on the problem of sanctimonious attitudes expressed by...

Post Reply New Topic

people with strong religious convictions.

Sorry, but this forum doesn't belong to just atheists or whatever else. There should be no unilateral censorship.

Sorry, but this forum doesn't belong to just atheists or whatever else. There should be no unilateral censorship.

actually he never asks for that, in any way.

he sees an issue in religious people condemning normal activities and judging other because of it, the exact opposite.

then again most religious people dont care what tohers do.

Talking is also a normal activity, and condemning people for having and expressing politically incorrect views is the same thing.

again no one is atually trying to censor anyone,
he is trying to discuss why people who hold these views allow themselves to command all others

You mean like what you are doing just now?

Sorry, but this forum doesn't belong to just atheists or whatever else. There should be no unilateral censorship.

The OP is obviously referencing the thread about "the problem with militant atheists".

I think hes just trying to be cute, and doesnt even have a serious point.

If he does have a point its not obvious what it is.

Its a free country. We are all free to be sanctimonious.

Hi Dox47,

"Interjection" into, or around, people when they "are minding their own business and talking about their faith or lack thereof", has very fine, and very important, lines, in the U.S.A.

"Minding their own business" has many legal connonations, firstly, "public" versus "private", secondly, "business" versus "licensed business", thirdly, "legal" versus "illegal" activities, etc.

"Faith" and/or "lack of faith" also has legal connonations, including factors of "location", "time", etc., as does the major element of "talking", as in conducting a "communication" or "declaration" in public or private.

Less than of legal concerns, the concerns of discourse are still very relevant involving the techniques of instilling, or making available, information, knowledge, beliefs, etc., from "preaching", "educating", "spreading", etc., through various forums and mediums, and arts of disputations.

One legal case I was involved with involved the obligations of medical documentations, and the disputation that the existence of refridgerators established the existance of the Christian God and the Sunday Sabbath beyond reasonable doubt. "Refridgerators proving God" is still ongoing "In the absence of supernatural forces, a bounded system can attain one and only one stable state. One sentence, it contains the first and second laws of thermodynamics. That 'one and only one', whats that all about? It's the first law of thermodynamics." Ambient room temperature answers that debate, but the word "ambient" is way too "Satanical & Militant" of an interjection in a university setting.

The "public" exhibition of the "Shroud of Berlin" was also challenged as "Militant", though determined to have been created in the last decade by Steven Steinman, though not nearly as controversial as the militancy of dung in urine.

Public proclamations for assigned Gods' desires is well now established: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-751.pdf
As is the contrary "nothing".

As distinct from public declaration, google "Two-Ton Ten Monument" for examples, and add Dr. Dobson for what's Godly prohibited in the private household being permitted and required in public and in the courtroom.

For interpretations of Gospel being protected from "Militant" justices in the Supreme Court of Lousiana, try understanding Judge James Best's mainly now removed citations of the Gospels' declaring "Render Unto Caesar" as mandating castration, before the Praetorian Guard (a "militant" group, too!). http://www.lasc.org/opinions/98O0122.opn.PDF
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/05/us/05castration.html

Then, "Little Green Men" endangers the U.S.A. with Asperger's: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -laws.html

Not objecting is often taken as acquiescing (here at WP too!! !), and as Robert Conrad argued, spending money with "In God We Trust" emblazoned on it, is fully acknowledging and accepting this Nation's God, as having no such proclamation on the currency is just as "Militant" as requiring the inscription of "There Is No God" on all of the currency.

Labor Laws also take priority over "cults", Prince v. Massachusetts (1944), and so goes the mandatory pledge and medicine.

(Anything about "Bongs" and religion gets a suspension from educational places too!! ! Those "militants"! !!).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v._Frederick
(Remember Ken Starr and the shape of....???)

Tadzio

Agreed...

Looks to me like the attitude problem actually comes from atheists at least on this forum.

I agree--but let's not condemn religious people uncritically.

There are plenty of people from all points on the spectrum who want to impose their point of view on the citizenry. I don't care if you are seeking to ban abortion or to ban smoking in private places. It is not the motivation that offends me, it is the intention of using the coercive force of law to modify behaviour that does not have an impact on the interests of freedoms of others.