Moderator: Nicole Marie
OperaTenor wrote:Sorry to intrude on the amusement, but I have encountered a couple of atheists who were a bit pushy about their insistence on a lack of a belief system.
barfle wrote:OperaTenor wrote:Sorry to intrude on the amusement, but I have encountered a couple of atheists who were a bit pushy about their insistence on a lack of a belief system.
While I have no doubt such can be the case, what I usually find is that atheists are sensitive to having other people's beliefs pushed on them. I doubt that anyone wants their taxes spent to promote someone else's religion. I'm quite certain that Shap and Haggis would raise holy hell if their city park hosted an Islamic holiday, particularly if they provided the decorations and facilities. Or maybe a Wiccan festival. But many Americans feel it's acceptable for thier taxes to pay for a Nativity scene, or an Easter sunrise service. Some find "under God" to be patriotic, some find it silly, and some find it objectionable. Shall we discuss the "Intelligent Design" debacle? The first Amendment is still in force.
And when churches start paying taxes, we can discuss whether or not governments are giving it all away to atheists.
Haggis wrote:It seems denying religion is pretty much a religion itself.
barfle wrote:Haggis wrote:It seems denying religion is pretty much a religion itself.
Assuming by "denying religion" you mean attempting to secure the rights of those who have no religion, it's not a religion, it's a freedom fight.
Haggis@wk wrote:Examples please where the "rights of those who have no religion" have been denied by the state?
Haggis wrote:a bunch of whiners want to project their unhappiness on me and mine because we are not unhappy.
Denying people the right to declare themselves a family because their gender mix is unusual.
And having to make up the revenue lost by granting orgainized religions tax breaks.
Shapley wrote:They are free to delcare themselves a family, if that is their fantasy. The law would require the rest of us to recognize them, in a legal sense, as one. Thus it does not impose our morality on them, but rather imposes theirs upon us.
Shapley wrote:I'm not sure why the Federal government is even in the marriage business in the first place.
Shapley wrote:I suspect that that is more than compensated for by the social services provided by organized religion that the government would otherwise feel obligated to pay for under the the current definition of governmental responsibilities...
People going to churches in DC are allowed to double park, but those going to theaters are not.
I'm not sure they are, since most marriages I'm familiar with were recognized by state governments. Governments get involved in marriages because declaring the existence of a family involves several legal changes, such as community property and next-of-kin.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]