| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
15 May 2005 03:31:55 PM |
| Object: |
A simple request |
Could anyone, of any religion, explain why they need to force their
beliefs upon me?
I lead a moral life without superstition. Why should I follow any book
filled with bizarre instructions as to how many times I must wash my
hands after a dog licks my hand, worship multi-armed gods, sell
children into sexual slavery, and kill any person who doesn't agree
with me?
I don't know any atheists or agnostics who advocate these things, why
do you?
God's will?
.
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: A simple request |
16 May 2005 08:34:56 AM |
|
|
<janospetrik@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1116189115.401904.42940@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Could anyone, of any religion, explain why they need to force their
beliefs upon me?
Because they're power-hungry scumbags.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: A simple request |
16 May 2005 09:30:09 AM |
|
|
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d6a7hq$k09$1@news.seed.net.tw...
<janospetrik@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1116189115.401904.42940@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Could anyone, of any religion, explain why they need to force their
beliefs upon me?
Because they're power-hungry scumbags.
Tell me what church you are forced into at gunpoint every Sunday?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: A simple request |
16 May 2005 10:27:47 AM |
|
|
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in message
news:R72ie.2783$rI1.1817@trnddc02...
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d6a7hq$k09$1@news.seed.net.tw...
<janospetrik@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1116189115.401904.42940@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Could anyone, of any religion, explain why they need to force their
beliefs upon me?
Because they're power-hungry scumbags.
Tell me what church you are forced into at gunpoint every Sunday?
Red herring.
They are trying to enshrine their religious doctrine into US law, thereby
forcing us to obey their religious doctrine. Look at their struggle to
outlaw abortion and equal rights for gays, for example.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: A simple request |
16 May 2005 08:09:15 PM |
|
|
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d6ae5d$m9c$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in message
news:R72ie.2783$rI1.1817@trnddc02...
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d6a7hq$k09$1@news.seed.net.tw...
<janospetrik@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1116189115.401904.42940@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Could anyone, of any religion, explain why they need to force their
beliefs upon me?
Because they're power-hungry scumbags.
Tell me what church you are forced into at gunpoint every Sunday?
Red herring.
They are trying to enshrine their religious doctrine into US law, thereby
forcing us to obey their religious doctrine. Look at their struggle to
outlaw abortion and equal rights for gays, for example.
Excuse me, but that's the other way around. The things you claim they are
attempting to 'enshrine' have BEEN law for decades upon decades. the fight
isn't about making them law. It's about keeping others from removing them
from law. Remember, nobody is fighting to BEGIN having mandatory school
prayer or to display the ten commandments in court rooms. They were there.
The lawsuits are to get them OUT.
Now, I personally happen to agree with those who want them out, so before
you go off half cocked here, consider that. Nevertheless, the changes aren't
coming FROM the religious. They are being done TO the religious. Whether you
think they are good ones or not, that's true.
Take gay marriage, for instance. It has never been legal. The fight isn't to
outlaw it. The fight is to include it in a system that has never included it
before now. Whether or not you want that change, you have to admit that it
isn't those who don't want it that are trying to change anything.
Since it isn't, who is forcing their views on whom?
Oh, I AM against Roe V. Wade myself. Not because I think abortion is so
horrible (I do, but making it illegal won't make it go away) I am against it
because this should be handled on the state, not the federal, level. Abolish
Roe V Wade and abortion will still be quite legal in all fifty states---and
that's fine.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jwk" |
|
| Title: Re: A simple request |
17 May 2005 09:28:34 AM |
|
|
DianaC wrote:
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d6ae5d$m9c$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in message
news:R72ie.2783$rI1.1817@trnddc02...
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d6a7hq$k09$1@news.seed.net.tw...
<janospetrik@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1116189115.401904.42940@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Could anyone, of any religion, explain why they need to force
their
beliefs upon me?
Because they're power-hungry scumbags.
Tell me what church you are forced into at gunpoint every Sunday?
Red herring.
They are trying to enshrine their religious doctrine into US law,
thereby
forcing us to obey their religious doctrine. Look at their struggle
to
outlaw abortion and equal rights for gays, for example.
Excuse me, but that's the other way around. The things you claim they
are
attempting to 'enshrine' have BEEN law for decades upon decades. the
fight
isn't about making them law. It's about keeping others from removing
them
from law. Remember, nobody is fighting to BEGIN having mandatory
school
prayer or to display the ten commandments in court rooms. They were
there.
The lawsuits are to get them OUT.
Now, I personally happen to agree with those who want them out, so
before
you go off half cocked here, consider that. Nevertheless, the changes
aren't
coming FROM the religious. They are being done TO the religious.
Whether you
think they are good ones or not, that's true.
Take gay marriage, for instance. It has never been legal. The fight
isn't to
outlaw it. The fight is to include it in a system that has never
included it
before now. Whether or not you want that change, you have to admit
that it
isn't those who don't want it that are trying to change anything.
Since it isn't, who is forcing their views on whom?
You theists are *trying to force yours on us. And you damn well know
it. Read this -
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/7235393?pageid=rs.Politics&pageregion=single1&rnd=1116340145468&has-player=true&version=6.0.12.872
jwk
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: A simple request |
17 May 2005 04:50:29 PM |
|
|
"jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1116340114.671174.154150@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
DianaC wrote:
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d6ae5d$m9c$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in message
news:R72ie.2783$rI1.1817@trnddc02...
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d6a7hq$k09$1@news.seed.net.tw...
<janospetrik@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1116189115.401904.42940@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Could anyone, of any religion, explain why they need to force
their
beliefs upon me?
Because they're power-hungry scumbags.
Tell me what church you are forced into at gunpoint every Sunday?
Red herring.
They are trying to enshrine their religious doctrine into US law,
thereby
forcing us to obey their religious doctrine. Look at their struggle
to
outlaw abortion and equal rights for gays, for example.
Excuse me, but that's the other way around. The things you claim they
are
attempting to 'enshrine' have BEEN law for decades upon decades. the
fight
isn't about making them law. It's about keeping others from removing
them
from law. Remember, nobody is fighting to BEGIN having mandatory
school
prayer or to display the ten commandments in court rooms. They were
there.
The lawsuits are to get them OUT.
Now, I personally happen to agree with those who want them out, so
before
you go off half cocked here, consider that. Nevertheless, the changes
aren't
coming FROM the religious. They are being done TO the religious.
Whether you
think they are good ones or not, that's true.
Take gay marriage, for instance. It has never been legal. The fight
isn't to
outlaw it. The fight is to include it in a system that has never
included it
before now. Whether or not you want that change, you have to admit
that it
isn't those who don't want it that are trying to change anything.
Since it isn't, who is forcing their views on whom?
You theists are *trying to force yours on us. And you damn well know
it. Read this -
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/7235393?pageid=rs.Politics&pageregion=single1&rnd=1116340145468&has-player=true&version=6.0.12.872
jwk
(extreme sarcasm mode on) Oh, now THAT was an unbiased and objective look at
the matter, (Extreme sarcasm mode off) Moser is so far to the left he makes
Ward Churchill look like Rush Limbaugh. He talks about the 'Dominionists' as
if they were something more powerful than an extreme minority religious
group that talks a lot and does very little....in fact, the American Athiest
are considerably more effective in THEIR goals. However, I doubt that you
would take well to the notion that they are foisting their opinions on us,
since you agree with them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jwk" |
|
| Title: Re: A simple request |
18 May 2005 09:02:27 AM |
|
|
DianaC wrote:
"jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1116340114.671174.154150@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
DianaC wrote:
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d6ae5d$m9c$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in message
news:R72ie.2783$rI1.1817@trnddc02...
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d6a7hq$k09$1@news.seed.net.tw...
<janospetrik@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1116189115.401904.42940@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Could anyone, of any religion, explain why they need to
force
their
beliefs upon me?
Because they're power-hungry scumbags.
Tell me what church you are forced into at gunpoint every
Sunday?
Red herring.
They are trying to enshrine their religious doctrine into US
law,
thereby
forcing us to obey their religious doctrine. Look at their
struggle
to
outlaw abortion and equal rights for gays, for example.
Excuse me, but that's the other way around. The things you claim
they
are
attempting to 'enshrine' have BEEN law for decades upon decades.
the
fight
isn't about making them law. It's about keeping others from
removing
them
from law. Remember, nobody is fighting to BEGIN having mandatory
school
prayer or to display the ten commandments in court rooms. They
were
there.
The lawsuits are to get them OUT.
Now, I personally happen to agree with those who want them out, so
before
you go off half cocked here, consider that. Nevertheless, the
changes
aren't
coming FROM the religious. They are being done TO the religious.
Whether you
think they are good ones or not, that's true.
Take gay marriage, for instance. It has never been legal. The
fight
isn't to
outlaw it. The fight is to include it in a system that has never
included it
before now. Whether or not you want that change, you have to admit
that it
isn't those who don't want it that are trying to change anything.
Since it isn't, who is forcing their views on whom?
You theists are *trying to force yours on us. And you damn well
know
it. Read this -
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/7235393?pageid=rs.Politics&pageregion=single1&rnd=1116340145468&has-player=true&version=6.0.12.872
jwk
(extreme sarcasm mode on) Oh, now THAT was an unbiased and objective
look at
the matter, (Extreme sarcasm mode off) Moser is so far to the left he
makes
Ward Churchill look like Rush Limbaugh. He talks about the
'Dominionists' as
if they were something more powerful than an extreme minority
religious
group that talks a lot and does very little....in fact, the American
Athiest
are considerably more effective in THEIR goals. However, I doubt that
you
would take well to the notion that they are foisting their opinions
on us,
since you agree with them.
"They" and "us" huh? Little Freudian admission there?
American Atheists don't have two US Senators supporting them. The
Dominionists do. Is that clear enough for you or will you just
pretend you don't understand again?
jwk
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: A simple request |
17 May 2005 06:14:16 PM |
|
|
DianaC wrote:
"jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1116340114.671174.154150@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
DianaC wrote:
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d6ae5d$m9c$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in message
news:R72ie.2783$rI1.1817@trnddc02...
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d6a7hq$k09$1@news.seed.net.tw...
<janospetrik@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1116189115.401904.42940@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Could anyone, of any religion, explain why they need to force
their
beliefs upon me?
Because they're power-hungry scumbags.
Tell me what church you are forced into at gunpoint every Sunday?
Red herring.
They are trying to enshrine their religious doctrine into US law,
thereby
forcing us to obey their religious doctrine. Look at their struggle
to
outlaw abortion and equal rights for gays, for example.
Excuse me, but that's the other way around. The things you claim they
are
attempting to 'enshrine' have BEEN law for decades upon decades. the
fight
isn't about making them law. It's about keeping others from removing
them
from law. Remember, nobody is fighting to BEGIN having mandatory
school
prayer or to display the ten commandments in court rooms. They were
there.
The lawsuits are to get them OUT.
Now, I personally happen to agree with those who want them out, so
before
you go off half cocked here, consider that. Nevertheless, the changes
aren't
coming FROM the religious. They are being done TO the religious.
Whether you
think they are good ones or not, that's true.
Take gay marriage, for instance. It has never been legal. The fight
isn't to
outlaw it. The fight is to include it in a system that has never
included it
before now. Whether or not you want that change, you have to admit
that it
isn't those who don't want it that are trying to change anything.
Since it isn't, who is forcing their views on whom?
You theists are *trying to force yours on us. And you damn well know
it. Read this -
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/7235393?pageid=rs.Politics&pageregion=single1&rnd=1116340145468&has-player=true&version=6.0.12.872
jwk
(extreme sarcasm mode on) Oh, now THAT was an unbiased and objective look at
the matter, (Extreme sarcasm mode off) Moser is so far to the left he makes
Ward Churchill look like Rush Limbaugh. He talks about the 'Dominionists' as
if they were something more powerful than an extreme minority religious
group that talks a lot and does very little....in fact, the American Athiest
are considerably more effective in THEIR goals. However, I doubt that you
would take well to the notion that they are foisting their opinions on us,
since you agree with them.
Well, since 15% of America is atheist and 85% of America is theist, I
doubt that this "persecution complex" is really all that huge.
Imagine a room full of 100 people. 85 are wearing red shirts. 15 are
wearing blue. Who is "imposing their color of shirt" view on who? The
blue shirts or the red shirts?
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: A simple request |
19 May 2005 06:10:23 PM |
|
|
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:cVuie.6579$6d.4380@trnddc04...
DianaC wrote:
"jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1116340114.671174.154150@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<snip to>>>
(extreme sarcasm mode on) Oh, now THAT was an unbiased and objective look
at the matter, (Extreme sarcasm mode off) Moser is so far to the left he
makes Ward Churchill look like Rush Limbaugh. He talks about the
'Dominionists' as if they were something more powerful than an extreme
minority religious group that talks a lot and does very little....in
fact, the American Athiest are considerably more effective in THEIR
goals. However, I doubt that you would take well to the notion that they
are foisting their opinions on us, since you agree with them.
Well, since 15% of America is atheist and 85% of America is theist, I
doubt that this "persecution complex" is really all that huge.
Imagine a room full of 100 people. 85 are wearing red shirts. 15 are
wearing blue. Who is "imposing their color of shirt" view on who? The
blue shirts or the red shirts?
There's your problem right there: you think that simply wearing a shirt is
imposing an opinion.
It doesn't matter how many people hold an opinion (numbers fallacy..). IF
you equate simply wearing a different color shirt as imposing an opinion,
then the blue guys are doing exactly the same amount of imposing that the
red guys are. ;-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: A simple request |
19 May 2005 08:53:18 PM |
|
|
DianaC wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:cVuie.6579$6d.4380@trnddc04...
DianaC wrote:
"jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1116340114.671174.154150@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<snip to>>>
(extreme sarcasm mode on) Oh, now THAT was an unbiased and objective look
at the matter, (Extreme sarcasm mode off) Moser is so far to the left he
makes Ward Churchill look like Rush Limbaugh. He talks about the
'Dominionists' as if they were something more powerful than an extreme
minority religious group that talks a lot and does very little....in
fact, the American Athiest are considerably more effective in THEIR
goals. However, I doubt that you would take well to the notion that they
are foisting their opinions on us, since you agree with them.
Well, since 15% of America is atheist and 85% of America is theist, I
doubt that this "persecution complex" is really all that huge.
Imagine a room full of 100 people. 85 are wearing red shirts. 15 are
wearing blue. Who is "imposing their color of shirt" view on who? The
blue shirts or the red shirts?
There's your problem right there: you think that simply wearing a shirt is
imposing an opinion.
And if the red shirts tell the blue shirts that they are evil and go to
hell and start telling them that they are required to wear red shirts...?
It doesn't matter how many people hold an opinion (numbers fallacy..).
No, it doesn't.
IF
you equate simply wearing a different color shirt as imposing an opinion,
then the blue guys are doing exactly the same amount of imposing that the
red guys are. ;-)
Except, of course, that there are "power in numbers". 85 red shirters
can more easily "impose their red shirtness" on the 15 blue shirters.
Hence, God in the Pledge. It's an imposition. "Wear the red shirt."
Hence, God on the walls of government buildings. It's an imposition.
"Wear the red shirt."
Hence, 10 Commandments on government grounds. It's an imposition. "Wear
the red shirt."
Hence, "In God We Trust." It's an imposition. "Wear the red shirt."
force (fors) tr.v. 3. to impose relentlessly.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: A simple request |
19 May 2005 11:35:21 PM |
|
|
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:iqbje.3815$6d.1959@trnddc08...
DianaC wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:cVuie.6579$6d.4380@trnddc04...
DianaC wrote:
"jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1116340114.671174.154150@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<snip to>>>
(extreme sarcasm mode on) Oh, now THAT was an unbiased and objective
look at the matter, (Extreme sarcasm mode off) Moser is so far to the
left he makes Ward Churchill look like Rush Limbaugh. He talks about the
'Dominionists' as if they were something more powerful than an extreme
minority religious group that talks a lot and does very little....in
fact, the American Athiest are considerably more effective in THEIR
goals. However, I doubt that you would take well to the notion that they
are foisting their opinions on us, since you agree with them.
Well, since 15% of America is atheist and 85% of America is theist, I
doubt that this "persecution complex" is really all that huge.
Imagine a room full of 100 people. 85 are wearing red shirts. 15 are
wearing blue. Who is "imposing their color of shirt" view on who? The
blue shirts or the red shirts?
There's your problem right there: you think that simply wearing a shirt
is imposing an opinion.
And if the red shirts tell the blue shirts that they are evil and go to
hell and start telling them that they are required to wear red shirts...?
Moving the goal posts there, aren't you? You didn't mention that the people
in the room were threatening each other. Or...were they? If the red shirts
tell the blue shirts they are evil........sorry, that's not force. The blue
shirts may tell the red ones right back that they are full of it.
If the red shirts tell the blue ones that they are 'required to wear red
shirts'...for what purpose? How is that requirement (wait for the word)
enforced?
Simply saying that they have to wear them isn't force. Force rather
requires, well, force.
It doesn't matter how many people hold an opinion (numbers fallacy..).
No, it doesn't.
IF you equate simply wearing a different color shirt as imposing an
opinion, then the blue guys are doing exactly the same amount of imposing
that the red guys are. ;-)
Except, of course, that there are "power in numbers". 85 red shirters can
more easily "impose their red shirtness" on the 15 blue shirters.
And here you go again, arguing by the numbers...
Hence, God in the Pledge. It's an imposition. "Wear the red shirt."
Are you put in jail for not saying the Pledge? Is it a requirement any more?
Will your child be expelled from school or sent to the principal or given a
hard time for not saying it?
No?
Then it's not force (remember, I'm for taking 'under God' out of the
Pledge). If it is, sue ''em, because it's illegal to require such things.
Hence, God on the walls of government buildings. It's an imposition.
No it isn't. You don't have to believe in God, worship Him, Acknowlege him
in any way. You can stand on public grounds all day long and declare that
you will not worship or believe in a deity, that none exists; you can
proclaim ideas 180 degrees contrary to any religious doctrine you can think
of. No problem. You can, for instance, shout that evolution is king, that
the universe began with a big bang and will end with a whimper, that all
life descended from a simpler form...and that was formed by accident in some
vast primordeal soup...and nobody will stop you or give you a hard time. Yet
I'm quite certain that you don't see THAT as forcing your beliefs on others,
do you? Even though a great many theists believe that God had a more active
hand in creation than your claims would allow?
Hence, 10 Commandments on government grounds. It's an imposition. "Wear
the red shirt."
Hence, "In God We Trust." It's an imposition. "Wear the red shirt."
By the same token, "remove all mention of God from anywhere I can see it, it
offends me" is you telling me that I MUST wear the blue shirt.
<snip>
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: A simple request |
20 May 2005 01:29:19 AM |
|
|
DianaC wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:iqbje.3815$6d.1959@trnddc08...
DianaC wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:cVuie.6579$6d.4380@trnddc04...
DianaC wrote:
"jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1116340114.671174.154150@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<snip to>>>
(extreme sarcasm mode on) Oh, now THAT was an unbiased and objective
look at the matter, (Extreme sarcasm mode off) Moser is so far to the
left he makes Ward Churchill look like Rush Limbaugh. He talks about the
'Dominionists' as if they were something more powerful than an extreme
minority religious group that talks a lot and does very little....in
fact, the American Athiest are considerably more effective in THEIR
goals. However, I doubt that you would take well to the notion that they
are foisting their opinions on us, since you agree with them.
Well, since 15% of America is atheist and 85% of America is theist, I
doubt that this "persecution complex" is really all that huge.
Imagine a room full of 100 people. 85 are wearing red shirts. 15 are
wearing blue. Who is "imposing their color of shirt" view on who? The
blue shirts or the red shirts?
There's your problem right there: you think that simply wearing a shirt
is imposing an opinion.
And if the red shirts tell the blue shirts that they are evil and go to
hell and start telling them that they are required to wear red shirts...?
Moving the goal posts there, aren't you?
No, it's an analogy taken further. No "goal posts" involved.
You didn't mention that the people
in the room were threatening each other. Or...were they? If the red shirts
tell the blue shirts they are evil........sorry, that's not force. The blue
shirts may tell the red ones right back that they are full of it.
If the red shirts tell the blue ones that they are 'required to wear red
shirts'...for what purpose? How is that requirement (wait for the word)
enforced?
To cross the bridge from the analogy back to the subject?
"One Nation, Under God."
Simply saying that they have to wear them isn't force. Force rather
requires, well, force.
"Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth, so help you God?"
It doesn't matter how many people hold an opinion (numbers fallacy..).
No, it doesn't.
IF you equate simply wearing a different color shirt as imposing an
opinion, then the blue guys are doing exactly the same amount of imposing
that the red guys are. ;-)
Except, of course, that there are "power in numbers". 85 red shirters can
more easily "impose their red shirtness" on the 15 blue shirters.
And here you go again, arguing by the numbers...
Fine, then the Gestapo raiding the house of Jews is irrelevant because
there were more Gestapo soldiers than Jews, right?
You need to know what "arguing by numbers" really means.
Hence, God in the Pledge. It's an imposition. "Wear the red shirt."
Are you put in jail for not saying the Pledge? Is it a requirement any more?
Any more? Sorry, but when I was in school, I was required to say the
Pledge in its entirety.
Will your child be expelled from school or sent to the principal or given a
hard time for not saying it?
Yes. I would've been. Some of my schoolmates were.
No?
Yes.
Then it's not force (remember, I'm for taking 'under God' out of the
Pledge). If it is, sue ''em, because it's illegal to require such things.
"As schoolchildren and minors, you have less rights than adults." --My
teacher
Hence, God on the walls of government buildings. It's an imposition.
No it isn't. You don't have to believe in God, worship Him, Acknowlege him
in any way. You can stand on public grounds all day long and declare that
you will not worship or believe in a deity, that none exists; you can
proclaim ideas 180 degrees contrary to any religious doctrine you can think
of. No problem. You can, for instance, shout that evolution is king, that
the universe began with a big bang and will end with a whimper, that all
life descended from a simpler form...and that was formed by accident in some
vast primordeal soup...and nobody will stop you or give you a hard time.
Are you sure?
Yet
I'm quite certain that you don't see THAT as forcing your beliefs on others,
do you?
Since evolution is not a belief? No, it's not.
Me: "The sky is blue."
You: "Stop forcing your beliefs down my throat!"
Even though a great many theists believe that God had a more active
hand in creation than your claims would allow?
Beliefs are subjective. Facts, however, are objective. You cannot
"impose" facts on people, but you can "impose" beliefs.
Hence, 10 Commandments on government grounds. It's an imposition. "Wear
the red shirt."
Hence, "In God We Trust." It's an imposition. "Wear the red shirt."
By the same token, "remove all mention of God from anywhere I can see it, it
offends me" is you telling me that I MUST wear the blue shirt.
<snip>
Is the absence of the 10 Commandments the same as saying "No God
Exists"? Nope.
You really need to learn what I meant by the above analogy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harry F. Leopold" |
|
| Title: Re: A simple request |
21 May 2005 07:56:07 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 20 May 2005 01:29:19 -0500, DanielSan wrote
(in article <3tfje.18178$6d.16789@trnddc05>):
DianaC wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:iqbje.3815$6d.1959@trnddc08...
DianaC wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:cVuie.6579$6d.4380@trnddc04...
DianaC wrote:
"jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1116340114.671174.154150@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<snip to>>>
(extreme sarcasm mode on) Oh, now THAT was an unbiased and objective
look at the matter, (Extreme sarcasm mode off) Moser is so far to the
left he makes Ward Churchill look like Rush Limbaugh. He talks about the
'Dominionists' as if they were something more powerful than an extreme
minority religious group that talks a lot and does very little....in
fact, the American Athiest are considerably more effective in THEIR
goals. However, I doubt that you would take well to the notion that
they are foisting their opinions on us, since you agree with them.
Well, since 15% of America is atheist and 85% of America is theist, I
doubt that this "persecution complex" is really all that huge.
Imagine a room full of 100 people. 85 are wearing red shirts. 15 are
wearing blue. Who is "imposing their color of shirt" view on who? The
blue shirts or the red shirts?
There's your problem right there: you think that simply wearing a shirt
is imposing an opinion.
And if the red shirts tell the blue shirts that they are evil and go to
hell and start telling them that they are required to wear red shirts...?
Moving the goal posts there, aren't you?
No, it's an analogy taken further. No "goal posts" involved.
You didn't mention that the people
in the room were threatening each other. Or...were they? If the red shirts
tell the blue shirts they are evil........sorry, that's not force. The blue
shirts may tell the red ones right back that they are full of it.
If the red shirts tell the blue ones that they are 'required to wear red
shirts'...for what purpose? How is that requirement (wait for the word)
enforced?
To cross the bridge from the analogy back to the subject?
"One Nation, Under God."
Simply saying that they have to wear them isn't force. Force rather
requires, well, force.
"Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth, so help you God?"
It doesn't matter how many people hold an opinion (numbers fallacy..).
No, it doesn't.
IF you equate simply wearing a different color shirt as imposing an
opinion, then the blue guys are doing exactly the same amount of imposing
that the red guys are. ;-)
Except, of course, that there are "power in numbers". 85 red shirters can
more easily "impose their red shirtness" on the 15 blue shirters.
And here you go again, arguing by the numbers...
Fine, then the Gestapo raiding the house of Jews is irrelevant because
there were more Gestapo soldiers than Jews, right?
You need to know what "arguing by numbers" really means.
Hence, God in the Pledge. It's an imposition. "Wear the red shirt."
Are you put in jail for not saying the Pledge? Is it a requirement any
more?
Any more? Sorry, but when I was in school, I was required to say the
Pledge in its entirety.
Will your child be expelled from school or sent to the principal or given a
hard time for not saying it?
Yes. I would've been. Some of my schoolmates were.
No?
Yes.
Then it's not force (remember, I'm for taking 'under God' out of the
Pledge). If it is, sue ''em, because it's illegal to require such things.
"As schoolchildren and minors, you have less rights than adults." --My
teacher
Hence, God on the walls of government buildings. It's an imposition.
No it isn't. You don't have to believe in God, worship Him, Acknowlege him
in any way. You can stand on public grounds all day long and declare that
you will not worship or believe in a deity, that none exists; you can
proclaim ideas 180 degrees contrary to any religious doctrine you can think
of. No problem. You can, for instance, shout that evolution is king, that
the universe began with a big bang and will end with a whimper, that all
life descended from a simpler form...and that was formed by accident in
some
vast primordeal soup...and nobody will stop you or give you a hard time.
Are you sure?
Yet I'm quite certain that you don't see THAT as forcing your beliefs on
others, do you?
Since evolution is not a belief? No, it's not.
Me: "The sky is blue."
You: "Stop forcing your beliefs down my throat!"
Even though a great many theists believe that God had a more active
hand in creation than your claims would allow?
Beliefs are subjective. Facts, however, are objective. You cannot
"impose" facts on people, but you can "impose" beliefs.
Hence, 10 Commandments on government grounds. It's an imposition. "Wear
the red shirt."
Hence, "In God We Trust." It's an imposition. "Wear the red shirt."
By the same token, "remove all mention of God from anywhere I can see it,
it offends me" is you telling me that I MUST wear the blue shirt.
<snip>
Is the absence of the 10 Commandments the same as saying "No God
Exists"? Nope.
You really need to learn what I meant by the above analogy.
Chicago, Illinois, on August 27, 1987, O'Hare Airport
Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are Atheists?
Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the Atheist community. Faith in God is
important to me.
Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of
Americans who are Atheists?
Bush: No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor
should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.
Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional
principle the separation of state and church?
Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very
high on Atheists.
--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness
(remove gene to email)
̉At least Evolution doesn't ask you to tithe 10% of your income.̉ - RHertz
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "nJb" |
|
| Title: Re: A simple request |
19 May 2005 09:06:47 PM |
|
|
DanielSan wrote:
force (fors) tr.v. 3. to impose relentlessly.
She couldn't find that definition in her dictionary, therefore it
doesn't count.
Force according to Diana:
"Force" ALWAYS equals physical violence/threat of violence. Always."
And then:
"If it doesn't involve violence or a threat to hurt either you or
someone or something you don't want hurt, it's not force. By definition."
Wonder what the definition will be tomorrow.
--
Jack
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: A simple request |
19 May 2005 11:23:43 PM |
|
|
"nJb" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:d6jgmn$hiu$1@news.xmission.com...
DanielSan wrote:
force (fors) tr.v. 3. to impose relentlessly.
She couldn't find that definition in her dictionary, therefore it doesn't
count.
Force according to Diana:
"Force" ALWAYS equals physical violence/threat of violence. Always."
And then:
"If it doesn't involve violence or a threat to hurt either you or someone
or something you don't want hurt, it's not force. By definition."
Wonder what the definition will be tomorrow.
You can't read.
If you can't see that both the above definitions are the SAME thing, you
truly are.....well...;
And I did post the definition from the OED. Too bad you ignored that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "nJb" |
|
| Title: Re: A simple request |
20 May 2005 01:10:05 AM |
|
|
DianaC wrote:
"nJb" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:d6jgmn$hiu$1@news.xmission.com...
DanielSan wrote:
force (fors) tr.v. 3. to impose relentlessly.
She couldn't find that definition in her dictionary, therefore it doesn't
count.
Force according to Diana:
"Force" ALWAYS equals physical violence/threat of violence. Always."
And then:
"If it doesn't involve violence or a threat to hurt either you or someone
or something you don't want hurt, it's not force. By definition."
Wonder what the definition will be tomorrow.
You can't read.
If you can't see that both the above definitions are the SAME thing, you
truly are.....well...;
And I did post the definition from the OED. Too bad you ignored that.
You posted part of the definition.
When I hit SEND my spell checker kicks out DianaC, offers Diana and a
chance to ignore. I hit IGNORE and it sends but you're still here.
A virus?
--
Jack
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "nJb" |
|
| Title: Re: A simple request |
17 May 2005 01:38:50 AM |
|
|
DianaC wrote:
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d6ae5d$m9c$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in message
news:R72ie.2783$rI1.1817@trnddc02...
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d6a7hq$k09$1@news.seed.net.tw...
<janospetrik@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1116189115.401904.42940@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Could anyone, of any religion, explain why they need to force their
beliefs upon me?
Because they're power-hungry scumbags.
Tell me what church you are forced into at gunpoint every Sunday?
Red herring.
They are trying to enshrine their religious doctrine into US law, thereby
forcing us to obey their religious doctrine. Look at their struggle to
outlaw abortion and equal rights for gays, for example.
Excuse me, but that's the other way around. The things you claim they are
attempting to 'enshrine' have BEEN law for decades upon decades. the fight
isn't about making them law. It's about keeping others from removing them
from law. Remember, nobody is fighting to BEGIN having mandatory school
prayer or to display the ten commandments in court rooms. They were there.
The lawsuits are to get them OUT.
Correct. We want them out because the 1st amendment prohibits them.
Now, I personally happen to agree with those who want them out, so before
you go off half cocked here, consider that. Nevertheless, the changes aren't
coming FROM the religious. They are being done TO the religious. Whether you
think they are good ones or not, that's true.
They are a response to what the religious have done incorrectly in the
first place.
Take gay marriage, for instance. It has never been legal. The fight isn't to
outlaw it. The fight is to include it in a system that has never included it
before now. Whether or not you want that change, you have to admit that it
isn't those who don't want it that are trying to change anything.
The term "marriage" is a religious one wrongly incorporated into law.
Since it isn't, who is forcing their views on whom?
Oh, I AM against Roe V. Wade myself. Not because I think abortion is so
horrible (I do, but making it illegal won't make it go away) I am against it
because this should be handled on the state, not the federal, level. Abolish
Roe V Wade and abortion will still be quite legal in all fifty states---and
that's fine.
Not in Utah.
--
Jack
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: A simple request |
17 May 2005 04:41:03 PM |
|
|
"nJb" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:d6c3i1$d5u$1@news.xmission.com...
DianaC wrote:
<snip to>
Excuse me, but that's the other way around. The things you claim they are
attempting to 'enshrine' have BEEN law for decades upon decades. the
fight isn't about making them law. It's about keeping others from
removing them from law. Remember, nobody is fighting to BEGIN having
mandatory school prayer or to display the ten commandments in court
rooms. They were there. The lawsuits are to get them OUT.
Correct. We want them out because the 1st amendment prohibits them.
Actually....you want them out because your current perception of the First
amendment is that it prohibits them, there was no problem with it for two
hundred years. You want them out NOW because you think you can change the
perception of everybody else to agree with yours.
And that's fine, but let's get what's going on described correctly.
Now, I personally happen to agree with those who want them out, so before
you go off half cocked here, consider that. Nevertheless, the changes
aren't coming FROM the religious. They are being done TO the religious.
Whether you think they are good ones or not, that's true.
They are a response to what the religious have done incorrectly in the
first place.
Nobody thought it was incorrect at the time, OR for two hundred years. YOU
are doing the changing, in other words.
Take gay marriage, for instance. It has never been legal. The fight isn't
to outlaw it. The fight is to include it in a system that has never
included it before now. Whether or not you want that change, you have to
admit that it isn't those who don't want it that are trying to change
anything.
The term "marriage" is a religious one wrongly incorporated into law.
Which of course is non-responsive.
Since it isn't, who is forcing their views on whom?
Oh, I AM against Roe V. Wade myself. Not because I think abortion is so
horrible (I do, but making it illegal won't make it go away) I am against
it because this should be handled on the state, not the federal, level.
Abolish Roe V Wade and abortion will still be quite legal in all fifty
states---and that's fine.
Not in Utah.
(snort) Got news; abortion is more likely to be legal in Utah than in, say,
Mississippi...but state law in both places makes it legal. Question: do you
live in Utah?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: A simple request |
16 May 2005 10:36:34 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 16 May 2005 23:27:47 +0800, "Peacenik"
<cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote:
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in message
news:R72ie.2783$rI1.1817@trnddc02...
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d6a7hq$k09$1@news.seed.net.tw...
<janospetrik@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1116189115.401904.42940@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Could anyone, of any religion, explain why they need to force their
beliefs upon me?
Because they're power-hungry scumbags.
Tell me what church you are forced into at gunpoint every Sunday?
Red herring.
They are trying to enshrine their religious doctrine into US law, thereby
forcing us to obey their religious doctrine. Look at their struggle to
outlaw abortion and equal rights for gays, for example.
That won't convince her because she "knows" those are evil.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "nJb" |
|
| Title: Re: A simple request |
17 May 2005 01:03:52 AM |
|
|
DianaC wrote:
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d6a7hq$k09$1@news.seed.net.tw...
<janospetrik@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1116189115.401904.42940@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Could anyone, of any religion, explain why they need to force their
beliefs upon me?
Because they're power-hungry scumbags.
Tell me what church you are forced into at gunpoint every Sunday?
Forcing stores to close on sunday is forcing religion upon people.
I have a right to attend civic functions. If you insist on praying
during these functions you are forcing me to sit through this *****
as a condition of exercising my right to attend. Get fucking real.
--
Jack
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: A simple request |
16 May 2005 10:01:48 AM |
|
|
DianaC wrote:
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d6a7hq$k09$1@news.seed.net.tw...
<janospetrik@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1116189115.401904.42940@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Could anyone, of any religion, explain why they need to force their
beliefs upon me?
Because they're power-hungry scumbags.
Tell me what church you are forced into at gunpoint every Sunday?
Straw man. *FWOOOF!*
You know, Diana, you really need to clean up after yourself. All these
burnt straw men are making a mess.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: A simple request |
16 May 2005 07:16:10 PM |
|
|
In our last episode <R72ie.2783$rI1.1817@trnddc02>, DianaC pirouetted
gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d6a7hq$k09$1@news.seed.net.tw...
<janospetrik@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1116189115.401904.42940@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Could anyone, of any religion, explain why they need to force their
beliefs upon me?
Because they're power-hungry scumbags.
Tell me what church you are forced into at gunpoint every Sunday?
The ultimate power of the state *is the gun.
That is why the theists are trying to seize control of the state. So they
can aim the guns.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: A simple request |
16 May 2005 08:20:20 PM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:M-idnSS9PMxXqhTfRVn-pA@megapath.net...
In our last episode <R72ie.2783$rI1.1817@trnddc02>, DianaC pirouetted
gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d6a7hq$k09$1@news.seed.net.tw...
<janospetrik@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1116189115.401904.42940@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Could anyone, of any religion, explain why they need to force their
beliefs upon me?
Because they're power-hungry scumbags.
Tell me what church you are forced into at gunpoint every Sunday?
The ultimate power of the state *is the gun.
And what law was passed that forces you to attend a church on Sunday?
That is why the theists are trying to seize control of the state. So they
can aim the guns.
Except that from where I stand, all the fights are in the other direction.
There are very few (and those mostly unsuccessful) attempts to put a new
theist viewpoint/law in play. All the fights I see are from those who are
challenging long held traditions dear to theists. Gay marriage, for
instance, has NEVER been legal. IT's not legal now. The fight isn't from the
theists to make it illegal. The fight is from gays and others to MAKE it
legal. The defense from theists is to keep the status quo.
IT doesn't much matter which side you are on in this matter, the 'force' is
being exerted by the gays who want to get married. THEY want the change.
The Ten Commandments have never been a controversial display before; people
could put it pretty much wherever they wanted to. All the lawsuits I've seen
aren't about non -theists trying to stop theists from doing something
they've never done before. They are, amof, about forcing change. The
lawsuits are about getting the Ten Commandments OUT, not putting something
theist IN. The LA county seal has had a mission, complete with cross, since
the establishment of the county. It has also had a picture of the goddess
Minerva. No problems....after all, the Catholic mission system was extremely
important to the history of California, for good or ill. It wasn't THEISTS
trying to force their views on the rest of the county when demands to change
the seal were made. Who was forcing viewpoints on whom? Now the seal has a
representation of an Indian girl holding some grain and something that I
guess is supposed to be a mission-sans-cross; it looks like the front
elevation of plan three of a new housing development. In no way could you
tell that it was supposed to mean anything but 'California, land of the
instant suburbs".
So. Seems to me that the griping should be from the other side. All the
force and changes are coming, not from the theists, but from YOU. And that's
fine, actually. G'head; most of the changes you want seem to be fair.
However, you can't force change on other people AND complain that they are
trying to force change on YOU.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: A simple request |
16 May 2005 10:32:35 PM |
|
|
In our last episode <oFbie.471$yc.440@trnddc09>, DianaC pirouetted
gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:M-idnSS9PMxXqhTfRVn-pA@megapath.net...
In our last episode <R72ie.2783$rI1.1817@trnddc02>, DianaC pirouetted
gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d6a7hq$k09$1@news.seed.net.tw...
<janospetrik@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1116189115.401904.42940@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Could anyone, of any religion, explain why they need to force their
beliefs upon me?
Because they're power-hungry scumbags.
Tell me what church you are forced into at gunpoint every Sunday?
The ultimate power of the state *is the gun.
And what law was passed that forces you to attend a church on Sunday?
That is why the theists are trying to seize control of the state. So
they can aim the guns.
Except that from where I stand, all the fights are in the other direction.
Yeah but you're a pathological liar.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: A simple request |
17 May 2005 04:52:43 PM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:5aSdnXMxcd1O-BTfRVn-uA@megapath.net...
In our last episode <oFbie.471$yc.440@trnddc09>, DianaC pirouetted
gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:M-idnSS9PMxXqhTfRVn-pA@megapath.net...
In our last episode <R72ie.2783$rI1.1817@trnddc02>, DianaC pirouetted
gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d6a7hq$k09$1@news.seed.net.tw...
<janospetrik@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1116189115.401904.42940@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Could anyone, of any religion, explain why they need to force their
beliefs upon me?
Because they're power-hungry scumbags.
Tell me what church you are forced into at gunpoint every Sunday?
The ultimate power of the state *is the gun.
And what law was passed that forces you to attend a church on Sunday?
That is why the theists are trying to seize control of the state. So
they can aim the guns.
Except that from where I stand, all the fights are in the other
direction.
Yeah but you're a pathological liar.
If you use your definition of "liar", something like 'anybody who disagrees
with Mark Bilbo'. Other than that, no.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: A simple request |
17 May 2005 06:15:05 PM |
|
|
In our last episode <LItie.65$fd.57@trnddc03>, DianaC pirouetted
gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:5aSdnXMxcd1O-BTfRVn-uA@megapath.net...
In our last episode <oFbie.471$yc.440@trnddc09>, DianaC pirouetted
gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:M-idnSS9PMxXqhTfRVn-pA@megapath.net...
In our last episode <R72ie.2783$rI1.1817@trnddc02>, DianaC pirouetted
gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d6a7hq$k09$1@news.seed.net.tw...
<janospetrik@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1116189115.401904.42940@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Could anyone, of any religion, explain why they need to force their
beliefs upon me?
Because they're power-hungry scumbags.
Tell me what church you are forced into at gunpoint every Sunday?
The ultimate power of the state *is the gun.
And what law was passed that forces you to attend a church on Sunday?
That is why the theists are trying to seize control of the state. So
they can aim the guns.
Except that from where I stand, all the fights are in the other
direction.
Yeah but you're a pathological liar.
If you use your definition of "liar", something like 'anybody who
disagrees with Mark Bilbo'. Other than that, no.
Look, you did it again!
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: A simple request |
16 May 2005 09:30:08 AM |
|
|
<janospetrik@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1116189115.401904.42940@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Could anyone, of any religion, explain why they need to force their
beliefs upon me?
I lead a moral life without superstition. Why should I follow any book
filled with bizarre instructions as to how many times I must wash my
hands after a dog licks my hand, worship multi-armed gods, sell
children into sexual slavery, and kill any person who doesn't agree
with me?
I don't know any atheists or agnostics who advocate these things, why
do you?
God's will?
When was the last time a theist tied your hands behind your back, taped your
eyelids open and forced you to read the bible?
When was the last time one put a gun to your head and forced you to pray?
When was the last time some theist hijacked your television set and set it
to the PTL club, stole your remote and broke everything so that you couldn't
turn it off or change the channel...or leave the room?
Indeed, when was the last time anybody forced any beliefs upon you that you
didn't want? Tell me, WHAT church is it that you attend against your will?
And tell me why you think that the First Amendment should apply to everybody
but theists?
Oh...and I have really bad news for you. "Selling children into sexual
slavery" isn't a theist thing. Atheists are just as likely to do it as
theists are, and neither one of them are thinking about god at the time.
Also, Killing people for disagreeing with you....ever heard of Stalin, Pol
Pot, et. al? Their atheism didn't cure THEM of killing people who disagreed
with 'em. There is nothing in atheism that makes it 'wrong' to kill those
who disagree with you, y'know, being as how 'atheism' means only 'disbelief
in deity'.
"Force" is a word that is thrown around far too often...I could JUST as
easily, and with *exactly* the same justification, whine about atheists
forcing their anti-religious viewpoints on religious NGS, forcing me to read
them and be exposed to their opinions.
Wait, you mean that I have a choice here? I can ignore those posts? "Plonk"
them, even? I can choose not go to that newsgroup? I can tell the American
Atheists to take a hike if I see one of their publications? REALLY?
If a Baptist comes to my door telling me that I'm going to hell, I can
sweetly say 'after you' and close the door? I can DO that? I can shut the
door on a Jehovah's Witness, or invite him in and serve her lemonade as I
tell her that she's sadly mislead...and then shut the door? I can DO that? I
can acknowledge that what my neighbor does on his front lawn (the cross or
the nativity scene or the menorah in the window) is none of my business and
simply go on with my life? I can DO that?
I humbly suggest, m'dear, that you examine closely the word 'force' and
rewrite your whine. Ask rather why you, an atheist, must be in the same
world with those who disagree with your opinions and have the gall not only
to say so, but to actually attempt to change your mind. And think about that
for a little bit.
Finally, I'll tell you the reason why: because you are no better than the
theist next door; you have opinions on things, and you have the right to
express them. You don't want anybody to shut you up on matters you believe
are important. Fine; but if you want YOUR freedom, you have to give
everybody else theirs, even if the results are that they believe something
you don't.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jwk" |
|
| Title: Re: A simple request |
17 May 2005 09:32:18 AM |
|
|
DianaC wrote:
<janospetrik@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1116189115.401904.42940@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Could anyone, of any religion, explain why they need to force their
beliefs upon me?
I lead a moral life without superstition. Why should I follow any
book
filled with bizarre instructions as to how many times I must wash
my
hands after a dog licks my hand, worship multi-armed gods, sell
children into sexual slavery, and kill any person who doesn't agree
with me?
I don't know any atheists or agnostics who advocate these things,
why
do you?
God's will?
When was the last time a theist tied your hands behind your back,
taped your
eyelids open and forced you to read the bible?
You know damn well that it is not a matter of what you theists have
forced us to do. It's a matter of what you are *trying to force us to
do. That strawman didn't even have legs or arms.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/7235393?pageid=rs.Politics&pageregion=single1&rnd=1116340145468&has-player=true&version=6.0.12.872
jwk
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "nJb" |
|
| Title: Re: A simple request |
17 May 2005 12:59:30 AM |
|
|
DianaC wrote:
<janospetrik@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1116189115.401904.42940@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Could anyone, of any religion, explain why they need to force their
beliefs upon me?
I lead a moral life without superstition. Why should I follow any book
filled with bizarre instructions as to how many times I must wash my
hands after a dog licks my hand, worship multi-armed gods, sell
children into sexual slavery, and kill any person who doesn't agree
with me?
I don't know any atheists or agnostics who advocate these things, why
do you?
God's will?
When was the last time a theist tied your hands behind your back, taped your
eyelids open and forced you to read the bible?
When was the last time one put a gun to your head and forced you to pray?
When was the last time some theist hijacked your television set and set it
to the PTL club, stole your remote and broke everything so that you couldn't
turn it off or change the channel...or leave the room?
Indeed, when was the last time anybody forced any beliefs upon you that you
didn't want? Tell me, WHAT church is it that you attend against your will?
In Cedar Hills Utah there is a movement under way to force all stores to
be closed on Sunday. That is forcing religion upon those who don't
believe in their superstitions. They don't need guns, they've got god.
And tell me why you think that the First Amendment should apply to everybody
but theists?
Speak freely but not on my time or my dime.
Oh...and I have really bad news for you. "Selling children into sexual
slavery" isn't a theist thing. Atheists are just as likely to do it as
theists are, and neither one of them are thinking about god at the time.
Also, Killing people for disagreeing with you....ever heard of Stalin, Pol
Pot, et. al? Their atheism didn't cure THEM of killing people who disagreed
with 'em. There is nothing in atheism that makes it 'wrong' to kill those
who disagree with you, y'know, being as how 'atheism' means only 'disbelief
in deity'.
"Force" is a word that is thrown around far too often...I could JUST as
easily, and with *exactly* the same justification, whine about atheists
forcing their anti-religious viewpoints on religious NGS, forcing me to read
them and be exposed to their opinions.
Wait, you mean that I have a choice here? I can ignore those posts? "Plonk"
them, even? I can choose not go to that newsgroup? I can tell the American
Atheists to take a hike if I see one of their publications? REALLY?
If a Baptist comes to my door telling me that I'm going to hell, I can
sweetly say 'after you' and close the door? I can DO that? I can shut the
door on a Jehovah's Witness, or invite him in and serve her lemonade as I
tell her that she's sadly mislead...and then shut the door? I can DO that? I
can acknowledge that what my neighbor does on his front lawn (the cross or
the nativity scene or the menorah in the window) is none of my business and
simply go on with my life? I can DO that?
I humbly suggest, m'dear, that you examine closely the word 'force' and
rewrite your whine. Ask rather why you, an atheist, must be in the same
world with those who disagree with your opinions and have the gall not only
to say so, but to actually attempt to change your mind. And think about that
for a little bit.
Finally, I'll tell you the reason why: because you are no better than the
theist next door; you have opinions on things, and you have the right to
express them. You don't want anybody to shut you up on matters you believe
are important. Fine; but if you want YOUR freedom, you have to give
everybody else theirs, even if the results are that they believe something
you don't.
How about the freedom to open my store on Sunday if I choose?
You're a wacko.
--
Jack
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: A simple request |
17 May 2005 08:09:49 AM |
|
|
"nJb" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:d6c189$bh5$1@news.xmission.com...
DianaC wrote:
snip
Finally, I'll tell you the reason why: because you are no better than
the
theist next door; you have opinions on things, and you have the right to
express them. You don't want anybody to shut you up on matters you
believe
are important. Fine; but if you want YOUR freedom, you have to give
everybody else theirs, even if the results are that they believe
something
you don't.
How about the freedom to open my store on Sunday if I choose?
I can't buy clothing in the county where I live on Sunday. Why should I
have to go out of my way into either the next county or state just because I
need a pair of pantyhose for work on Monday?
You're a wacko.
Agreed :P
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
