Tolerance vs freedom

Religions > Atheism > Tolerance vs freedom

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 1

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"DaveJr"
Date:	12 Feb 2005 10:12:12 PM
Object:	Tolerance vs freedom

I read in another post that 52% of this country is, for lack of a better
term, brainwashed. When will the remaining 48% of us who KNOW better stand
up and say ENOUGH! Of course there is the freedom to believe what you
want, however what about freedom FROM other peoples beliefs. A friend of
our family's was talking about all the co-workers that he is surrounded by
and all their 'thumping'. I suggested bringing an Anton LeVay book to
leave out for all of them to see. Just for spite I guess. I don't believe
in that crap either.
I'm not suggesting a dictatorship, but damn this country is on its way back
to the middle ages.
I guess the only savior 'per say' is education. If that slips, then we are
in big trouble.
Don't let the education slip!
.

User: "DianaC"
Title: Re: Tolerance vs freedom	12 Feb 2005 10:34:19 PM

"DaveJr" <davesbrain@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:ntAPd.54$Ap1.17198@news.uswest.net...

I read in another post that 52% of this country is, for lack of a better
term, brainwashed. When will the remaining 48% of us who KNOW better
stand
up and say ENOUGH! Of course there is the freedom to believe what you
want, however what about freedom FROM other peoples beliefs. A friend
of
our family's was talking about all the co-workers that he is surrounded by
and all their 'thumping'. I suggested bringing an Anton LeVay book to
leave out for all of them to see. Just for spite I guess. I don't
believe
in that crap either.
I'm not suggesting a dictatorship, but damn this country is on its way
back
to the middle ages.
I guess the only savior 'per say' is education. If that slips, then we
are
in big trouble.

Don't let the education slip!

The constitution did not say anything about freedom FROM beliefs, bub. In
fact, that's what people had before the constitution was written; the powers
that be had freedom from beliefs. They had freedom from atheists or from
Catholics or from Jews or from....pick one, pick all.
You do not have the freedom to force me to shut up...and that is what
'freedom from beliefs' would mean, y'know; forcing everybody who doesn't
agree with you to shut up.
Yes, we have the RIGHT to say and believe what we wish. Even if you (gasp)
happen to see it. Even if you (horrors) happen to hear it. Even if you (oh,
the humanity!!) have it offered to you, even aggressively; you have the
right to say no..as rudely as you want to. Yes. We have that right.
And so do you. So say and do what you wish. You have the absolute RIGHT to
be just as vocal, as obnoxious, as assertive in your beliefs as any theist
is in his. They don't have the right to tell you that you can't; indeed, you
SHOULD. However, Get this very, very straight; freedom FROM beliefs is
tyranny; it IS a 'dictatorship', because in order for you to be free from
our beliefs, we lose our freedom OF...and if we lose ours, eventually it
will be your turn to lose yours.
.

User: "DaveJr"
Title: Re: Tolerance vs freedom	12 Feb 2005 11:16:24 PM

"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in message
news:fNAPd.27911$uc.12073@trnddc03...

"DaveJr" <davesbrain@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:ntAPd.54$Ap1.17198@news.uswest.net...

and all their 'thumping'. I suggested bringing an Anton LeVay book to
leave out for all of them to see. Just for spite I guess. I don't
believe
in that crap either.
I'm not suggesting a dictatorship, but damn this country is on its way
back
to the middle ages.
I guess the only savior 'per say' is education. If that slips, then we
are
in big trouble.

Don't let the education slip!

The constitution did not say anything about freedom FROM beliefs, bub. In
fact, that's what people had before the constitution was written; the

powers

that be had freedom from beliefs. They had freedom from atheists or from
Catholics or from Jews or from....pick one, pick all.

You do not have the freedom to force me to shut up...and that is what
'freedom from beliefs' would mean, y'know; forcing everybody who doesn't
agree with you to shut up.

Yes, we have the RIGHT to say and believe what we wish. Even if you (gasp)
happen to see it. Even if you (horrors) happen to hear it. Even if you

(oh,

the humanity!!) have it offered to you, even aggressively; you have the
right to say no..as rudely as you want to. Yes. We have that right.

And so do you. So say and do what you wish. You have the absolute RIGHT to
be just as vocal, as obnoxious, as assertive in your beliefs as any theist
is in his. They don't have the right to tell you that you can't; indeed,

you

SHOULD. However, Get this very, very straight; freedom FROM beliefs is
tyranny; it IS a 'dictatorship', because in order for you to be free from
our beliefs, we lose our freedom OF...and if we lose ours, eventually it
will be your turn to lose yours.

The ones who actually believe in such dogma and hoopla are the ones that
require all the tolerance from those who know better. People have the
freedom to jump off a bridge if they so choose, but it doesn't mean it's
recommended.
The percentage of people who don't believe that Noah put the Axolotls
between the polar bears and kangaroos on a boat is the minority. Its
sad.
.

User: "DianaC"
Title: Re: Tolerance vs freedom	13 Feb 2005 01:00:25 PM

"DaveJr" <davesbrain@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:zpBPd.409$JI3.4289@news.uswest.net...
<snip to>

The ones who actually believe in such dogma and hoopla are the ones that
require all the tolerance from those who know better.

Some do, yes. And that's what the problem was in the first place; why it was
imperative that the government not establish one state religion.

People have the
freedom to jump off a bridge if they so choose, but it doesn't mean it's
recommended.
The percentage of people who don't believe that Noah put the Axolotls
between the polar bears and kangaroos on a boat is the minority. Its
sad.

Actually, the vast majority of people in the world believe in something
other than the Noah story. Indeed, the vast majority of THEISTS believe in
something other than the Noah story.
.

User: "Heretic"
Title: Re: Tolerance vs freedom	12 Feb 2005 11:00:04 PM

And so do you. So say and do what you wish. You have the absolute RIGHT to
be just as vocal, as obnoxious, as assertive in your beliefs as any theist
is in his. They don't have the right to tell you that you can't; indeed, you
SHOULD. However, Get this very, very straight; freedom FROM beliefs is
tyranny; it IS a 'dictatorship', because in order for you to be free from
our beliefs, we lose our freedom OF...and if we lose ours, eventually it
will be your turn to lose yours.

I hate to agree with a Christian, but she's right, and I support her
right to inflict her ridiculous psychotic fantasy upon reasonable
people everywhere. But she and her kind should just keep their
religious holiday displays off of public property and way out of
courthouses... unless they will agree to let me erect a statue in a
public courthouse that says "THERE IS NO GOD!" p.s. To the person who
is being harassed by Christians in the workplace, there may be a legal
remedy if you think they are discriminating against you for promotions
and so forth because of your atheism. I actually heard of a guy
recently going in for a job interview at a public institution and
having the interviewer ask if he was a Christian. If you feel the
religious Gestapo is discriminating against you, sue the Bush out of
them. By the way, the founding fathers of our great country disliked
Christianity, often intensely. I have some articles about it on my
website if you are interested. There are some good quotes there to
throw in their faces, and it makes more sense to quote Jefferson,
Payne, Franklin, and the US Congress instead of Anton Levay. For
instance the Treaty of Tripoli was passed by the Senate in 1797
containing the statement "The government of the United States is not
in any sense founded on the Christian religion." Written during George
Washington's administration, this treaty went to the Senate during the
Adams administration. It was read out loud to the Senate, and all
Senators received copies. It passed with a unanimous vote with no
record of dissent. Three papers reprinted it, and the public
apparently had no objection. You can find some good quotes like
Benjamin Franklin's "In the affairs of the world, men are saved, not
by faith, but by the lack of it." Maybe you can convert them into
Deists.
EVIGILARE PECUA!
http://unrealitycheck.com
.

User: "DianaC"
Title: Re: Tolerance vs freedom	13 Feb 2005 12:58:08 PM

"Heretic heretic@unrealitycheck.com>" <nospam#^%&%-------------> wrote in
message news:8nmt01p9pp32k05rqj3r256vu22qd2bssr@4ax.com...

And so do you. So say and do what you wish. You have the absolute RIGHT
to
be just as vocal, as obnoxious, as assertive in your beliefs as any theist
is in his. They don't have the right to tell you that you can't; indeed,
you
SHOULD. However, Get this very, very straight; freedom FROM beliefs is
tyranny; it IS a 'dictatorship', because in order for you to be free from
our beliefs, we lose our freedom OF...and if we lose ours, eventually it
will be your turn to lose yours.

Actually, I rather like that idea. Indeed, it's an idea that I have
proposed; public property, since it belongs to the public, should be free to
everybody...as long as the rules are equal for everybody. So, have a wall or
a room or a garden or a....something....a public place where anybody can
post any damn thing he wants to in regard to religious opinion; as long as
he obeys the same rules of display everybody else has to: that is, a certain
size or decibel level or length of display or..??

p.s. To the person who
is being harassed by Christians in the workplace, there may be a legal
remedy if you think they are discriminating against you for promotions
and so forth because of your atheism. I actually heard of a guy
recently going in for a job interview at a public institution and
having the interviewer ask if he was a Christian.

Er, that's not good. That is, in effect, trying enforce the freedom FROM
religion bit I warned against; the guy wants freedom from everything but
Christianity, and that's not the idea, either.

If you feel the
religious Gestapo is discriminating against you, sue the Bush out of
them. By the way, the founding fathers of our great country disliked
Christianity, often intensely. I have some articles about it on my
website if you are interested. There are some good quotes there to
throw in their faces, and it makes more sense to quote Jefferson,
Payne, Franklin, and the US Congress instead of Anton Levay. For
instance the Treaty of Tripoli was passed by the Senate in 1797
containing the statement "The government of the United States is not
in any sense founded on the Christian religion." Written during George
Washington's administration, this treaty went to the Senate during the
Adams administration. It was read out loud to the Senate, and all
Senators received copies. It passed with a unanimous vote with no
record of dissent. Three papers reprinted it, and the public
apparently had no objection. You can find some good quotes like
Benjamin Franklin's "In the affairs of the world, men are saved, not
by faith, but by the lack of it." Maybe you can convert them into
Deists.

EVIGILARE PECUA!
http://unrealitycheck.com

User: "stoney"
Title: Re: Tolerance vs freedom	14 Feb 2005 07:24:29 PM

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 18:58:08 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:

"Heretic heretic@unrealitycheck.com>" <nospam#^%&%-------------> wrote in
message news:8nmt01p9pp32k05rqj3r256vu22qd2bssr@4ax.com...

And so do you. So say and do what you wish. You have the absolute RIGHT
to
be just as vocal, as obnoxious, as assertive in your beliefs as any theist
is in his. They don't have the right to tell you that you can't; indeed,
you
SHOULD. However, Get this very, very straight; freedom FROM beliefs is
tyranny; it IS a 'dictatorship', because in order for you to be free from
our beliefs, we lose our freedom OF...and if we lose ours, eventually it
will be your turn to lose yours.

And that was shown to be unworkable when you floated it prior, as well
as unconstitutional.
[]
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.

User: "DianaC"
Title: Re: Tolerance vs freedom	14 Feb 2005 10:20:22 PM

"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:jnj211dendkimqvdbkj35e4ibhcvup2ckn@4ax.com...

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 18:58:08 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:

"Heretic heretic@unrealitycheck.com>" <nospam#^%&%-------------> wrote in
message news:8nmt01p9pp32k05rqj3r256vu22qd2bssr@4ax.com...

And so do you. So say and do what you wish. You have the absolute RIGHT
to
be just as vocal, as obnoxious, as assertive in your beliefs as any
theist
is in his. They don't have the right to tell you that you can't; indeed,
you
SHOULD. However, Get this very, very straight; freedom FROM beliefs is
tyranny; it IS a 'dictatorship', because in order for you to be free
from
our beliefs, we lose our freedom OF...and if we lose ours, eventually it
will be your turn to lose yours.

Actually, I rather like that idea. Indeed, it's an idea that I have
proposed; public property, since it belongs to the public, should be free
to
everybody...as long as the rules are equal for everybody. So, have a wall
or
a room or a garden or a....something....a public place where anybody can
post any damn thing he wants to in regard to religious opinion; as long as
he obeys the same rules of display everybody else has to: that is, a
certain
size or decibel level or length of display or..??

And that was shown to be unworkable when you floated it prior, as well
as unconstitutional.

I don't think it was, actually. And it is certainly not unconstitutional.
Tell me what is unworkable about a system that already DOES work for every
other community organization?
As for being unconstitutional, the solution you guys seem to want is the one
nobody thought of when they were dealing with segragation; you know, the
'seperate but equal' bit?
Then, one side was saying that you could give everybody the same education
even if they were segragated; blacks in black schools, whites in white
schools, and the other side said that no, seperate education is inherently
unequal education; every child must be treated equally, and educated
together. The one idea nobody came up with was the OTHER way to make certain
everybody was treated equally, and that was; to eliminate school altogether.
Ah, but this? there seems to be an avalanche of opinion regarding getting
'rid of the school altogether'. You don't want anything religious, or any
religious group, to get the same treatment or attention that a non religious
group would get, even when the religious group is doing the same things;
like feeding the hungry, for instance, or teaching kids to read, or caring
for the elderly, or even having concerts or holding plays; if the group is
non-profit and also non-religious, fine, let them advertise or announce what
they are doing on public property, compete for government grants, have
floats in parades, whatever. No problem.
Let that group be non-profit and RELIGIOUS, however, and they cannot post on
government property even though the guy next door can. They can't get
grants. They can't have floats in parades, even parades that wouldn't be
occuring if it weren't for the religious holiday it's based upon.
So...your solution isn't to let 'em all come in, your solution is to throw
'em out. Even though letting 'em all IN would serve the same purposes.
And do NOT tell me that it's not workable, that's a huge copout. Of course
it's workable. WE already DO it, for crying out loud!
If a community group wants to post an announcement on the bulletin board,
they fill out a form, obey the size, duration and content rules (no nekkid
people, for instance, no profanity) and boom, there they go, first come,
first posted. Their announcement is up for a week and then it comes down and
makes room for the next guy. It's just not that hard, stoney.
Just make the rules the same for everybody. If a church wants to announce
something, they fill out a form, obey the size, duration and content rules,
and boom, there they go, first come, first posted. Their announcement is up
for a week and then it comes down and makes room for the next guy.
If someone wants to do a display of historical artifacts that are important
to the history of the community, and one of the items is religious, then
that item should be judged by it's historical significance, NOT excluded
just because it is also religious; throwing it out is rewriting history. You
can bet, for instance, that the history of Missourri would be a very
different thing to read if they threw out all mention of Governor Boggs and
the Extermination proclamation, and Indiana without mentioning the Amish
wouldn't read correctly, either.
And for crying out loud, you want to write the history of Utah without
mentioning Mormonism? You KIDDING? Or...how about writing the history of
California without mentioning Mormonism....or Catholicism.
Wait. They are trying to do that. The LA county seal now looks like,
well....they have put a picture of a mission, sans cross. It looks like the
front elevation of "Model B" of a typical California housing tract; there is
absolutely nothing there that would identify it as a mission. Shoot, I've
seen houses, city halls, synagogues, Mediteranian mansions and Mormon
Temples that looked like that; this is getting stupid.
If you want to have a display of things that have contributed to our
culture, historically and legally, then the Ten Commandments belongs there,
right beside the code of Hammurabbi and....well, you know the rant by now.
You are going TOO FAR with this. You are going to lose a very rich part of
human history in your quest to lose religion, because whether you believe in
it or not, religion has shaped human culture for thousands of years. To
leave it out because you are afraid of it is to get a very skewed idea of
human history, and is doing us all a diservice.
.

User: "DaveJr"
Title: Re: Tolerance vs freedom	14 Feb 2005 11:14:12 PM

"If you want to have a display of things that have contributed to our
culture, historically and legally, then the Ten Commandments belongs there,
right beside the code of Hammurabbi and....well, you know the rant by now.
You are going TOO FAR with this. You are going to lose a very rich part of
human history in your quest to lose religion, because whether you believe in
it or not, religion has shaped human culture for thousands of years. To
leave it out because you are afraid of it is to get a very skewed idea of
human history, and is doing us all a diservice".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
"a very rich part of human history"
&
"religion has shaped human culture for thousands of years"
=
Through WAR and DEATH for those thousands of years.
.

User: "DianaC"
Title: Re: Tolerance vs freedom	15 Feb 2005 08:54:18 AM

"DaveJr" <davesbrain@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:AzfQd.78$QM2.17335@news.uswest.net...

"If you want to have a display of things that have contributed to our
culture, historically and legally, then the Ten Commandments belongs
there,
right beside the code of Hammurabbi and....well, you know the rant by now.
You are going TOO FAR with this. You are going to lose a very rich part of
human history in your quest to lose religion, because whether you believe
in
it or not, religion has shaped human culture for thousands of years. To
leave it out because you are afraid of it is to get a very skewed idea of
human history, and is doing us all a diservice".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
"a very rich part of human history"
&
"religion has shaped human culture for thousands of years"
=
Through WAR and DEATH for those thousands of years.

And getting rid of religion eliminated war and death?
Really?
.

User: "stoney"
Title: Re: Tolerance vs freedom	15 Feb 2005 03:32:13 PM

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 04:20:22 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:

"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:jnj211dendkimqvdbkj35e4ibhcvup2ckn@4ax.com...

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 18:58:08 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:

"Heretic heretic@unrealitycheck.com>" <nospam#^%&%-------------> wrote in
message news:8nmt01p9pp32k05rqj3r256vu22qd2bssr@4ax.com...

And so do you. So say and do what you wish. You have the absolute RIGHT
to
be just as vocal, as obnoxious, as assertive in your beliefs as any
theist
is in his. They don't have the right to tell you that you can't; indeed,
you
SHOULD. However, Get this very, very straight; freedom FROM beliefs is
tyranny; it IS a 'dictatorship', because in order for you to be free
from
our beliefs, we lose our freedom OF...and if we lose ours, eventually it
will be your turn to lose yours.

Actually, I rather like that idea. Indeed, it's an idea that I have
proposed; public property, since it belongs to the public, should be free
to
everybody...as long as the rules are equal for everybody. So, have a wall
or
a room or a garden or a....something....a public place where anybody can
post any damn thing he wants to in regard to religious opinion; as long as
he obeys the same rules of display everybody else has to: that is, a
certain
size or decibel level or length of display or..??

And that was shown to be unworkable when you floated it prior, as well
as unconstitutional.

I don't think it was, actually. And it is certainly not unconstitutional.
Tell me what is unworkable about a system that already DOES work for every
other community organization?

Go back and reread the thread.

As for being unconstitutional, the solution you guys seem to want is the one
nobody thought of when they were dealing with segragation; you know, the
'seperate but equal' bit?

Red herrings again, I see. What *I* or anyone else wants-as you're
well aware-is irrelevant and immaterial. What is relevant is what the
US Constitution says.
[]
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.

User: "DianaC"
Title: Re: Tolerance vs freedom	15 Feb 2005 05:53:15 PM

"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:keq4115220ld30esakjk0t73kpci872q6k@4ax.com...

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 04:20:22 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:

"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:jnj211dendkimqvdbkj35e4ibhcvup2ckn@4ax.com...

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 18:58:08 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:

"Heretic heretic@unrealitycheck.com>" <nospam#^%&%-------------> wrote
in
message news:8nmt01p9pp32k05rqj3r256vu22qd2bssr@4ax.com...

And so do you. So say and do what you wish. You have the absolute
RIGHT
to
be just as vocal, as obnoxious, as assertive in your beliefs as any
theist
is in his. They don't have the right to tell you that you can't;
indeed,
you
SHOULD. However, Get this very, very straight; freedom FROM beliefs is
tyranny; it IS a 'dictatorship', because in order for you to be free
from
our beliefs, we lose our freedom OF...and if we lose ours, eventually
it
will be your turn to lose yours.

Actually, I rather like that idea. Indeed, it's an idea that I have
proposed; public property, since it belongs to the public, should be
free
to
everybody...as long as the rules are equal for everybody. So, have a
wall
or
a room or a garden or a....something....a public place where anybody can
post any damn thing he wants to in regard to religious opinion; as long
as
he obeys the same rules of display everybody else has to: that is, a
certain
size or decibel level or length of display or..??

And that was shown to be unworkable when you floated it prior, as well
as unconstitutional.

I don't think it was, actually. And it is certainly not unconstitutional.
Tell me what is unworkable about a system that already DOES work for every
other community organization?

Go back and reread the thread.

As for being unconstitutional, the solution you guys seem to want is the
one
nobody thought of when they were dealing with segragation; you know, the
'seperate but equal' bit?

Red herrings again, I see. What *I* or anyone else wants-as you're
well aware-is irrelevant and immaterial. What is relevant is what the
US Constitution says.

Indeed. And you guys are reading into 'Congress shall make no law...." a
great deal more than is said therein, especially since y'all want congress
to make a great many laws, indeed.
.

User: "stoney"
Title: Re: Tolerance vs freedom	16 Feb 2005 05:35:57 PM

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 23:53:15 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote: