.e. there is a reason such things make their way to court and aren't settled amiably). Nobody likes to change the old ways he that is used to, i.e.: But we always had school prayers - and then came the atheists and secular humanists and ruined everything! Change! Call it a persecution complex if you so want.

 

Ragusa, did you even read what I wrote? I'm the one that first pointed out that the ACLU defends religious expression as well as attacking it! I was talking about the perception of events, not the actuality.

 

Phew, this thread is a mammoth to plow through in one sitting.. but interesting nonetheless.

One aspect I didn't see discussed was the issues raised by the non-christians. (Note: Not atheists, as that's yet another belief*.) Due to the secularization of the society at large, even some of the most basic Christian values need to be backed up with reason all of a sudden. And that ain't easy for your average Joe christian that has just taken them for granted since.. oh well, pretty much from birth?

Giving a reasoning behind something elementary such as "Thou shall not kill" doesn't require Einsteinian IQ, but it surely can get complicated fast.
- Why should there be a morning prayer? "Because we've always had it" doesn't quite convince a refugee from <some suitable non-christian country>.
- Why can't persons of same gender marry each other? "It says in the Bible that you can't. So there. Oh, you don't live by the stuff in there? -- Gee, we have a problem here."
- <pick any hot debate topic where christian values suddenly stand against something else, you name it>

In my not so humble opinion, status quo MUST NOT be used as an argument for preservation of it. That's circular logic.

*= As I see it, believing in God is just that - a belief of how things are. Since there can't be a proof for a belief - as that'd make it a fact -- there most certainly can't be proof of the opposite of it, either. Thus, believing there is no God, ie. atheism, is just as unsupportable by facts and thus a belief. I'd assume many people labeled as atheists aren't that but just open for both possibilities, accepting the fact that neither can really be proven to be "The Truth".

 

The burden of proof tends to lie on the person making a claim. Or else the claim that there are purple invisible unicorns on the moon is as valid as the claim that there are no purple invisible unicorns on the moon.

Old argument but one I think you should ponder. It is so easy and comfortable to basically claim "live and let live" when it comes to religion when the issue is a lot more complicated than that.

 

Unfortunately, somewhere along the line, the atheism tent has been expanded not just those who believe there are no Gods, but also to include those who do not believe in God. In other words, somewhere along the line, classic agnosticism like mine has been (re?)defined as atheism.

 

I agree. So go ahead and prove there is no god.

 

Child molesters exist. Therefore, God does not exist. QED.

 

That's simple to disprove, Joacqin. If they're purple, they aren't invisible.

I don't think anyone's claiming that any of it is provable. Issues of proof only come up when one side claims to be able to prove something or tries to force their beliefs on others. While there are those who try to force religious beliefs on others, I think it's generally frowned upon on these boards.

I'm sorry, you'll have to explain that one. If it's a joke, it's just plain bad. If it's a serious statement, well, it's still bad.

 

Yeah, Joac. What's up with that?

 

God created human reproduction, meaning God knew of the possibility for child molestation. It's a not-so-intelligent design, and also shows that God can't be that good.

Somebody's missing the point here: Atheists/agnostics/pantheists/non-believers/whatever-you-wanna-call-us *aren't* the ones claiming anything. We simply don't know. It's up to you guys to make a decent case, and provide compelling evidence, in support of your unsubstatiated claims...

 

Except that it assumes God intended this world to be a zombie paradise, which really isn't all that good, when you think about it.

If man has free will, then the consequences of that free will must be allowed to exist as well. Otherwise, what's the point? I'm sure you all know what I'm talking about in gaming. If there are 5 dialogue options, but they all do the same thing, what's the point? If your entire party gets wiped out, but they automatically pop back up at full health, full xp, and not missing any equipment, what's the point? Apply the same to the real world. The result would be weak, indulgent, lazy people that had no reason to even care about good or evil, much less put any effort into choosing one or the other. Hardly the kind you'd want to give any kind of authority over anything to.