Atheists, still support Obama? Obama’s DOJ Can’t Say Criticizing Religion Will Remain Legal

reply to post by muse7

An attempt to smear him by his own officials.
Really.
Okay.

Originally posted by muse7
When the Obama administration comes out and officially declares that crticsizing religion will be considered a crime, then that's when I'll change my vote. As of now this is another attempt to smear the administration and sway voters towards Romney.

My vote is staying with Obama.

Try again.

Why do you wait for something bad to happen?

That's like someone in Nazi Germany saying:

"Well, even though Hitler said he was going to try and take over Europe, kill all the Jews, cripples, blacks, Gypsies, and mentally challenged people, I'll still support him until he actually starts doing it"

I don't get that mentality at all. If someone threatens to kill you, do you say "well he did threaten to kill me, but I won't do anything until I'm dead"

DISCLAIMER: This is just an example, I'm aware Hitler never came out and said those things, and I'm not saying Obama is Hitler. Hitler actually helped the German economy.

reply to post by raiders247


"You are severely misinformed, Atheism is not a religion."

This would be an argument that I could go on forever with even though I would probably tend to agree with you on most days however for the sake of argument I'll follow up this below. On an another note maybe you and who posted the Bill Maher (i'm actually a huge Bill Maher fan) failed to see the QUOTATION MARKSRKS around the word religions. Maybe using that awe inspiring "rational" and "logic" would have helped you see that and realized how it was meant to be interpreted.

"It is the refusal to accept a claim that something exists without being proven first. It is rational, it is logical, it is sane."

See Below

"If we were to accept all claims without proof, we would believe in flying tea pots, spaghetti monsters and unicorns."

And at what point did you "accept...without proof" or come to the assumption that I believe in such things? As I said in my post "Im not even religious". So there seems to be a little bit of a flaw in your logic.

Now, like I said. I normally would probably agree with you on most days but I'm one who likes to take the opposite opinion for the hell of it on occasion. Especially because what I've seen happen to ATS over the years is quite sad but that's actually a topic for another post you can keep an eye out for as it relates to users who's criteria you may seem to fit.

Anyway, Athiest tend to pick and choose what side of the argument they're on if you ask me, thus why I prefer to stray away from the word as a describing point, because it is describing a group of people who CONGREGATE at a place (i.e. Reason Rally etc) to voice they're opinions on a common belief (albeit a somewhat large and diverse belief it still has one underlying commonality or belief or for arguments sake "lack of belief" in something, For clarity, since you couldn't grasp this before the quotations around "lack of belief" serve a purpose because it's a conundrum in itself to gather for something but not believe in anything so therefor I would have to say its a gathering of beliefs to gather in support of a "lack of belief.

Furthermore an argument, that I feel is rather weak because it too leaves too much to be debated would be this article COURT RULES ATHEISM A RELIGION Decides 1st Amendment protects prison inmate's right to start study group, in short

A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate’s rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion. “Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being,” the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said. The court decided the inmate’s First Amendment rights were violated because the prison refused to allow him to create a study group for atheists. The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described “secular humanism” as a religion.

Like I said this is a weak argument, mainly because it leaves in too many alternative questions. But none the less it reiterates my point that Atheism is a belief system in one sense or another.

con·gre·gate transitive verb
: to collect into a group or crowd : assemble
intransitive verb
: to come together into a group, crowd, or assembly

con·gre·ga·tion
: an assembly of persons : gathering; especially : an assembly of persons met for worship and religious instruction
b : a religious community: as (1) : an organized body of believers in a particular locality (2) : a Roman Catholic religious institute with only simple vows (3) : a group of monasteries forming an independent subdivision of an order
2: the act or an instance of congregating or bringing together : the state of being congregated
3: a body of cardinals and officials forming an administrative division of the papal curia

DONT STOP READING JUST YET!
*Continued in next post*

reply to post by JABERWOCKYSUPERFLY


Furthermore as much as I hate to quote this because of the source its pretty supportive of my point.

"Religion is a difficult thing to define. Various definitions have been proposed, many of which emphasize a belief in the supernatural. But such definitions break down on closer inspection for several reasons. They fail to deal with religions which worship non-supernatural things in their own right (for example Jainism, which holds that every living thing is sacred because it is alive, or the Mayans who worshiped the sun as a deity in and of itself rather than a deity associated with the sun)5; they fail to include religions such as Confucianism and Taoism which focus almost exclusively on how adherents should live, and the little they do say about supernatural issues such as the existence of an afterlife is very vague; they also don’t deal with religious movements centred around UFOs—which believe that aliens are highly (evolutionarily) advanced (but not supernatural) beings."

The point being that religion can fall under a number of catagories, just as Athieism. Even in the dictionary's own contradictive use/definition of the word it contains subsets of definitons such as

"...2.a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects...
...3.the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices...
...5.something of overwhelming importance to a person: football is his religion..."

"In the dictionary, the most common definition of religion is something like, “the service and worship of God or the
supernatural.” By this definition, Atheism is clearly not a religion. However, the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that Atheism warrants the same protection as all other religions, and has spoken of “religions based on a belief in the existence of God [and] religions founded on different beliefs." This, obviously, contradicts the main dictionary definition
If you truly believe that there is no god, how is that different from believing that there is a god? Both are positions on a fundamentally religious question that must ultimately rest on faith. Therefore, atheism is just another form of religion."

Or how about Smarts 7 dimensions of religion? Whether or not you can find all points included in any given relgion, this accepted research only requires that 1 or more of the catagories be fulfilled to qualify as religion.
Professor Ninian Smart’s 7 dimensions of religion. (Widely accepted by anthropologists and researchers of religion as broadly covering the various aspects of religion, without focusing on things unique to specific religions.)
1. Doctrinal
Humanist Manifesto (According to a pledge to Atheism and the secular humanists statement, Atheists are considered to be humanists and secular humanists are considered to be Atheists.)
www.allaboutphilosophy.org...
2. Social
Scientific community
3. Ethical…Rules about human behavior
Varies
4. Ritual
Argumentative
5. Experiential
Darwinism
6. Institutional…belief system is shared and attitudes practiced by a group.
Atheism? The only common thing atheists have is an unwillingness to believe in a divine entity without evidence. But this is a commonality.
7. Material
Scientific institution itself?

Now, we clearly have derailed the original intent of the OP's post i'm sure by now, which I would have to apologize for. But frankly a responce was due, like I said i'm not a religious person, but I do have a problem with both religious and those who consider themselves non-religious i.e. Athiest constantly bickering back and fourth. The fact of the matter is who the *explicit* cares? I mean seriously, there are nuts on both sides of the fence if you ask me, the stupid he started it or they did this first is old. We're not in grade school, if someone is proud of their relgion more power to them, I could personally care less if they wanna tell me about God while i'm walking down the street, hell I live in the U.S. when isn't someone trying to sell me something I already either have an opinion on or dont care about. And that goes for both sides, like I said I just like to argue which is why I chose to take this side. But overall I could care less about what either side thinks or says, what I do have a problem with is ignorant or flat out instisgative statements from both sides. Just let it go already, it lessens our overall being IMHO. But like I said in my first post. Its a Free Country, your entitled to your opinions and i'm entitled to mine, but last time I checked we all have to live on this planet cause there's nowhere else to go so wouldn't it be in all our best interests to attempt civility and getting along at some point. Be concerned with our own lives?
Side note* had I had time I would have done a better job editing this.

Originally posted by raiders247

Atheists are generally more rational and logical thinkers, and there is no logic or rationality behind playing the political game.

More rational and logical than who.. religious people? Although this may be your opinion it's not based in fact and borders on insulting. How rational and logical is that?

reply to post by JohnPhoenix

More rational and logical than who.. religious people?

Ding Ding Ding, thats a hell of a guess bro!

Although this may be your opinion it's not based in fact and borders on insulting. How rational and logical is that?

Yea I agree, it is my opinion, so what?

It is very rational and logical to form opinions based on facts, keyword: based

Originally posted by cetaphobic
reply to post by raiders247

 

It's a display of discontent that has no effect on anything, no one is going to know about, and no one is going to care about. It is a vote for whoever you hate most. You are not proving anything, because even if no one voted, a president would be elected.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here, cetaphobic. Voter turnout is an indication of whether or not this country has a healthy democracy. A low turnout could indicate overall discontent. So, I'm not voting, since there is no point to it. The system is profoundly broken, and the Presidential race is nothing but a TV show to have another teleprompter president.

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW this thread is NOT about whether or not atheists are more rational than anyone else. Stay on topic or leave.

I don't live in the States, so, in terms of what the average citizen experiences and ponders on a daily basis, is unknown to me. However, I've read many threads and articles, etc., regarding American politics, economics, and society, and I'd like to know, that with all that's happening at the moment, why don't American citizens take a stance? If, for example, criticising religion is made illegal, then, would the population eventually accept it and move on? Or would they say enough is enough and take action? And, please, I don't want any misunderstandings that I think the U.S. is worse than any other Western nation, because frankly, they're all the same. I just don't understand how any person of any nation can sit idle and watch as their rights and liberties are slowly ripped apart (I could be exaggerating a little, but, it's hypothetical, for the time being).

And, I'd like to hear a response from somebody who lives in the States.

Originally posted by roblot
I don't live in the States, so, in terms of what the average citizen experiences and ponders on a daily basis, is unknown to me. However, I've read many threads and articles, etc., regarding American politics, economics, and society, and I'd like to know, that with all that's happening at the moment, why don't American citizens take a stance? If, for example, criticising religion is made illegal, then, would the population eventually accept it and move on? Or would they say enough is enough and take action? And, please, I don't want any misunderstandings that I think the U.S. is worse than any other Western nation, because frankly, they're all the same. I just don't understand how any person of any nation can sit idle and watch as their rights and liberties are slowly ripped apart (I could be exaggerating a little, but, it's hypothetical, for the time being).

And, I'd like to hear a response from somebody who lives in the States.

Well I live in the U.S., and I have no clue what issue the Americans would get so upset about that they would take a stance against. If this government can get away with murdering a million people, and just simply calling it a mistake, then maybe the Americans have to be bombed by their own government for it to piss them off enough?

Originally posted by cetaphobic
www.nationalreview.com...

The exchange below, between Representative Trent Franks and Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez, occurred in late July, but is particularly relevant today. Representatvie Franks tries to extract an assurance from Perez that the Obama administration will not push a proposal to criminalize speech “against any religion.” He has a tough time doing so.

Do atheists really want to vote in a president who wants to take away our right to criticize religion? Is this how we want to lose our freedom of speech?

WHY does this have to be about Atheists? Why cannot the same apply to other factions such as Christians? The video you cite certainly doesn't even mention Atheists.

I don't care what faction you belong to in the USA you should have the right to criticize anyone for any reason. You making this about Atheists vs Any religion borders on hate and shows an agenda - something more than simple criticism. I defend your right to have that opinion but I don't agree that posed like that it is proper discussion for the debate over Free Speech issues. I gather from your post in your mind, it's really not about a free speech issue, it's about an Us vs Them issue and your fears over something happening that will harm the furthering of your agenda.

Why don't you be a good American and rephrase your question in light of the video as to apply equally to all Americans?

heh, let them make a law against it, and people like me will just turn out fake mohamed youtube videos allllll daaaaay loooong lol

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


Well said

Ding Ding Ding, thats a hell of a guess bro!

reply to post by raiders247



I'm getting the feeling its safe to say you agree to my statement of "ignorant" "judgmental" & "superiority complex"
due to A: your ingenious response to JohnPhoenix post (so witty:puz & B: your lack of an ability to think critically instead of just being critical. Funny I give you a fairly reasonable viewpoint and you choose to be whats that word again?... oh yes "ignorant". I figured my little rant would've sparked some sort of educated debate about a topic YOU so willingly brought into the OP's topic.

As for the OP

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW this thread is NOT about whether or not atheists are more rational than anyone else. Stay on topic or leave.

As I previously stated you are correct and my posts did stray from the topic (which Im pretty sure I previously stated and apologized for, to an extent that is...unless I forgot to add that which was my intent so if I didn't once again apologies for getting SLIGHTLY off topic). However, your title for the post, you must realize would ultimately draw this sort of dialogue eventually since ATHEIST is the very first word in your title. Not to mention that raiders247 opened the floodgates the rest of the way with his disparaging remarks. But either way I would have to argue that both of those actions lead this in that direction so while not directly on point I wouldn't go as far as to say off topic.


BTW If this draws any further posts please be literary educated and read my prior posts in this thread before making assumptions (dirty look towards raiders247), because when you assume things it makes a...you know the rest I assume

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


It mentions atheists specifically because they tend to enjoy mocking all religions more than most. I will not rephrase.

Originally posted by cetaphobic
reply to post by JohnPhoenix

 

It mentions atheists specifically because they tend to enjoy mocking all religions more than most. I will not rephrase.

You say,

Do atheists really want to vote in a president who wants to take away OUR right to criticize religion? Is this how we want to lose our freedom of speech?

Notice she uses the word "our".

Then you say,

It mentions atheists specifically because they tend to enjoy mocking all religions more than most.

- Not even criticizing mind you but Mocking.

So by your own admission, you are an Atheist and you as an Atheist do enjoy mocking all religions?

I rest my case. This isn't about freedom of speech at all. it's about the Op spreading hate.

Originally posted by RELDDIR
The old saying goes...You Can't Complain If You Don't Vote...

BS.

I liken this to the Eddie Izzard sketch - Cake or Death - while being allergic to cake. Why should I waste my time choosing between two individuals or parties who are equally as corrupt, ineffectual, controlled, biased, meddling...?

I can refuse to vote, and then I can complain my ass off that the government is corrupt to the core, that voting means nothing, that whatever a politician says is complete and utter rubbish and there is a script that they will follow when they are "chosen" by people we never see.

Not voting for a corrupt bunch of elitist career politicians is my right, and it is also my right to complain about it for the rest of my life, because I have not been given a fair choice.

Give me a fair choice, hold the politicians accountable for the lies they spew, remove corporate influence from government, end religious influence of my government in issues that affect the entire population, close tax loopholes and breaks for the wealthiest in society - then I might consider voting. Until then, it's a scam run by the elites, a method of giving you the belief that you have power when you don't.

I can refuse to take part, and I can complain about the situation until my throat hurts - no one is going to tell me otherwise.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by JABERWOCKYSUPERFLY

 

Atheism a religion?

edit on 17-9-2012 by Grimpachi because: More laughs

Thanks for this. Bill Maher has always been my go-to guy for all things religion.

reply to post by cetaphobic


OP are you really afraid of whales?

reply to post by detachedindividual


I agree with you here.

Would you rather be stabbed or shot? Ok well if you choose you get to complain...but if you don't choose you'll still get stabbed.