It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Badgered1
originally posted by: grandmakdw
a reply to: Badgered1
There is no reason to believe that atheists will be less judgmental or hurtful if/when they are the majority.
Look at the issue of climate change. That has nothing to do with religion yet there are lots of people who want to kill everyone who doesn't believe in global warming/climate change. www.climatedepot.com... art-punishing-them-now/
People throughout history want to eliminate ideas they deem "wrong" by killing all the believers.
I think your assumption is incorrect. I see far more intolerance and projection of evil from non-believers onto believers than you can imagine.
It seems to me that those who profess the loudest to be tolerant are really the most intolerant of those who don't hold exactly the same ideas they do.
I strongly disagree. Historically, it has not been the scientists, and the logical, and the enlightened who wish to silence the ideologies. Rather the other way around. History is quite clear regarding the oppression, and suppression of actual critical thinking, and science - by religion, and other political ideologies. Better for them if nobody questions or has an opinion of their dearly held beliefs. Question god, and you are immediately branded as evil. Evil is a construct. Good people do good things, and bad people do bad things. To make a good person do a bad thing, that takes religion.
I don't sin. I may do some dumb things, but I never sin. "Sin" i's just something invented to suppress dissent.
The voices of disapproval you hear are of the truly enlightened voicing their complete horror that middle-eastern ancient mythology is finding its way into our courthouses, schools, government, doctors' offices, and even our bedrooms. Why should religion affect my life just because some people imagine that the deeds of some illiterate goatherds are magical?
Please show me historically where athiests - and only atheists; not ideologies such as Communism, Fascism etc. - have systematically tortured, abused, killed, and marginalised any religious group. Now tell me where the opposite is true.
Isn't it astounding how many incidents spring to mind when you think of the opposite?
Faith is a personal issue. Religion is a means to control.
I won't address the climate change thing as I don't have enough information about that which you cite.
Follow the money. Who stands to lose the most if Climate Change induced policies restrict the carbon industry? How do they affect the conversation? Are they actively lobbying? Why lobby against science?
originally posted by: mymymy
a reply to: ChesterJohn
Simply put, ALL you religious groups should be banned. I don't care what God, or fate, or after life you believe in, it should NOT interfere or influence MY life or MY beliefs. Be spiritual all you want, but like you intolerant and judgmental religious types say, "Keep it in your own home"
originally posted by: grandmakdw
There are no anti-abortion laws anymore, there have even been lately, laws being proposed for post-birth abortion if the abortion was botched.
originally posted by: grandmakdw
No one is denying rape victims emergency contraception they can even get it on their own at a drug store unless you are angry they may have to pay for it.
originally posted by: grandmakdw
But DO NOT equate all Christians with these wackos like WBC, unless you are quite openly and vocally willing to equate all Muslims with ISIS/ISIL.
originally posted by: ChesterJohn
Islam for example will one day ask you to convert to their religion, pay a tax (generally to much for you to pay and live well at the same time), or be killed.
[But AHA did not protest the establishment of prayer rooms in Public schools for the sole use of Muslims.
Truly that reeks of a violation of the "establishment" clause in the constitution.
originally posted by: ChesterJohn
Its just that the govt needs to also up hold the rights of those who don't want to marry them in their churches. Or bake cakes, or do photographs or any other service for them.
It is not an issue of hate but of religious freedom.
There are plenty of secular places that will give gay couples all the services for their marriage without them having to trouble Christians.
Let them have their marriages. Live and Let live.
originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
originally posted by: ChesterJohn
Its just that the govt needs to also up hold the rights of those who don't want to marry them in their churches. Or bake cakes, or do photographs or any other service for them.
When a business owner gets a license, he has to agree to operate under the laws of the state. If that means not discriminating against LGBT, then he has to suck it up and bake a cake for a gay person. That doesn't force him to go against his religion. No one is forcing HIM to participate in a gay marriage.
It is not an issue of hate but of religious freedom.
The phrase "religious freedom" has come to mean the freedom to discriminate against select "sinners". Sorry. I don't buy it. It's hatred. Unless that same baker refuses to bake cakes for ALL sinners (liars, adulterers, divorced, fornicators, murderers, etc) then his argument is worthless. He's selecting ONE sin and discriminating.
There are plenty of secular places that will give gay couples all the services for their marriage without them having to trouble Christians.
Not if you live in a small town.
Let them have their marriages. Live and Let live.
Let them have their cake. Live and let live.
originally posted by: ChesterJohn
If you are forced to bake a cake for a gay couple or vise verse a gay baker is forced to bake a cake for a Christian couple against their belief, because it is a law, then their rights are violated by the state.
What if I went to an Atheist bake shop and asked them to put the full verse of John 3:16 on a cake for me, do you really think they are going to do it? they would be offended at the fact they have too and would refuse. Because they think Christianity is a ruse, lie and sign of weak mindless people.
originally posted by: ChesterJohn
What if I went to an Atheist bake shop and asked them to put the full verse of John 3:16 on a cake for me, do you really think they are going to do it? they would be offended at the fact they have too and would refuse.
originally posted by: BeingBlessed
Now it is not right to use these because they refer back to Jesus for "before Christ" and "Anno Dominio" now it is more politcally correct to use "Before Common Era" and "After Common Era"
Common Era (also Current Era[1] or Christian Era[2]), abbreviated as CE, is an alternative naming of the traditional calendar era, Anno Domini ("in the Year of Our Lord", abbreviated AD).[3][4] BCE is the abbreviation for Before the Common/Current/Christian Era (an alternative to Before Christ, abbreviated BC).
It's a sad world.
I think people tend to forget that this nation was founded under christian principles.
originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Fingon
I guess you mean to say, by insisting that America was founded on Christian principles, that the Pope is Christ's representative on Earth and that the Papal bulls ordering Christian soldiers to go out and conquer all lands in the name of the Church and Christianity, is a part of our heritage that we should honor and preserve?
originally posted by: Fingon
Its sad that people didnt have a problem with prayer time or one nation under God 20 years or even 10 years ago.
I think people tend to forget that this nation was founded under christian principles.
I believe this country should give christianity practices its place and respect due to the fact it is our nation's heritage.
There would not been a United States with religious tolerance if wasnt for our christian principles and ethics.
As humanism continues to gain momentum the more this country will spiral into chaos, confusion, and unethical practices.
For about 200 years christian values and ethics helped lead our country. Why destroy it now?
The Pope is a Catholic thing not an entirely Christian thing. The original American Christians were Protestants and wouldn't have recognized the Pope as anything more than an old fart with a goofy hat.
The Discovery doctrine is a concept of public international law expounded by the United States Supreme Court in a series of decisions, most notably Johnson v. M'Intosh in 1823. Chief Justice John Marshall justified the way in which colonial powers laid claim to lands belonging to sovereign indigenous nations during the Age of Discovery. Under it, title to lands lay with the government whose subjects explored and occupied a territory whose inhabitants were not subjects of a European Christian monarch. The doctrine has been primarily used to support decisions invalidating or ignoring aboriginal possession of land in favor of colonial or post-colonial governments.
To understand the connection between Christendom's principle of discovery and the laws of the United States, we need to begin by examining a papal document issued forty years before Columbus' historic voyage In 1452, Pope Nicholas V issued to King Alfonso V of Portugal the bull Romanus Pontifex, declaring war against all non-Christians throughout the world, and specifically sanctioning and promoting the conquest, colonization, and exploitation of non-Christian nations and their territories.