In article <b6g7435k9cfhrc5jppstln94bfc93u72v1@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:

On Thu, 10 May 2007 22:08:53 GMT, *nemo*
<nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> wrote:
- Refer: <nemo0037-5A5B0C.18085310052007@news.west.earthlink.net>

In article <1178802699.187768.252600@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
Andres64 <andresc64@excite.com> wrote:

That's how ABC describes Brain Sapient and Kelly. Why not simply
atheists. At least we all know, or should, what an atheist is.

definition of "Christian", otoh, can't even be agreed upon by
"Christians"

Problem is, there are plenty of atheists who won't proclaim

as such. So you could call them "Out" atheists or "Open" atheists.
Doesn't bother me nearly so much as the fact that so may atheists

they need to hide their views.

That seems to be changing quite rapidly.
Harris, Dawkins et alia have opened the floodgates.

--

I think overall, that this is a good thing. Long-term, it will go a

way toward dispelling prejudice if all atheists become "out" or
"self-proclaimed" or whatever.

Short-term, it results in some unpleasantness. I've attracted the
attention of several real-life weirdos over the past year by taking

in local dialog on religion. But hey -- if it might lead to a happier
life for future infidels, I'll suffer the idiocy of a few fools...

On 10 May 2007 08:36:07 -0700,

On May 10, 10:40 am, jcon <cirej...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On May 10, 8:11 am, Andres64 <andres...@excite.com> wrote:

That's how ABC describes Brain Sapient and Kelly. Why not simply
atheists.

I think this reflects the fact that as "Brian and Kelly" said,
atheists are the last group that it's "OK to hate". To most
Americans, "atheist" is effectively a pejorative term.
So in the spirit of "who gets to use the N-word", the
author is making it clear that *he's* not calling them
names.

Look, it wasn't that long ago that the majority of the country
would not have even entertained the notion of a black, or Jew, or
woman running for President - and would have said so!

Or even the wrong type of Christian. A lot of people didn't want John
F. Kennedy as president because he was Catholic.

Given the Vatican's blackmail of representatives who happen to be
Catholic with the threat of refusing them communion if they don't
follow the Vatican line, and the Supreme Court voting on the so-called
"partial birth abortion" along Catholic/non-Catholic lines, this is
more likely today.

Now,
whatever they might really think, they at least won't
*say* those things because they don't want to be labeled
"bigots". In a recent Gallup poll, there was only one identified
group that a majority of Americans said they would never
vote for for President: atheists.http://tinyurl.com/2ejy3y

-jc

At least we all know, or should, what an atheist is. The
definition of "Christian", otoh, can't even be agreed upon by
"Christians"- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On 10 May 2007 11:31:54 -0700, Hatter <Hatter23@gmail.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1178821913.979756.71040@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>

On May 10, 11:22 am, DarkAngel <drkangel...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On May 10, 9:11 am, Andres64 <andres...@excite.com> wrote:

That's how ABC describes Brain Sapient and Kelly. Why not simply
atheists.

For the same reason why the media often describe anarchists as 'self-
described/self-proclaimed anarchists'. The terms 'atheist' and
'anarchist' have been used as pejoratives in the past and as weapon-
words, and the point is to make it clear that it is not the media
people who are labelling these people as atheists or anarchists, but
themselves who do so.

---
No Gods. No Masters.

It is odd to think..we've cracked the atom, we've sent men to the
moon...yet two generations later it is still a ghastly breech of
etiquette to proclaim bronze age myths to be false.

Mainly in superstitious misogynistic fundamentalist countries, such as
Upper Volta, Saudi Arabia and the USA.

On 10 mai, 20:31, Hatter <Hatte...@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 10, 11:22 am, DarkAngel <drkangel...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On May 10, 9:11 am, Andres64 <andres...@excite.com> wrote:

That's how ABC describes Brain Sapient and Kelly. Why not simply
atheists.

For the same reason why the media often describe anarchists as 'self-
described/self-proclaimed anarchists'. The terms 'atheist' and
'anarchist' have been used as pejoratives in the past and as weapon-
words, and the point is to make it clear that it is not the media
people who are labelling these people as atheists or anarchists, but
themselves who do so.

---
No Gods. No Masters.

It is odd to think..we've cracked the atom, we've sent men to the
moon...yet two generations later it is still a ghastly breech of
etiquette to proclaim bronze age myths to be false.

Just weird.

Hatter

Strangely or, actually, sadly, the one country which has achieved all
that -on top of giving some of the top scientists and top artists to
the planet- has chosen to evolve backward. As more and more countries
abolish death penalty, the USA has reinstated it. As more and more
countries develop a efficient healthcare system, the USA are stuck
with a non-system that actually cost them more. As more and more
country appear to really make a clear cut between state and religion,
the USA -to the contrary- seem to want more and more religion mixing
up with social issue. As science evolves increasingly rapidly, an
increasing number of Americans believe that the planet was created in
seven days by god... As more and more countries develop programs that
reduce teen pregnancy and abortion rates, the USA still insist in
teaching "abstinence"... I could go on like this...
Signs of decadence?