Separation of Church and State

Post Reply New Topic

Ha, no. They usually said things like, "Thank you, God, for blessing us with blablabla and please continue to do so."

Actual quote from my seventh grade science teacher in response to misbehaved kids: "You act so much like monkeys that you make me want to believe in evolution!"

Sometimes I think that I would never have acquired a decent understanding of evolution if my ninth grade biology teacher hadn't just happened to be an atheist. She never told me that she was an atheist, because that's against the rules, but she made obvious hints at it. Religious biology teachers probably tried to teach evolution in passing, while my biology teacher not only taught us the evolution section thoroughly, but also tied the concept to every other biology lesson we had.

Yea, cause anti-theism is supposed to be interpreted in a positive way.....



In China they beat up Gay people and they don't do it for religious regions.... they also oppress people up for believing in any God.

An an atheist is not necessarily an anti-theist. I am both but the generalization that all atheists are anti-theists and are violent is another attempted smear. Religious people are frequently violent against other religions than their own and against atheists but I never accused all religious people of violence or even being anti-gay although Christian doctrine has many aggressive directives towards both violence and the gay life. The Chinese are also fond of eating dogs but being anti-religious does not imply anti-theists hunger for canines. It seems your mind is not sufficiently analytical to discern clearly what different attitudes are integral and what are superfluous. This is very characteristic of racism although I, in no way, imply you of being racist.

Separation of Church and State?

We allow Native Americans to eat Peyote as part of their religion.

We allow Jews to circumcise their boys but we don't allow Muslims to circumcise their girls.

What if a bunch of Aztecs wanted to build a pyramid and cut people's hearts out (on a purely voluntary basis)?

Some groups like the Amish and the Plymouth Brethren don't allow their children to be educated past the sixth or eighth grade.
Is that fair to them?

What if I belong to a Christian sect that says I am allowed to beat my wife and children if they don't obey me?

What if I am a Muslim and want to have four wives?

Your assault is like being attacked with warm lettuce. Anti-theism is the fundamentalist offshoot of atheism. If you want to paint all Christians with the fundamentalist brush, then it works both ways. It seems your mind is not sufficiently analytical to discern clearly what different attitudes are integral and what are superfluous. This is very characteristic of racism although I, in no way, imply you of being racist.

And, of course, the Mormons with their multi-wives and the Catholics discriminating against having women priests.

Terribly sorry, old bean. I have been so aware of the Green Monkey thing since forever, and talk about it so much, that it does not always occur to me that someone else might not.

Stems from a work of fiction encountered many moons back, in which ethnocentric / racist reactions are explained in these terms:

if you paint a monkey green, so it is DIFFERENT, the others will attack it BECAUSE it is different.

I do not know that any such experiment has in fact been carried out. I do know, humans are VERY good at perceiving differences [any body on Wrong Planet ever notice something ike that?] and that for a lot of people the reaction to ANY difference is suspicion or fear or hatred.

I have stated several times explicitly that not all Christians follow tightly Christian doctrine. Although your thinking is frequently deficient I had hoped you could read.

Look at your logic sand. When I mention that Chinese people commit terrible acts with no religious perspective you engage in phenomenal logical chicanery in order to insist that atheism is not to blame. When I mention that anti-theism is an offshoot of atheism you go to great pains to illustrate that this is not the case. When a Christian anywhere on this site accuses you of drawing a link between Christianity and whatever great evil your associating with it on that given day; they are using the same logic you deny as being inapplicable and silly in order to make the case for themselves. You attack this repeatedly and insist that theism is to blame. Maybe the prejudice is yours, maybe you are so against religion you have become an incarnation of what you think is wrong with it.

I am going to steal this insult.



Atheists can be 'fundamentalist' in the coloquial sense (ie, extremely dogmatic and committed), as opposed to the technical sense (adhering strictly to the written canon). An example would be Sam Harris, who speculates in a chillingly reasonable tone about nuking Islamic countries 'for the good of humanity' in The End of Faith.

If you had followed my argument even marginally you would have seen clearly that I merely said that there is explicit Biblical doctrine condemning both anyone following any but a Christian God and anyone engaged in gay practices. From that doctrinal condemnation springs the intolerance evident in in Christian fundamentalism. My statement in the discussion said that without that doctrine there would not be a religious basis for religious intolerance in those areas. That is simple and clear and has nothing to do with the Chinese or my general distaste for the idiotic fantasies of religion. As I pointed out, you seem to have problems with reading comprehension.

IIrc there are a couple of places in the bible where mass atrocities are committed against villages and towns (with God's approval) for the 'crime' of not believing in the correct god.

As indicated in Jerzy Kosiński's novel "The Painted Bird" many animals attack people with differences. That should be obvious especially in a site devoted to autistic people. But there is no literature adored by a select group declaiming that autistic people should be condemned and tortured and killed. There are sections of the Bible that demand these actions towards non-Christians and this justifies such despicable behavior for some, not all, Christians. Those sections are an official part of Christianity and must be acknowledged as such or officially expurgated. That those behaviors occur from other sources not connected to Christianity is irrelevant.

The problem sand is that I am reading what you are saying, and I think its a bit silly. So the fact that secular states like Singapore still treat sodomy as a crime has nothing to do with the issue. Or the fact that that in China (an officially atheist state) gay people are more legally discriminated against than in the United States. This means nothing to you? But you insist that it is the Christianity in western countries that is to blame for this. Your making a case for exceptionalism on the one hand and for blame on the other; your argument is fundamentally structured in favor of your prejudice.



This is an interesting point. I have struggled with this personally. I think you might find this a good read on the subject, even if you are not convinced.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/New ... le&id=5767

That second quote is not mine and I resent you're shoving it into my mouth whether I agree with it or not. And your insistence that crimes committed by other vicious cultures somehow exonerates Christians acting the same way out of Christian doctrine is an open blatant example that you simply cannot reason properly. I am not discussing the behavior of Singapore or Muslims or some nut who escaped from the violent ward of an insane asylum who persecutes gays. I am criticizing Christians who follow Christian doctrine to act badly towards non-believers or people who follow gods other than Christian or gays. I have restated this so many times now that it is obvious there is something fundamentally lacking in your comprehensive abilities. I'm sorry, I cannot help you and there seems no sense in further efforts.

Sand, you have indeed stated that not all Christians are intolerant. However. you preceded that with a statement, which you have yet to rescind, that a certain group was intolerant "precisely because they are Christian." In other words, you first asserted that intolerance was a fundamental defining characteristic of the Christian religions and all followers of same (as the intolerance of this group was caused by - "precisely because" of - their faith), then later tried to back away from the statement without ever disagreeing with it.

And you claim not to see a contradiction here.

To quote one of my favorite authors, "I saw you palm that card!"