Open religious (or not) discussion thread

Yellek wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

Here's an open thread for discussing issues pertaining to religion, atheism, etc - that's open to everyone. Please try to obey the golden rule, Wheaton's law, etc..

Pssht. What does that jerk know.

Gnatbeelson's always been a shifty sort.

Scalia's remarks are a little bit frightening. Next step: the Supreme Court being able to decide what is and is not a religion.

I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["actual religion"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the group involved in this case is not that.

(This is what I foresee being the basis of future decisions about religion.)

Guess we should get to work on codifying the Goodjer religion so I can feel free to play games while at work without suffering persecution or threat of termination. What should it be called? Goodjerism, Goodjeria, Church of the Latter Day Stans?

Goodjaterians?

It's obvious that Scalia and millions of other Americans have believed this all along. I'd rather it be openly said so it can be confronted.

Higgledy wrote:

Goodjaterians?

That sounds like people who don't eat goodjers. And we're delicious.

dejanzie wrote:
Higgledy wrote:

Goodjaterians?

That sounds like people who don't eat goodjers. And we're delicious.

Actually, wouldn't that be people who ONLY eat goodjers?

dejanzie wrote:
Higgledy wrote:

Goodjaterians?

That sounds like people who don't eat goodjers. And we're delicious.

I've been told that's only true with a good sauce.

So, how bout that religion, huh?

Disappointing. Not even remotely surprising.

NJ Judge rules that 'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance is not discriminatory against atheists.

As a non-American atheist this doesn't really affect me much, but living here it still disappoints me. What say you, fellow GWJers?

Rallick wrote:

NJ Judge rules that 'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance is not discriminatory against atheists.

As a non-American atheist this doesn't really affect me much, but living here it still disappoints me. What say you, fellow GWJers?

It was added to be discriminatory, that was the whole point.

The pledge of allegiance is kinda silly.

Pledge...
Of...
Allegiance...

As in, "I Bobby, 5 years old and being of sound body and mind hereby dedicate my complete unwavering allegiance to a country I barely know the name of, that I don't understand, whose history I don't know and whose leadership wasn't voted on by me. Oh, and I do all of this in the name of God whom I totally comprehend at 5."

It couldn't be more silly.

I agree with that, though it really feels like the Pledge of Allegiance is more about indoctrination than anything else. It's more than a little creepy to me, much the same way ultra nationalism or patriotism is. It's a fine thing to be proud of your country, but take it too far - which is absolutely happening in America in my opinion - and you will have serious problems. It doesn't allow room for disagreement or constructive criticism - which makes it very similar to almost all religions (just to bring it back to the thread topic).

Why do you hate America, Rallick?

Here's the thing... The Pledge of Allegiance isn't required for any public office, or for service to the government, so it's hard to challenge something that is otherwise voluntary, and all public service positions that require an oath don't require you to swear that oath with religious context.

I think that all of these challenges to the Pledge are a bit misguided. Primarily because they're focusing on the wrong target. They're often brought up in schools. I think the only thing they should continue to do with regard to schools is protecting the students' rights to refuse to recite the pledge, or stand for it.

The best place to fight for this change is to get a newly minted US Citizen to fight against it as part of the citizenship test. As long as it's a required part of that test, it should not include Under God. Either that, or it's removed as part of that test.

The Oath of Allegiance (the "against all enemies, foreign and domestic" one that gives its name to the Oath Keepers, who are totally not racist, just lovers of the Constitution) only gives a shout-out to the Most High at the end with the words, "so help me God."
EDIT: The Oath is administered to new citizens. I don't know what new (potential) new citizen would dare raise a stink about the Oath.

I watched one school staffer recite the Pledge of Allegiance so fervently each morning that it seemed like an invocation, her magical thinking being that if everyone stands up and puts their hand on their heart and recites the Pledge and really means it, her son wouldn't die a meaningless death in a faraway desert.

I'm a little concerned that the purportedly atheist dude shooting 3 muslims is going to be used to fuel the anti-atheist arguments. I've already seen a few 'see?! atheists DO kill in the name of non-belief!" gotcha type stuff going around, I imagine the "if only he had the morality one gets from following god this could have been prevented" stuff is coming soon enough.

H.P. Lovesauce wrote:

The Oath of Allegiance (the "against all enemies, foreign and domestic" one that gives its name to the Oath Keepers, who are totally not racist, just lovers of the Constitution) only gives a shout-out to the Most High at the end with the words, "so help me God."
EDIT: The Oath is administered to new citizens. I don't know what new (potential) new citizen would dare raise a stink about the Oath.

I watched one school staffer recite the Pledge of Allegiance so fervently each morning that it seemed like an invocation, her magical thinking being that if everyone stands up and puts their hand on their heart and recites the Pledge and really means it, her son wouldn't die a meaningless death in a faraway desert.

Knowing the actual Pledge of Allegiance is part of the citizenship test, though. Not the general oath of allegiance.

krev82 wrote:

I'm a little concerned that the purportedly atheist dude shooting 3 muslims is going to be used to fuel the anti-atheist arguments. I've already seen a few 'see?! atheists DO kill in the name of non-belief!" gotcha type stuff going around, I imagine the "if only he had the morality one gets from following god this could have been prevented" stuff is coming soon enough.

I've mostly seen atheists from the anti-tribal group trying to get tribal atheists to look at their behavior with some self-reflection, which is often violently (verbally) rejected by the tribal atheists.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycan...

The number of anti-Muslim Dawkins tweets after the shooting has been somewhat staggering and deeply depressing. More so as he's still used as the example of THE athiest by so many theists I know.

H.P. Lovesauce wrote:

EDIT: The Oath is administered to new citizens. I don't know what new (potential) new citizen would dare raise a stink about the Oath.

The oath administered at the Naturalization ceremony is different. It also has the So help me God bit in it, but it's different.

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

Demosthenes wrote:

The number of anti-Muslim Dawkins tweets after the shooting has been somewhat staggering and deeply depressing. More so as he's still used as the example of THE athiest by so many theists I know.

And when it's not him, it's equally racist Bill Maher.

Tanglebones wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

The number of anti-Muslim Dawkins tweets after the shooting has been somewhat staggering and deeply depressing. More so as he's still used as the example of THE athiest by so many theists I know.

And when it's not him, it's equally racist Bill Maher.

Yuuuuuuuup. Why can't it be Carl Sagan or Neil de Grasse Tyson? I'd be ok with that.

Tanglebones wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

The number of anti-Muslim Dawkins tweets after the shooting has been somewhat staggering and deeply depressing. More so as he's still used as the example of THE athiest by so many theists I know.

And when it's not him, it's equally racist Bill Maher.

Every family has their embarassing members. Christianity has its Pat Robertsons and James Dobsons, and atheism has its Richard Dawkins and Bill Mahers.

Well, it can't be Carl Sagan for a pretty obvious reason...

NSMike wrote:

Well, it can't be Carl Sagan for a pretty obvious reason...

I assume you mean because he's dead... but it's interesting that I didn't know that he was more skeptical of either side for their belief that they were certain they were right than anything else... it's kind of nice to know that I'm a little bit like Carl Sagan in that regard.