Woman Denied US Citizenship Because of Atheism

reply to post by JayinAR

Besides, who the hell asked anyone to "educate" theists anyways?

People who see that little children are being trained from the time they're still in diapers to HATE EVERYONE WHO DOESN'T BELIEVE IN JESUS!!! That they are worthless sinners? Ever heard of "Bibleman", Jay?

You are talking, in most cases, about people who were born into a belief system. Ever heard the addage "nobody likes a braggart?"

Ever heard the addage "people who were brainwashed/abused raise children that are brainwashed/abused" ?

It applies here as well. NOBODY wants to be told by an uppity know it all that everything they have ever known was sheer idiocy. They are just beliefs, for crying out loud.

You know what JayinAR? Those NOBODYs were indoctrinated as little kids; by their parents and church leaders practicing shaming, instilling fear of hell, teaching original sin, teaching them they are worthless sinners in need of salvation and hopeless, lost causes except for JEZUS!

I get the feeling you're young. (Looks like a fun trip that hiking pic of the canyon! I miss those days.)
Perhaps the idea of raising kids with fear, self-loathing, shame, and worthlessness hasn't come into your view-finder yet. But it is CRITICAL to the future of our species that children are NOT emotionally abused like that (let alone physically abused by overzealous nutter parents).

And that goes for the atheistic view as well.

You have a ways to go before you get this stuff. If you have questions, feel free to ask.

For your viewing pleasure:

Another one of my favorite addages is "that dog don't hunt."

If it were as simple as "a group of thinkers congregating" then I challenge someone to assemble a group of hollocaust deniers (they're out there) and hold weekly meetings at a public library.
See how well that goes over.

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by windword

 

Is this a democratic society?
If so the theists win every time.
Sucks, I know.

Fortunately, the founding fathers foresaw the problem with "mob rule." The USA is a republic with democratic checks and balances.

reply to post by wildtimes


I appreciate the thinly vieled concern, but believe it or not I have three children of my own. My oldest is entering middle school. And I still fight with their mother about making sure they are free to come to their own conclusions.

reply to post by wildtimes


Also, I will suggest a book for you!
The Diary of Anne Frank.
In it you can learn that lying isn't always "bad."

reply to post by JayinAR


Im not really big fan of the "atheist congregation" but there should a group where religious oppressed people, who have been kept down with religious pressure to seek answers....

kinda like "i doubt my religion, but will get kicked out of the family if i speak out"

I see the AA as a anti-oppression group... "Hey.. we are here because out opinion does not equal burning us at the stake", However, i can see how AA might go overboard tho.

Because... once a dog is cornered, it has no choice but to go full offensive.

reply to post by JayinAR


WATCH THE VIDEO, please, and then give me your response, Dad. You need to see it. And, I'd venture to say, SO DOES THEIR MOTHER.

Those 3 kids are entrusted to you two.
DON'T screw them up! I know I have no credibility with you, but I DO know what I'm talking about.

My two kids are in their early 20s. They were taught about ALL the various religions. They made their own choices.
Neither has a "religion."

reply to post by JayinAR

Also, I will suggest a book for you!
The Diary of Anne Frank.
In it you can learn that lying isn't always "bad."

Did I say lying is always bad? No, I did not.
REer ffft ffft.

The Diary of Anne Frank? That's all you got?
Son, I'm going to be 55 years old in 5 months. You have a job o' work ahead of you.....and you'd best get it together. And please, again, for the sake of YOUR CHILDREN, both of you, watch the video. Not WITH your kids. Just the two of you. Please.
What harm can it do??????

reply to post by wildtimes


Oh good grief. Get the hell out of here with your condescending bull ish. I am very open minded when it comes to most all things. Especially religion. As I said, I have belonged to both camps. I know both sides of the argument. I understand the criticisms of religion. And I refuse to listen to your suggestion that I am gonna "screw up" my kids. If the t and c would allow it I would have much stronger words for you.

$%!?#

Originally posted by luciddream
im not trying to label, but what other choice do you have left? because i would like to know as well.

I do not feel it is as simple as many make it out to be. Its easier that way, to create nice divided lines to battle.. but I do not see that it is actually accurate for portraying the complexity behind the topic.

This is evidenced by the growing sub-categories in the topic that will likely continue until people learn that perspectives are individual.

In my mind, I view it a lot like race in concept. Just because of the title/classification, it doesnt really relate the individuals perspective on any given matter unless the individual perpetuates the cycle of the weakening of the individual perspective (which in turn, weakens all of us).

In the end, I think that technology will reach the point where we have to face this eventually. That the lines we have drawn are not relevant, and are actually harmful to our society as a whole. Until then, it will be individual vs individual based on the faulty premise that a claimed title encompasses the vastness of the universe. No title can define any individuals full spectrum of beliefs, and yet, it is used to start conflict founded in misunderstanding.

I could go into my personal beliefs, but for the most part, it would be a total waste of time. Not because others wouldnt understand it (though no one would, inherently), but because it would be used as a tool for division instead of growth.

I think the title is borderline meaningless in comparison to how we approach others with different titles.

Hell, my entire argument is predicated on ending the fighting between the two groups.

reply to post by JayinAR


Watch the video.

Originally posted by JayinAR
Hell, my entire argument is predicated on ending the fighting between the two groups.

The issue with that is the entire premise of the topic is predicated on conflict, usually enforced by both sides justifying the "fight" by what the other side has done/is doing.

When it comes down to society actually learning and growing though, its not even relevant. Like I said, I think that this realization will essentially be forced upon all of us when technology reaches a certain point.

The "best" way for us to function as a healthy society has absolutely nothing to do with personal belief other than adding "acceptance" into the repertoire. I dont think this will come to most people on their own though. The decision will be made when we have access to technology that when weaponized could destroy us all, or if used for everyone to grow will liberate us from the prison we have built for ourselves. I really dont know which way it will go, but that time is coming soon.

This is the ugly face of militant atheism. On a crusade to "save" people from a situation they do not want to be saved from.
It reminds me of a guy that was prosecuted here years ago. A fire fighter. Also a serial arsonist. Haha

Create a problem, fix it, pat yourself on the back.
What a joke.

Originally posted by JayinAR
Hell, my entire argument is predicated on ending the fighting between the two groups.

Right..............

And your way of ending arguments is to tell one side to "Shut the hell up". Is that the way you handle your children's arguments too?

reply to post by windword


Of course I don't tell my children to shut the hell up. They aren't adults acting like pissed off kids.

Another personal attack I see.

Originally posted by JayinAR
This is the ugly face of militant atheism. On a crusade to "save" people from a situation they do not want to be saved from.
It reminds me of a guy that was prosecuted here years ago. A fire fighter. Also a serial arsonist. Haha

Create a problem, fix it, pat yourself on the back.
What a joke.

The only feasible solution I have figured out is;

"Be the change you wish to see in the world."

Whether or not we are doing this, individually, is up to our own perception of it. Though, I feel how others perceive our acts can be used as guidelines and insight into how well we might be doing. Not always, of course, but how we are perceived by others can be indicative of how well we are really working towards being on the same "team."

reply to post by windword


This is silly. She can just define her version of "take up arms" as meaning exactly what she said (agreeing to be in service and support defense). So, right off the bat, she's going to waste people's time (and no doubt government money) with this issue? I say fine, we don't need her. Citizenship denied.

Taking a stand is one thing. Jeopardizing your future over semantics is quite another. Get over yourself lady. I don't agree with the "Under God" part of the Pledge either, but I'm not going to get my knickers in a bunch over it either.

reply to post by JayinAR

This is the ugly face of militant atheism.

What "is" the ugly face of militant atheism, please?

On a crusade to "save" people from a situation they do not want to be saved from.

Oh.

And the Christian hell-fire evangelists growing rich from their congregation's collective low self-esteem as born sinners (which those evangelists reinforce in their preaching, telling them that only by the grace of [insert deity name here] are they to escape "HELL" and eternal ostracization)
UNLESS they do this and that, and pay this much too.....and even then they won't "deserve" salvation (being born worthless sinners)...but then they're good until next week.....when they are worthless sinners AGAIN........

.........THOSE are the good guys?

Originally posted by JayinAR
This is the ugly face of militant atheism. On a crusade to "save" people from a situation they do not want to be saved from.

Who's/what face?

“I am sure the law would never require a 64 year-old woman like myself to bear arms, but if I am required to answer this question, I cannot lie. I must be honest. The truth is that I would not be willing to bear arms. Since my youth I have had a firm, fixed and sincere objection to participation in war in any form or in the bearing of arms. I deeply and sincerely believe that it is not moral or ethical to take another person’s life, and my lifelong spiritual/religious beliefs impose on me a duty of conscience not to contribute to warfare by taking up arms…my beliefs are as strong and deeply held as those who possess traditional religious beliefs and who believe in God…I want to make clear, however, that I am willing to perform work of national importance under civilian direction or to perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States if and when required by the law to do so.”

Is this the kind of "militant atheism" that you're foaming on about?

It reminds me of a guy that was prosecuted here years ago. A fire fighter. Also a serial arsonist. Haha Create a problem, fix it, pat yourself on the back. What a joke.