Reason Rally

[Jerakeen]

Check it out.

 

Looks like a good time, and it happens that I can go. No-one knows how to party like a bunch of atheists. Actually, I don't think I've ever seen a big group of atheists in one place. Maybe it will be boring, but probably not with Tim Minchin there.

 

Anyone else planning to be there?

[Actaeon]

Secular doesn't have to mean atheist, does it? (And no, D.C. is much too far.)

[Jerakeen]

True. And I admit I'm not familiar with all of those speakers. But several of them definitely are. Presumably they'll be well represented in the crowd as well.

[Actaeon]

I would imagine a crowd that turns up for Dawkins is likely to be fairly atheistic, yes. I also admit that most people who find the United States insufficiently secular are those annoyed with religion in general.

[Enraged Slith]

God, these people are so obnoxious. Why does everyone have to wear their faith or lack of it like a harlequin jumpsuit, these days?

[Necris Omega]

Every system of belief seeking new members has its "evangelists" - Atheism is no different.

[nikki.]

If I were in the area, I'd totally go just to see Tim Minchin. Alas that seeing him does not warrant the airfare.

[Alorael at Large]

In America, secularism also has to have its shouting war with religion over who gets preferential legislative treatment.

 

—Alorael, who notes that the point of this is to wear lack of religion on sleeves to make a point about America not being as full of Christians as the vocal minority might make it look. And maybe encourage some politicians to come out of the closet on not actually being Bible thumpers.

[Actaeon]

So it's the First Amendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...") against the First Ammendment ("...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.")?

 

As for Christians being the vocal minority... Most studies I've seen suggest we remain a predominantly Protestant nation. There's a mile wide line between checking the box on a survey and being a bible thumper, though.

[Alorael at Large]

The US is still majority Protestant, but the Protestants aren't all evangelists. America is majority mind-your-own-business religious.

 

—Alorael, who is fine with that. Except minding your own business generally means not taking up political arms to defend everyone's right to not have their business minded by others.

[Harehunter]

Aloreal- No truer words were spoken.

 

I may not agree with the Catholic church on certain issues, but it enrages me when I see legislation that would coerce them into actions that are contrary to their beliefs. I would feel the same way if jews or muslims were coerced to eat pork or be restricted from the practice of their beliefs. I believe that if some one chooses atheism as their religious doctrine, then they have that choice, and I would protect their right to believe as they do. I do have a problem with atheist activists who do everything in their power to restrict the free expression of other people religious faith. They are free to evangelize their doctrine as mush as they please, just as many protestant religions do e.g the Mormans. Their evangelism does not prevent me from telling them politely, No I don't want to talk with you at this time.

 

But I take umbrage when I see restrictions against a person expressing their belief. And I will use the power of the ballot to protect the right of religious freedom for all people in this country.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

Aloreal- No truer words were spoken.

I may not agree with the Catholic church on certain issues, but it enrages me when I see legislation that would coerce them into actions that are contrary to their beliefs. I would feel the same way if jews or muslims were coerced to eat pork or be restricted from the practice of their beliefs. I believe that if some one chooses atheism as their religious doctrine, then they have that choice, and I would protect their right to believe as they do. I do have a problem with atheist activists who do everything in their power to restrict the free expression of other people religious faith. They are free to evangelize their doctrine as mush as they please, just as many protestant religions do e.g the Mormans. Their evangelism does not prevent me from telling them politely, No I don't want to talk with you at this time.

On the other hand, religion should not be an excuse to weasel out of following the same laws and fulfilling the same obligations as everyone else. I don't get to avoid paying taxes just because I say that taxation is against my religious beliefs -- not even if it's true.

[Alorael at Large]

Mormons aren't Protestants.

 

Right to freedom to express religion is just that: expression. You are notably allowed to be restricted in venue, because others' rights not to be harassed come into play. And most importantly, you are not guaranteed the right to force your beliefs on others.

 

The murky water is in between cases. Does the government have the right to force Catholics to use birth control? No, it does not. But assuming for the moment that the government has the right to mandate that employers pay for health care (I think we might disagree!), is it reasonable to demand that employers not get out of it on reasons of faith?

 

Maybe. Sometimes. A church might reasonably be expected to hire people sharing its faith and have grounds to refuse to do things against its faith's tenets. A business run by a Catholic has no such rights: that Catholic does not have the right to impose opposition to birth control on employees. And hospitals that are Catholic but employ many non-Catholics? Well, that's where it gets interesting. The government has asserted that the hospitals can't wiggle out.

 

—Alorael, who agrees with that. As others have said, many religions oppose many things. Allowing exemptions opens the floodgates for abuse of employees. If you are not actually a place of worship, you should get no religious exemptions.

[Student of Trinity]

I don't think there's anything so bad about this thread so far, but remembering that this is Jeff's commercial board, and that religious issues can be incendiary enough to drive away customers, we do have to keep things cool here.

 

Would anyone find it weird to read a thread here about a big evangelical rally, and how neat it would be to go there and hear some famous preacher in person? I'd be a bit uncomfortable with it; I'd feel it was getting a little close to a certain line. I'd probably write a little moderatorial admonition much like this one.

 

So, mutatis mutandis, the principle applies. We can handle some respectful discussions, but just remember that this is not the place for any form of metaphysical advertising.

[Dantius]

Tim Minchin is speaking?

[Randomizer]

"Don't become an atheist, they don't have holidays."

 

-- Benny Hill

[Aoslare]

*cue Benny Hill theme song and end credits*

[darint]

"There's nothing an agnostic can't do if he doesn't know whether he believes in anything or not."

 

--Monty Python (actually Graham Chapman)

 

<cue Sousa's "Liberty Bell">

[MrRoivas]

Oh. Storm. One of my favorite videos ever.

[Erebus the Black]

Viewer discretion is advised:

Squidi.net

[Soul of Wit]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

I do have a problem with atheist activists who do everything in their power to restrict the free expression of other people religious faith.

Any examples of this spring to mind?

[Aoslare]

I don't think anybody really does that the exact way Harehunter phrased it. Presumably he was talking about activists who seek restrictions on the expression of religion by the government (i.e., by government officials acting in their capacity as government officials). This means issues like school prayer, government-funded christmas tree displays, etc.

 

In the US, by and large, the majority of mainstream atheists and mainstream theists are fairly tolerant of each other. And there is almost no one who wants to make religious practices mandatory -- or illegal. There are, however, many people in both camps who make provocative and inflammatory statements about the other camp, so it can definitely feel like what Harehunter described, even if that doesn't actually happen.

[Soul of Wit]

I'm areligious. Many of my loved ones are Catholic. I find the whole "war on Christmas" stuff ridiculous. I can't imagine being offended by someone wishing me well, while tacitly admitting that they have no idea what religion I practice and/or tolerate. Likewise, I can't imaging being offended by the phrase Merry Christmas. If I were a militant atheist, I would take that as an expression of good cheer during a holiday season that I ignore.

 

To sum up my personal beliefs, as a US citizen: Religious displays belong on private property. There is no conflict in the first amendment. Public school prayer is just fine, among consenting participants (or in silence.) The addition of "Under God" to the Pledge was a response to godless communists and not a governmental endorsement of Theism. I fear no faith.

__________________________

The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not. --Eric Hoffer

[Ceiling Durkheim]

Quote:

Public school prayer is just fine, among consenting participants (or in silence.)

As far as I can tell, the debate over "school prayer" revolves around whether teachers can lead/mandate prayer in schools. I've never heard of a school disallowing individual students from engaging in (non-disruptive) prayer.

[Aoslare]

It is well established that public schools have to accomodate prayer needs of individual students if they can. If a student does five daily prayers at certain times, the school has to allow that student to be excused for a few minutes to pray.

 

Wikipedia has a nice article on school prayer. The U.S. section sums it up as follows: "Thus, anyone is allowed to pray in schools in the United States, as long as it is not officially sponsored by the school and it does not disrupt others from doing their work."

[Ceiling Durkheim]

Quote:

Wikipedia has a nice article on school prayer. The U.S. section sums it up as follows: "Thus, anyone is allowed to pray in schools in the United States, as long as it is not officially sponsored by the school and it does not disrupt others from doing their work."

Yep. In this, as in many other issues, reality has an unacceptable liberal bias.

I find this whole business depressing. I know Republicans/conservatives who are intelligent, honest, and deeply principled people. People whom I respect despite differing with them on most political issues. They just don't seem to be running the party.

Not that the Democrats are perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but it feels like most of them are at least trying to be reasonable, honest, and non-fanatical.

[waterplant]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

...it enrages me when I see legislation that would coerce them (the Catholic Church) into actions that are contrary to their beliefs.

Is that what's happening in this particular piece of legislation, or just some political point-scoring?

It would be up to the individual employee whether it would use any or all of the benefits covered by the insurance policy. Surely the Catholic Church would not impinge on a person's God-given (or Obama-given) free choice.

[Tyranicus]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

I may not agree with the Catholic church on certain issues, but it enrages me when I see legislation that would coerce them into actions that are contrary to their beliefs.

On the same token, And I'm really not trying to get into a shouting match here, it enrages me that someone might have to pay for medical procedures out of pocket just because their employer belongs to a minority group that objects to those procedures.

[Necris Omega]

Originally Posted By: Tyranicus

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

I may not agree with the Catholic church on certain issues, but it enrages me when I see legislation that would coerce them into actions that are contrary to their beliefs.

On the same token, And I'm really not trying to get into a shouting match here, it enrages me that someone might have to pay for medical procedures out of pocket just because their employer belongs to a minority group that objects to those procedures.

Eh, for me the thing is, no one's forcing anyone to work for any of these staunchly religious establishments.

Why would you work for an organization so religious as to make these objections without knowing what you're getting into in the first place? Going to work for St. Catholic's Catholic Hospital for Catholics, built by Catholics for Catholics and expecting them NOT to adhere to Catholic doctrine...? You're willingly signing on to an organization that likens "abortion" to "infanticide", and you can't claim otherwise.

Expecting abortion coverage is like expecting to NOT get fired if your everyday greeting of choice is "Hail Satan". Yes, you've the religious freedom as guaranteed by the Constitution to do so, but you'd be hard pressed to get away with that in a completely secular organization.

It's one thing for a lone employer to be denying his employees benefits off his or her own personal, private beliefs. In a purely secular workplace, THAT would be wrong. When it's the entire founding principles behind the organization, known, upfront, and center stage, however, I can't say an employee doesn't know what he or she if getting into.

[Soul of Wit]

The Obama administration has come up with a compromise which is fine with the Catholic church:

 

The insurance pays for the contraception. The insurance is paid for as a part of the employEE's compensation package. It's going to be real tough to argue that is the employER's money.

 

Only a few Republicans have a problem with this. So, yes, it is ideology and not principles.

[Alorael at Large]

Originally Posted By: Necris Omega

It's one thing for a lone employer to be denying his employees benefits off his or her own personal, private beliefs. In a purely secular workplace, THAT would be wrong. When it's the entire founding principles behind the organization, known, upfront, and center stage, however, I can't say an employee doesn't know what he or she if getting into.

The complication is that Catholic hospitals aren't like Catholic churches. They're not full of Catholics. They're full of patients of all denominations treated by doctors and nurses from many religions. The administrative work is done by anyone and everyone, and the building is cleaned and maintained by staff who aren't necessarily Catholic. A church should, in theory, be largely employing people who hold with its tenets by the nature of the institution. The hospitals are under no such limitation.

Are the hospitals Catholic? Yes. They're funded in part (substantial part!) by Catholic non-profits. They usually have much higher than average Catholic demographics in their employee populations. Their boards universally incorporate some kind fo religious oversight. But they're primarily hospitals, not religious non-profits, and don't get place-of-worship exemptions.

—Alorael, who doesn't think it's reasonable to tell people to work somewhere else. Many can't, and many wouldn't want to if they could get their insurance there. More importantly, why would anyone provide coverage if they get out of it? It's in the interests of all businesses to become Christian Scientist and deny all coverage for medical treatment, regardless of the wishes and faiths of employees.

[Student of Trinity]

Originally Posted By: Soul of Wit

The Obama administration has come up with a compromise which is fine with the Catholic church:

 

The insurance pays for the contraception. The insurance is paid for as a part of the employEE's compensation package. It's going to be real tough to argue that is the employER's money.

 

Only a few Republicans have a problem with this. So, yes, it is ideology and not principles.

 

Meh, I'm not sure that continued opposition on this one is unprincipled. I'd support the measure, but I think I can see the other viewpoint.

 

Suppose that Texas was going to compel all employers to supply employees with free handguns. At the last minute a concession is offered, whereby pacificistic employers can instead give their employees a handgun allowance as an addition to their pay.

 

Is that really so much better?

[Soul of Wit]

Are handgun allowances a common employee benefit? I know some neighborhoods where it wouldn't be a bad idea...

 

I have heard of some towns trying to mandate gun ownership, as an offset to the perceived evils of gun control. They didn't get very far. Apparently, there is a difference between a right and a requirement.

[Dikiyoba]

Pacifists in Texas are already paying federal taxes that fund the military and already paying state taxes that fund Death Row and the wages of people who carry out executions, and they do it without throwing a giant hissy fit in the middle of an election cycle.

 

(Plus, the conscience of any institution that covers up for and enables sexual predators and then drags its feet and makes excuses when it is found out is worth jack until it makes the necessary reparations.)

 

Dikiyoba.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Necris Omega

Why would you work for an organization so religious as to make these objections without knowing what you're getting into in the first place?

possibly because you have expensive hobbies, like eating food

[Ceiling Durkheim]

@Necris Omega: yeah, with Alorael and Lilith on this one. I'm sick to death of that silly libertarian canard: "If you don't like your job, just work somewhere else!" Anyone who thinks this argument holds water for most people has not read any news about the economy in the last...4 years, let's say? Many people have skill sets that are limited, or at least relatively narrow, and the labor market is pretty unfavorable at the moment. Even assuming one can find a new job, there's still the issue of lost wages and benefits. And since the employee in question is quitting rather than being laid off or retiring, the chances of getting a severance package aren't great.

 

There are limits to this, of course. Some jobs and people are just really bad fits (very shy salespeople, belligerent customer service representatives, etc.), but I'm tired of businesses and their advocates using "So find a new job" as a prophylactic against having to make any concessions to their employees.

[Fringy MacGee]

Originally Posted By: Othar Trygvassen: Gentleman

"If you don't like your job, just work somewhere else!" Anyone who thinks this argument holds water for most people has not read any news about the economy in the last...4 years, let's say?

It's true! I was watching some TV show from the late 90s the other day, where the character was starting her first day on a new job, and the manager says to her "So why do you want to work here? You seem like a smart girl, and there are lots of other jobs out there-"

I burst out laughing. (Then I cried, because I've been out of work for over a month and a half.)

[Harehunter]

Slarty, Once again you are able to sum up my position in a way that is more complete than my feeble attempts.

 

In my youth, you could walk by the county courthouse in December, and no one made any fuss at all about a Christmas nativity scene on the lawn. Now there has been such an uproar that most cities have ceased the practice. Not so big a deal in and of itself, but now there are Home Owners Associations that are banning nativity scenes on peoples own lawns, enforced with fines, and foreclosure if you refuse to pay the fine.

 

You were not made to feel uncomfortable with greeting people with "Merry Christmas". People who didn't believe in Christianity would simply respond with their "Bah, Humbug", and you both would go peaceably on their way. Now it has devolved into "Happy Holidays". No big deal was made about it. But now you can no longer buy a Christmas tree in some stores. They only carry Holiday Trees.

 

Prayer at school was not mandatory, but it was not forbidden. Now it, at some schools it is not permitted to give an invocation at an after-school function such as a football game or graduation. I concur that prayer in a public school Must Not be made mandatory. Private schools which make known their religious policy, must not be restricted in practicing that policy. If a parent enrolls their child in that school, that is by their choice and their choice alone.

 

For decades there was a monument outside the Harris county courthouse to some man who had made major contributions to the growth of this town. Then the ACLU brought suit and had it removed. Why? Because the monument was only a simple bookstand that protected the book in full display. I'll let you guess what book that was.

 

These are just small little things, by themselves nothing more than a mere nettle in your sock. But it is more than just one or two; it is an accumulation of them. Little by little, Political Correctness has displaced what were common practices that had existed for centuries.

 

One of the founding principles of this nation was the importance of individuals to have the right of choosing for themselves the religious ideology that they would adhere to. No more Holy Roman Empire, no more imprisonment for refusing to be a member of the Church of England. No more persecution because you believe that there is no God at all.

 

I have absolutely no objection to religious tolerance of other faiths. (Yes, atheism is a faith; a faith that there is no divinity or afterlife.) I have, and will continue to, strongly advocate for such tolerance. But over time, some people have come to understand that in order to show greater tolerance for other faiths, they must become increasingly less tolerant of Christians.

 

The attacks on 9/ll were, in part, the result of a growing intolerance of middle eastern religions against "The Great Satan". I recognize that U.S. foreign policy was also a great sore point, seeing that we have have supported Israel, which most arabs would love to see wiped off the face of the earth. (I don't fault their attitude... It's not the first time the House of Israel has invaded and taken over that country.)

 

Now we have the 22nd century equivalent of Neville Chamberlain who has sought to achieve a peaceful relationship with the radical factions of the region through appeasement, which has fallen flat because our policy toward Israel has not significantly changed. We have still had incidents of terror threats and attacks.

 

Yes, Slarty, the U.S. is for the main part fairly tolerant of each others ideology. But that is not what makes news interesting or exciting; in fact it is downright boring. The conflict brewed by the extremists in each faction, that is what will draw the reporters. I think it a sad reflection of our nation when the media uses and abuses such sensationalism to draw attention, and revenue, to their organizations. It saddens me more that there has not been a strong enough effort to dissuade them from that view.

 

Is religious intolerance worse in this country than before, or does it just feel like it as a result of the way the extremist minorities exploit the media? Slarty, I doff my cap to you for making that point.

[Callie]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

...most arabs would love to see wiped off the face of the earth.

The only people who say anything like that are the rare brand of extremist. This idea stems from neoconservatives wildly misinterpreting (or simply fabricating) statements from countries like Iran. Iran has said they would like the Israeli regime eliminated, which is not even close to saying they'd like Israel wiped off the face of the earth. The US often calls for regime changes, so it's definitely not threatening language.

Also, I'm not sure why you're using the term "arab." "Arab" is not the same thing as "muslim": the former is an ethnicity, the latter is a religion. Indonesia is one of the most populous nations in the world and predominately muslim, but its citizens are certainly not arab.

[Harehunter]

Maybe I should have just said Palestinians and the people of the surrounding nations that support them. Hammas does not exist in isolation. It is supported by a great many other people. I did fail to mention that not all, in fact only an extremely small, minority of arabs or persians would take the extra step of committing violent acts of terrorism in order make Israel disappear. As for rest of them, they would not weep were it happen.

 

It does get confusing when talking about region of the world, because in some nations, such as Iran, the church IS the state. That they have "elections" there does not make it a democracy, when it is the Ayatolla, whomever holds that title, has the ultimate say with regard to religio-political affairs.

 

When people flying airliners into tall buildings or go on a shooting rampage on a U.S. military post go shouting "Allah akbar", it gets easy to confuse Saudis with the religion that predominates in their country.

 

Just as you point out, not all muslims are arab and not all arabs are muslim. I try to be carefully specific when the terms cross, but as I am sure Slarty will agree, I am not always successful in doing so. I often get chided from him as well for the same reason.

 

It find it interesting that you might consider me an extremist. I thought I had made a specific note that my statements were confined to only the extremist factions. I am fully aware that such extremists represent only a miniscule percentage of the population. Again, I find that I did not present a complete interpretation of my terms. My posts are already quite lengthy, and I have expressed my interpretations of these terms at length in the past.

 

With regard to "Regime Change", I guess I am a bit more libertarian in that regard. Desert Shield and Desert Storm were justified to restore the previous Kuwati regime. Enduring Freedom was the only way to dislodge Al Quaida from the protection of the Taliban. However, the continuance of that operation into overthrowing the Taliban itself was not in the best interest of the U.S. or the region. Iraqi Freedom should never have happened. I do not believe it is the job for the U.S. to engage in regime change, but I do not go so far as total isolationism either.

[Harehunter]

And No, I don't think that Christianity is free from extremist wackos either. Again, it is just fringe elements that get noticed. McVeigh, Jones, Koresh; they get the headlines. But they are aberrations. The rest of them who quietly go about their lives, do so in boring anonymity. Just as do the boring mainstream of all other faiths.

[Randomizer]

The politically correct term for regime change is nation building implying that the previous condition wasn't a real nation instead of the replacement of the the previous government with one more in tune with our interests.

 

As they said once in Knights of the Dinner Table, "... and how's that been working out?"

[Aoslare]

I have a host of arguments of a factual nature with things you wrote above, Harehunter, but I have one problem as a mod:

 

Quote:

The attacks on 9/ll were, in part, the result of a growing intolerance of middle eastern religions against "The Great Satan". I recognize that U.S. foreign policy was also a great sore point, seeing that we have have supported Israel, which most arabs would love to see wiped off the face of the earth. (I don't fault their attitude... It's not the first time the House of Israel has invaded and taken over that country.)

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

...in fact only an extremely small, minority of arabs or persians would take the extra step of committing violent acts of terrorism in order make Israel disappear. As for rest of them, they would not weep were it happen.

This is flamebait. You absolutely cannot paint huge groups of people with so wide a brush here. Do not impute such hateful opinions to entire religions and ethnic groups.

 

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

Again, I find that I did not present a complete interpretation of my terms. My posts are already quite lengthy, and I have expressed my interpretations of these terms at length in the past.

And this is a poor excuse.

 

Harehunter, you now have an official warning for making blanket, nonfactual, derogatory statements about particular groups of people, including ethnic groups and religions. Members have received bans for this behavior in the past. I think its potential for causing flamewars should be quite obvious, as well as the potential to cause hurt feelings and a feeling of unwelcomeness for any forum members who happen to be Muslims or Arabs. Please make sure you do not go into this territory again.

 

I'm not going to lock the topic because it's had some good conversation. GUYS, PLEASE REMEMBER TO BE CALM AND CIVIL NO MATTER WHAT YOU ARE REPLYING TO.

[Alorael at Large]

I don't see Christianity drowning in a sea of political correctness. I do see some changes in traditions, but tradition isn't necessarily a good thing; it's just tradition. When we can do better and recognize it, the traditions change. Public institutions are becoming more carefully about being religiously inclusive and avoiding specific displays. Yes, because the US is a predominantly Christian country that's avoiding Christian displays. I'd call that a good change: I have no hostility to Christians, but I want a very thick, firm line between government and religion. A few religious symbols and statues by courthouses and government halls do not a theocracy make, but even symbolic gestures are important.

 

The rest of the world may be swept up in the banal tides of stupid political correctness. No one, I think, is offended by Christmas trees but not by holiday trees. No one (sane) thinks Christmas is going to disappear, or even become subdued. Malls can do what they want, but until other religions' holidays get the same fervor as Christmas (and Halloween), no one will be fooled. And no mall would do that; simple demographics and logistics get in the way, and there aren't many holidays that have accreted the same necessary degree of gaudiness.

 

As for religious tolerance becoming intolerance of Christians, there's an element of that. It stems from Christianity being the dominant religion of America, and the overwhelmingly predominant form of aggressively political religion. As long as Santorum can run a campaign explicitly on forcing his draconian Christian sensibilities on everyone else, that brand of Christianity is going to be quite literally the enemy to those politically motivated to support pluralism and tolerance.

 

—Alorael, who fully supports homeowners' associations discouraging large Christmas lawn displays. He lived next to one. It was an eyesore. It wasn't even religious; there was a nativity scene, but it was overshadowed by the ten-foot inflatable Santa, mob of reindeer, and illuminated cheerful modern family at a giant illuminated dinner table. It's reasonable to ask people to keep displays tasteful if you're going to have a homeowners' association and make any demands at all.

[Soul of Wit]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

...
1. Home Owners Associations
...
2, They only carry Holiday Trees
...
3. Private schools
...
4. the ACLU brought suit
...
5. Political Correctness
...
6. less tolerant of Christians
...
[redacted]
...
7. 22nd century equivalent of Neville Chamberlain
...
8. the media
...
9. religious intolerance

Sorry, I had to shorten that to just the bits that would remind of what I was responding to. No intention of eliminating context should be construed. The full post is intact, above.

1. Your beef is with home owner's associations. As the libertarians would say, they should move if they don't like it. Personally, I despise HOAs with a passion, for many reasons. I'm glad that I have never lived with one. My neighborhood has the odd front yard, or two, but it is well kept up--without an HOA.
2. Your beef is with the commercialization of Christmas. Stores respond to their customers. Customers see store displays up early and start decorating earlier. The stores move it up earlier the following year, and the spiral continues. The customers are holiday shoppers and not really Christmas shoppers. It's just that simple. Corporate sends out a memo to address them accordingly.
3. Private schools can do as they please, regarding school prayer. By extension, the parents funding the private school get a say. It's a classic case of money talks--and this was before Citizens United.
4. The ACLU defends the constitution. It chafes a lot of people, including some who are quite liberal and religious. My left-leaning wife hates the ACLU. I just smile and nod my head. It would have been nice if someone could have come forward and had the monument moved to private property. Tradition and civic pride do not trump what would appear to be a civic endorsement of religion. I stress the word appear.
5. The phrase political correctness is used to cover a broad category of sins. People dislike change. They see change as working against them. In reality, change is inevitable. Some change is better than other change, but tilting at windmills is futile. The country is becoming ever more diverse. Anyone in Texas is well aware of that, of course.
6. The citizens of the US are slowly rejecting the idea that this is a Judeo-Christian country. I don't mean that in the literal theocratic sense, of course. There is a sense that Christianity is on trial in this country. For every anti-religious person in this country, there are scores of areligious people in this country. They check off the protestant box on the census, but it was their parents (or grandparents) who observed that religion. A country that is less religious frightens many. My personal sense of morality came mostly from my Southern-bred Father. My Southern-bred Mother taught me to read and question authority (and something about fried chicken.) Dad was not a religious man, but he brought me up to be both tolerant of differences and to observe the golden rule. It has served me well. I have a tendency towards relativism, which is the bane of those who see the world in many shades of gray. I have to fight this in situations where black and white ethics are called for. Often, wrong is just wrong.
7. Is this an Obama reference? 22nd century? Obama is wise to see war as a last resort. Saber rattling is a childish variant on the age-old pissing contest. Diplomacy is a lost art. Appeasement is an abused word, IMHO. Obama engages in far more appeasement of the other party than of any foreign power.
8. The "media" is not the problem. The problem is the lack of journalism in this country. I used to respect the press as the fourth estate. Now, there are pockets of journalism scattered here and there. It takes way too much effort to be a part of the informed electorate. Preaching to the choir has become an art form, but that does not preclude a little journalism alongside the partisanship.
9. Religious intolerance is mostly a perception. The world is different. It's not all bad; it's not all good.

[Callie]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

It find it interesting that you might consider me an extremist. I thought I had made a specific note that my statements were confined to only the extremist factions. I am fully aware that such extremists represent only a miniscule percentage of the population. Again, I find that I did not present a complete interpretation of my terms. My posts are already quite lengthy, and I have expressed my interpretations of these terms at length in the past.

I see that I did not properly clarify, so I understand why you thought I was calling you extremist, but I intended to refer to people who would actually want Israel "wiped off the face of the earth."

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

As for rest of them, they would not weep were it happen.

I'm sure there's some quote or other about never assuming malice when apathy suffices as an explanation that I would put here if I had the time or inclination to find it.

People would "not weep" about the destruction of Israel, as you put it, because frankly Israel is insignificant in the grand geopolitical scheme of things: it's not economically powerful, it has a population comparable to that of Tajikistan, which absolutely nobody cares about, it lacks the ability to project force beyond intimidating its already very weak neighbors, and it shows no desire to become anything more than an insular, isolate state in an effort to protect itself.

If you think that the populace of Indonesia, for instance, (which just happens to be the largest Muslim country in the world and a legitimate democracy to boot, thank you very much) would "not weep" if Israel were destroyed, then it would be the same type of "not weeping" that the US populace would do if Tajikistan were wiped off the map- not because they were secretly joyful or schadenfreude-y, but because they wouldn't care either way, since it wouldn't affect them in the least.

-----

And re Iran's threats: Nobody takes the seriously. Everybody important in foreign affairs circles realizes that if Iran really, really wants a nuke, they can get it and nobody (not even Israel or the US) can stop them. The fact that they aren't going all-out to do so indicates that Iran's leadership is not going to carry out their when they get one. This, of course, makes sense: Iran's leadership is like that of any other autocratic regime, in that they place their survival above their ideology (Hey, remember when the USSR nuked the US because they wanted to destroy capitalism and institute communism across the globe? Or when North Korea nuked South Korea? Or Pakistan nuked India (or vice versa)? No? Exactly.). Iran's populace is very hostile to their government, and all it would take is one little mistake on the part of the regime for things to start going very badly for those in power. The whole nuke thing is a last-ditch attempt for them to try and cash in on religious extremism and anti-antisemitism for a quick infusion of support, and the people aren't buying it anymore. Although it may not be showing signs of it quite so readily as Egypt or Algeria or Syria or Libya or whatever, Iran is rapidly sliding towards Arab Spring in spite of Khomeini, Ahmadinejad, and their ilk's attempt to stop it. I would be very surprised if Iran is still an "Islamic Republic" in five years, much less ten.

But of course, that's just my opinion. Take from it what you may.

[Randomizer]

Originally Posted By: Dantius

And re Iran's threats: Nobody takes the seriously. Everybody important in foreign affairs circles realizes that if Iran really, really wants a nuke, they can get it and nobody (not even Israel or the US) can stop them. The fact that they aren't going all-out to do so indicates that Iran's leadership is not going to carry out their when they get one. This, of course, makes sense: Iran's leadership is like that of any other autocratic regime, in that they place their survival above their ideology (Hey, remember when the USSR nuked the US because they wanted to destroy capitalism and institute communism across the globe? Or when North Korea nuked South Korea? Or Pakistan nuked India (or vice versa)? No?

There are differences in most of the countries that have nuclear weapons. Their leaders have a command structure that keeps one person or even a few from using them without some one that can stop them. Out of all those examples North Korea is the closest to Iran in a having a leader that could order an attack without being stopped. Iran would likely use a nuclear bomb as a terrorist weapon through a carefully controlled proxy rather than risk blowing their chance with a missile missing the target.

Iraq's Scud missile target system was CNN reporting where it hit. Iran is only slightly better since you can usual buy satellite footage of most of the world.

Iran has a split in the military with nuclear control under a force that answers directly to the leader. Sure the majority of the country would oppose using nuclear weapons but we see now how little they can get their demands met for even electing leaders that represent them. Iran will survive until the current leadership is dead because opponents won't be allowed to gain power.

[Aran]

Dikiyoba

Pacifists in Texas are already paying federal taxes that fund the military and already paying state taxes that fund Death Row and the wages of people who carry out executions, and they do it without throwing a giant hissy fit in the middle of an election cycle.

Lilith

Necris Omega

Why would you work for an organization so religious as to make these objections without knowing what you're getting into in the first place?

possibly because you have expensive hobbies, like eating food

<3 you both.

Also, this Reason Rally thing is the first event I've considered crossing the Atlantic just to attend, because it sounds really cool. Sadly, it doesn't fit into my schedule. Hoping some of it will be on Youtube.

 

 

 

 

[Aoslare]

Originally Posted By: Dantius

Although it may not be showing signs of it quite so readily as Egypt or Algeria or Syria or Libya or whatever, Iran is rapidly sliding towards Arab Spring in spite of Khomeini, Ahmadinejad, and their ilk's attempt to stop it. I would be very surprised if Iran is still an "Islamic Republic" in five years, much less ten.

Sliding towards, or sliding past? Iran practically had a revolution in the wake of the 2009 elections -- a year and a half before the Arab Spring. But it was violently stomped out, and the Arab Spring had relatively little effect in Iran. What makes you think things are on their way to changing?