Antineutrinos: Fact, or a Myth Perpetrated by the Right?

[BigJon@Work]

You are ignorant

and

Don't be so arrogant

[barfle]

How could you believe such a thing?

Because I'm right.

[jamiebk]

How could you believe such a thing?

Because I'm right.

Thought you were a little more to the left?

[piqaboo]

jamie and barfle - thanks for the amusement today. I believe I'll chuckle over this one. Anyone wanna argue?

[OperaTenor]

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.

Overzealous, even....

[barfle]

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.

Overzealous, even....

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.

[GreatCarouser]

Dare I ask how many of these things will fit on the head of a pin?

(Or would it have been too inflammatory to use 'pinhead'?)....

[Marye]

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.

Overzealous, even....

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.

Amen

[Haggis@wk]

Dunno 'bout that Barfle. Every time you scratch a "Church/State" separation lawsuit you generally find an atheist/agnostic at the center.

The most famous one, of course, is Madalyn Murray O'Hair

Murray v. Curlett (1963) Challenged Bible reading and prayer recitation in Maryland public schools.

Murray v. United States (1964) To force the Federal Communications Commission to extend the Fairness Doctrine so that Atheists could have equal time with religion on radio and television.

Murray v. Nixon (1970) Challenged to weekly religious services in the White House.

O'Hair v. Paine (1971) Challenged NASA's religious use of the space program to require astronauts to read the Bible during a space flight.

O'Hair v. Cooke (1977) Challenged the opening prayer at city council meetings in Austin, Texas.

O'Hair v. Blumenthal (1978) Challenged the inclusion of the phrase "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency.

O'Hair v. Hill (1978) To have removed from the Texas constitution a provision requiring a belief in god of persons holding offices of public trust.

O'Hair v. Andrus (1979) Challenged the use of National Park facilities for the pope to hold a Roman Catholic mass on the Mall in Washington, D.C..

O'Hair v. Clements (1980) This case tried to remove the nativity scene displayed in the rotunda of the capitol building in Austin, Texas.

But others who can’t stand the thought of religion would be the organization she formed, American Atheists.

They’re a pretty litigious group as well.

American Atheists Inc., Lon Bevill, v. City Of Stark, Florida.

American Atheists Inc., Mark W. Butler v. The City of Jacksonville, Florida, Mayor John Peyton, Sherrif John Rutherford, Council President Michael Corrigan.

Chester Smalkowski, Nadia Smalkowski, American Atheists v. Hardesty Public School District, The County Of Texas County, Oklahoma, The Town Of Hardesty, Oklahoma, David Davidson, David Brewer, Lloyd Buckley, Ernest Cook.

American Atheists, Inc., and Steve Walker vs. City of Detriot, City of Detroit Downtown Development Authority, and Detroit Economic Growth Corporation

It seems denying religion is pretty much a religion itself.

[jamiebk]

[quote="Haggis@wk"It seems denying religion is pretty much a religion itself.[/quote]

I don't think they are "denying" it as much as they are objecting to it. I do agree that even atheism is as much a belief system as organized religion. To that extent, they should have no more and no less the rights and standing thereof.

I just wish that everyone had a little more tolerance and understanding for each other's beliefs. Nothing should impose on an individual's right to their beliefs and practice of them.

[Marye]

Wasn't Madalyn Murray O'Hair murdered for her beliefs?

[barfle]

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.

[barfle]

Wasn't Madalyn Murray O'Hair murdered for her beliefs?

Probably not.

[Shapley]

To the best of my knowledge, there are no cities in the United States that were started by Buddhists, Muslems, or Wiccans, but I could be mistaken. There are, however, a large number of communities that were started by Christians and Jews. These communities frequently started with a church, synagogue, or mission, around which houses, stores, and factories rose up. These communities usually had Christian or Jewish names; Mt. Zion, Bethlehem, Calvary, St. Louis, The City of Angels, Saint Didacus, Corpus Christi, etc.

At some point, these communities sought the benefits that incorporation afforded them, and thus they became officially recognized by the government as a community. They generally maintained their identity as a religious community, even as members of other religions, or of none, entered their jurisdictions, bringing their faith (or lack thereof) into their midst. The communities generally welcomed them.

Eventually, however, some people began to be 'offended' by the communities' adherance to their past, and began to demand that displays of religious affiliation be stripped from communal property. Sadly, the courts have agreed, and much of our history is being denied.

Would I object to mosque-centered communities spending their money on Ramaddan displays? No. We tolerate Chinese New Year celebrations, St. Patrick's Day parades, and Hallowe'en.

We used to celebrate our heritage in America. Now many people are intent on forcing us to hide it.

V/R
Shapley

[Haggis@wk]

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.

Examples please where the "rights of those who have no religion" have been denied by the state?

That's akin to saying that because I'm deaf you shouldn't be allowed to listen to the radio, or because I'm blind you're denying me the "right" to watch fire works. And because you ARE watching fireworks my rights have been offended.

Get a grip. Just say what's happening, a bunch of whiners want to project their unhappiness on me and mine because we are not unhappy.

Sheesh

[barfle]

Examples please where the "rights of those who have no religion" have been denied by the state?

It's probably more a granting of privelige to organized religions.

People going to churches in DC are allowed to double park, but those going to theaters are not.

The multiple attempts to have creationism taught in schools as though it were a valid option to the science of evolution.

Every piece of legal tender in my wallet (and yours, I suspect) paying homage to a particular deity.

The addition of a prayer to the Pledge of Allegiance, which is recited in virtually every classroom every day during the school year.

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.

a bunch of whiners want to project their unhappiness on me and mine because we are not unhappy.

I have no concern about your happiness. Get it where you can, as long as you don't infringe on my rights. I'm not sure why that doesn't sound like your own mantra.

Sheesh

Sheesh

[Shapley]

Denying people the right to declare themselves a family because their gender mix is unusual.

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.

I'm not sure why the Federal government is even in the marriage business in the first place.

And having to make up the revenue lost by granting orgainized religions tax breaks.

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...

[barfle]

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.

How would it impose anyone's morality on you? Unless it affects YOUR behavior, it does no such thing. However, YOUR morality prevents them from declaring the person most dear to them as next of kin.

I'm not sure why the Federal government is even in the marriage business in the first place.

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.

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...

Charitable organizations are not the same as some of the palaces I've seen that call themselves "churches." You can't tell me they're non-profit.

[Haggis@wk]

People going to churches in DC are allowed to double park, but those going to theaters are not.

Really? source?

[Shapley]

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.

Community property can be taken care with such things as a will, which even married couples should have. The question of survivors benefits is really an issue of the underwriter, not of the government, except in cases of government benefits. Some corporations have opted to include same-sex and other unmarried partners in their benefits packages. Custom has decreed that partners of legal marriages are generally entitled to survivor benefits, and that legal marriages are performed (as a religious ceremony, more often than not) to allow opposite-sex couples to join, normally to give legitimacy to their biological offspring. I do not, even with the rapid advances of science we have today, see any possiblility that same-sex couples will be able to produce their own biological offspring.

The question arises whether or not those churches which cannot, as a matter of faith, accept (and perform) same-sex marriages will be guilty of discrimination under the law, if such unions are legalized. Some legal scholars have said 'yes', which leads some of the oppositon to the legalization of such unions by the churches. If the answer is, indeed, 'yes', then they are very clearly imposing their morality on the rest of us, by attempting to use the legal system to alter the tenets of religious faith. As I've said, they are free to call themselves a 'family' if they desire. If, however, they attempt to legislate that we have to call them that also, then they are attempting to impose their morality on us all.

Marriage exists as a religious institution for certain purposes, and as a legal instutition for others. The government does, however, place restrictions and requirements on the religious instutition to bring into into compliance with the legal one. Blood test requiremetns, legal reporting requirements, licensing, etc., all are legal restrictions imposed on the religious community regarding marriage.

V/R
Shapley