Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire a philosophical question

The post about the sheriff cars made me think:

If about 10% of the population is atheist, why are the other 90% concerned so they constantly capitulate? I include agnostics in the 90% because if they truly agnostic they couldn't care less.

I also think if the atheist were really atheist they wouldn't care also. They are not really atheists. Atheist should be totally apathetic to what the rest of the people do. They are anti-God-of-the-Bible. When's the last time you heard these atheist bad mouthing the god-of-the-Koran?

generally:

atheist = actively anti-religion

agnostic = don't care

I think the former makes a stink because there's actually a separation of church and state written into the constitution and they want to keep it that way

Go read the Constitution.Court decision made it what it is today.

Rich, we both know that these things are always a spiritual battle. The God of the Bible vs. The Evil One, and his many minions.

Doesn't matter what anyone says; you already have decided your answer to the question before you posted it.

Not sure where to find that.

Steve.

I'd disagree with the definitions offered.

Atheists (it means "without god") simply don't believe in any god or religion. It doesn't necessarily make them militant about it.

Agnostics aren't sure if there's a god. The doesn't mean they don't care if there is or not, just that they can't decide.

One can certainly have militant theists (90% of the world;s problems stem from religions fighting each other) and one can imagine militant atheists. But there can't be a militant agnostic.

Ringman, good to hear we are getting under your skin, other wise you wouldn't want us to shut up.

First Atheist are not monolithic. Atheism address the question of a single proposition, do you accept god claims, or not. Atheism is a question of belief, and agnosticism is a question of knowledge, so technically all agnostics are atheist.

Your idea that atheist should not care is absurd. Beliefs inform actions, and mistaken beliefs cause sub-optimal actions. The idea that I shouldn't care if some Muslim suicide bomber kills my daughter a quest for his 72 virgins dismisses all responsibility of the religious for the effects of their actions on those who do not share their fairy-tale beliefs.

It's not that we are "anti-bible", it's that we are Pro-Truth, and Pro-Reality. The Bible, Koran, Hadiths, and Book of Mormons are nearly equally false. The only real difference is we have contemporary evidence that Joseph Smith actually existed.

Its in the same section that grants the right to abortions and healthcare.

UtahLefty,



Line please.

Atheists are just another activist group seeking their 15 minutes of fame, nothing more, nothing less

"Separation of church and state" is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Either way, the "separation" phrase has since been repeatedly used by the Supreme Court of the United States.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that and Article VI specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." The modern concept of a wholly secular government is sometimes credited to the writings of English philosopher John Locke, but the phrase "separation of church and state" in this context is generally traced to a January 1, 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper.

which,leads to:

the Court ruling in the case of Everson v. Board of Education stated "the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'"

A quarter century later, the case of Lemon v. Kurtzman further defined this separation when it established the Lemon Test to determine if a law violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Every ruling since has confirmed that, in the view of the highest court in the land the Constitution created a separation of church and state.

of the 112 SC justices, 92 have been christian, 0 atheist, and all 112 have interpreted viewed this separation to the constitutionally grounded

Actually the loss of faith is growing....

antelope_sniper,

You posted some fun words. Alas most of it is non sequitur.

Those who are pro Truth accept the reality that nothing can not become something. Those who are pro Truth accept the idea that a cause is greater than its result.

A Muslim attacking others has nothing to do with the original question. But I will go off on your rabbit trail. If I was suddenly king we would go back to the Constitution the way it was meant and then some. I would go beyond Trump and deport Muslims. They are antagonistic to assimilating. The logistics would have to be worked out by the Islamic countries they were dropped off in with a parachute.

I don't know why so many things bother so many people. Everything is about intent to me. If someone says 'Merry Christmas' they are only wishing someone well, it's not as if they are saying '[bleep] off'


People have too much to worry about. I'm not a religious guy, don't believe in Jesus but none of it bothers me, unless you push me.

Once again you are just wrong. The "snowball effect" is an example of a small cause have a great effect. A week artery in the wrong place is a "small cause", but has the "Great effect" of you being dead from an brain aneurysm. A single lantern burning down the city of Chicago is another example of an effect greater then the proximate cause.

As for your second assertion, why should an Atheist not care if someone murders people as a result of their religion?

antelope_sniper,



The weak artery is a result of a lot more than its local experience. Again a non sequitur.



Again you are forgetting all the greater cause to have the city.



I don't remember saying an Atheist should not care about murderers whether they are religious or not.

You fuggin' ignoramus. The First Ammendment mentions nothing about a wall, a church or the state. It only limits CONGRESS.

another question might be; if the communists take control of the US, who will our enemy be?

Bluemonday,



Until 1949 the Supreme Court always went the historical way. Then in 1949 the Court came up with the foolishness we have now. Why do you think the Bible was in schools all over the country. I remember one history lecture when the speaker told us one had to explain the First Half of John Chapter One in order to graduate. Up until about 1900 a primer was used to teach grammar school kids. It started off with something like A is for Adam, C is for Christ who died for our sins, etc.

Read the First Amendment and discover the separation of church and state.

How about M is for Muhammad, K is for Koran, and H if for Hadith?

Exactly, which is why public schools were a schidty idea in the first place. The Catholic schools were started because the public schools were "Protestant", for the most part.

The Constitution does NOT call for "separation of church and state"
It prohibits the establishment of a government religion - fallout from the Church of England, and persecution of Quakers, for example.
IOW .gov can't restrict any religion nor establish supremacy of one over another. Atheists have no religion - so are irrelevant, by definition.

If a tree falls in an empty Forrest, will anyone hear it?

Who gives two schitts?

Moving on............it's Friday.

Not according to the Supreme Court. An atheist or a group of atheist brought a suit. The Court decision was they represent a religion.

really?

after 10 years of coming here every day?



after answering 1-2 veterinary PMs every day the whole time?


that's all the truck it's worth?


just another [bleep] on the internet?

fine, I guess.


carry on...

An empty forest does not have trees. It's called a meadow or the plains.

Yep, you're a REAL DUMBAZZ, 'cause you think goin' to vet school and having folks call you "doc" makes you a goddam expert on everything, like the US Constitution you've never bothered to read.

Actually there isn't. It says that the federal government can't establish a religion OR PROHIBIT THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF. It says nothing about a state, county, or city establishing a religion. It says that an atheist can't use the constitution to prohibit anyone from practicing his religion. The constitution has been badly twisted to get where we are today.

Well I'm not seeking fame. And I want everyone to worship or not worship as they see fit. I don't wear an ATHEIST badge, or chip for that matter, on my shoulder.

I will say I believe there are 2 categories of atheism. The ones who don't give a crap and go about their lives leaving everyone to worship or not worship their god/gods and false idols as they see fit.

Then there's what I like to call the 'militant atheist'. This type of person DOES have a chip on their shoulder. And they want to involve themselves in everyone else's business. And I despise these people. This group includes those wackos from Wisconsin, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, with nothing better to do than stick their cheesy-booger filled fuggin noses where they are not wanted and don't belong.

But I did just troll Ringman in another thread so maybe I'm a little 'militant' tonight but it was in the name of science and good fun.

And yes, "under God" should stay in the pledge and on our money.

I'd like to see you militants get rowdy with them islamist fellas

You know, get em all lined out and such.

I always thought this separation of church and state business was just bad language run amok,based on a letter that is not even codified, and carried no weight of law, being nothing more than a convenient term that some justice latched onto in a moment of intellectual depravity.

Especially since the entire underpinning and foundation of the Constitution is predicated on (a) the recognition of a deity,and (b) Judeo/Christian values,which are embodied into the fundamentals of our entire legal system.

I do agree that it says what it says...that ...."Congress shall make no laws affecting the establishment of a religion",or the free exercise thereof (my memory of the language . I did not look it up).

I also agree that these principles have been enforced upon the states via the 14th Amendment.

I don't recall that Congress ever made any such law,and banning school prayer on that predicate seems pretty thin logic to me. Local schools are not "Congress"; hanging a copy of the Ten Commandments in public places is not pursuant to a law passed by Congress; and nativity scenes at Christmas are not on the public square by an act of Congress.

But how we go from that language, strictly interpreted, to banning the display of the 10 Commandments in public places,is a stretch.

How can you,on the one hand,create an entire legal system based on the tenets of Christianity,and then simultaneously ban any reference to it? It makes no sense.

I don't think the Founding Fathers intended a "wall" at all; I do think they intended that the government should not establish a state religion;nor should it prohibit one from practicing the religion of his/her choice. Seems pretty simple to me.


The Establishment Clause has been perverted.

I hope you can understand my disappointment to find you're not the intelligent well reasoned man I had you pegged for.

Hope you can sleep tonight


Well played btw, well played indeed

Darrell, are you ever not a total jackass? It's not like an EMT with a lapsed certification has any more training on the Constitution than a vet does.

Can't remember the fool's real name but is Bluemonday our buddy TAK?

Some of his posts on other threads have a distinct odor to them...

Look, I'm no constitutional expert, but this argument is another example of folks forgetting all the history that led up to what we call "Separation of Church and State."

If any of y'all have any kin hailing from England, and they showed up here in the 17th Century and you have any idea of why they showed up here, you probably have the story staring at you from the pages of your family bible.

Up until Henry VIII, the church in Britain was like a whole separate state within a state. Henry VIII removed the Roman Catholic Church from the political mix and made himself the head of his own church. For the next 200 years, Britain was in turmoil over this, as the Protestants and Catholics fought over who was going to be the head of the church and whether or not any other faith besides the official state church was going to be allowed.

For a good many of us, this was the impetus for our families to come to America. One side would take power and go about persecuting the opposition. Titles were seized, lands confiscated and the only alternative was to flee to America. You might also be a member of outlaw sect. Depending on how the winds blew, you were either left alone or hunted down and killed, and you never knew from year to year whether your past associations with a given religious practice might be criminalized.

KYHillChick's kin were like that. At one point, they were top of the heap, and overnight were thrown out of power and had to flee large holdings and run to America. In fact, she had kin on both sides and in the space of a decade or so, both sides had to flee to the Colonies. One side was a neighbor to the Washingtons of Virginia and ended up being George's mother. The other side settled in North Carolina and then had to flee over the mountains before finally settling in Kentucky. The point is, it did not matter which side you were on-- both sides got it in fairly equal measure.

My point is that THAT is the kind of political shenanigans we as a people meant to eradicate from our world. We found that having the state and its leader acting concurrently as the head of the religion was against the common good, since you never knew who would be in power and therefore never knew how to pray.

The other facet of this separation doctrine was a bit less dangerous but rather insidious. In the Colonies, clergy had to be educated and ordained in England, and the Church and therefore the king could control who was sent to each pulpit and dictate what was preached. As the cultures diverged, the church became more and more alien to the parishioners. It became a vehicle as well as a symbol of oppression.

This whole idea that the state and religion being separate was a battle that was fought and won, for the most part, prior to the Constitution being written. We, living in 21st Century America have a wholly different fight on our hands, namely the government trying to actively limit religious expression under the rubric of "Separation of Church and State."

My suggestion for its resolution is simple and straight forward. Wherever those that seek to limit religious expression wish to work their mischief, I say flood it. If your children are being told they cannot pray in school, then I say tell them to pray openly. If they are told that Jesus cannot be mentioned in school, say his name every day in every way. If you are told that GOD cannot be somewhere, then make it your duty to put him there. This is the simple act of civil disobedience. They cannot expel all the students. They cannot fire everyone. They cannot put all the believers in jail. They cannot put them all in camps without turning the country itself into a jail. If school is barred to the Faithful, then there will be no school. If they seek to disenfranchise, then vote them out while you still have a chance.

For here is what I predict: once the opposition has been squelched. Once YOUR god has been silenced, these bastards will set up their own god and make YOU pray to him. It has never been otherwise in the history of mankind.

Same/same

The problem with this is that UtahLefty, BobinNH, and shaman are each correct.

There was always to be a separation of church and state. Yet, the Establishment Claude has been perverted. And, for the purpose of eliminating all gods but that of the State.

The most important statement in this whole thread. miles

If I were an Atheist, and I seriously believed what I didn't believe in, I'd be doing something to make sure the deluded religious morons kept the right to pray as often as loudly as they wanted. I'd even think about wearing a WWJD T-Shirt myself. Here's why: after they're done shuttering the churches, they'll be forcing you on your knees, praying to something you don't want just like the rest of us. Take it from the guy who walks around with a funny headdress and a rattle-- you really don't want to get on the wrong end of this deal.

Traveling to deer camp, I drive several back roads to get to where I'm going. I've written about this before, about the epiphany I had one Sunday, driving back to town at sundown and passing all those little white churches, all of different demoninations with the parking lots filled and the lights blazing and choirs signing, and all inside thinking it was they alone that held the pass to salvation. And here was I , in my truck, listening to obscure Jethro Tull.



Everything seemed right in the world that night, and perhaps that is truth, because we all think we have the answer, and in God's eyes we probably all look like that, little white churches like so many little white ant hills on so many little garden paths. That's a good thing, I think. It was the way He meant it to be-- a bunch of little white ant hills with a bunch of little black ants inside all safely assuming that they have the right answer.

Thanks for making my point. I also do not have a graduate degree therefore I can parrot libtard schidt and be the dumbazz many expect me to be.

Who is this TAK? Did he make you appear to be the dumbazz you are for real?

That is precisely what they are trying to do. We know "why".

I explain to people the reason they do this,and get the "deer in the headlights" look. They do not believe , or the concept is so abstract to them that it goes completely over their heads. [bleep] educations. not well read.

To no one in particular,

Click On This Link for evidence that supports the notion that there are no atheists. There are only theists, and people who are trying to evade theism. This is from a man who is a former evader. A good read.

The fool sayeth in his heart there is no God. 14th Psalm

Until 1947, the Supreme Court had ruled numerous times that America was indeed a "Christian nation." I guess they decided that WWII had changed that, or that early jurisprudence had been wrong.

Yes. It's TAK again.

I like the way you think

Years ago, and I've told this story before here, I was hunting on a private campground. The owner was involved with the local neo-pagan church, and was getting a lot of heat from the locals. The county sheriff and some of the deputies all attended the same Christian church up the road, and the pastor was telling his flock that the pagans were all devil worshippers and had to be expunged from the county.

Al, the owner, and a bunch of his friends got hassled by the police a lot. Once Al even got arrested and detained on a noise ordinance violation. It should have been a simple ticket, but instead they took him down to the pokey, fingerprinted him and strip searched him before making him sit in a cell for hours. When a judge got assigned to the case, he was from the same church. You see what's coming.

Mind you, I'm not a pagan. I'm just a good Methodist boy. However, I can't stand to see this kind of breach of civil rights, especially when it might interfere with my deer hunting. Mind you as well, these were not Satanists, just a bunch of New-Age tree-hugging types. Along about Halloween, I got a call from a buddy of mine at WKRC-TV news, wanting to know if I knew of any witch types they can interview for Halloween. I saw an opportunity, and the next thing you know, Channel 12's doing a live feed from Al's campground, showing their Samhein celebration. Al came off as a cool hippy grandfather in a bathrobe. The next thing you know it leads to some major newspaper coverage of the legal issues, and somebody somewhere got hold of it and it went national.

Enter the Jews. The ADL pledged support, and was going to bankroll the defense, and take it as far as SCOTUS if need be. Their theory, and it pays to take notice here, is that it is better to defend religious rights with cases involving Pagans and Santerians and such so that the issue never ends up on the door of a Jewish Synagogue. I mention the Santerians, because their previous big case had been defending the right of the Voodoo folks to kill chickens in their celebrations. If the chicken deal had gone south, the next step might have been going after Kosher slaughterhouses. See how this works?

So why should Atheists care? The point is that once you've done away with all the other religions, something is going to try and fill the void. It could be Gaia worship. It could be North Korean/Stalinist-type state worship. You cannot do away with a basic human need. The problem for Atheists, is that as it is, an Atheist can be pretty much left alone. That could change. Given a free hand and no other religion out there for competition, whose to say we might not end up with a Roman style religion, where the state makes worshiping the idols of the state compulsory? What if not attending the weekly committee meeting becomes a felony? What if you have to join in order to work, or vote, or have children? That might all be in store once there is no competition.

I like Flying Spaghetti Monsters and Invisible Pink Unicorns as much as the next fellow. It's all a good laugh. However, the last thing I want is someone making me tithe 30% to one of them.

Actually, I've run into at least two militant (I prefer to call them "evangelical") agnostics in my life. Their shtick was, "I don't know whether there's a God, and neither do you, because it's unknowable!"

I saw a guy once work this into an argument that the holiest day of the year for atheists is April 1.

Barak,



Now that's funny.

I thought so too, but I can't reproduce it, so getting the full benefit requires some imagination.