Odd for someone to empathize so strongly with someone that they take over the nitty gritty work of charting out delusions of persecution that they should be having, isn’t it?
No, it's not odd at all to empathize when you're not a zealot.
I don't feel the need to justify my Atheism by actively attacking faith at every turn, much in the same way that I don't have an overwhelming urge to run around telling little kids: “Hey, you know there's no Santa Clause right”, or “The 'Tooth Fairy', that's just your mom and dad”. I don't have a problem with people believing whatever they want to believe. I do have a problem with legislation based solely on those beliefs. I do have a problem with them trying to force their beliefs on others. But unlike some people, I don't view every expression of faith as an attack on secularism.
As you describe it, a little old lady unable to even visit her wife in the hospital room let alone make end-of-life decisions is “waging a near nonstop campaign against Christianity.” By which you don’t actually mean ‘Christianity’ per se, do you? No, you mean whatever sort of Christianity that sets itself against enemies like that lady that can’t even get onto the ward.
Again we see zealotry as opposed to rational thought.
First off, there's one little part you're leaving out of your scenario here: that “little old lady” wasn't actually her wife. Whether you like it or not, whether you agree with it or not, the fact is: before June of last year (2015, when Obergefell was decided), with a few exceptions, same sex marriages weren't legal. So regardless of the relationship that existed between them, the little old ladies weren’t married as far as the State was concerned, and the Hospital was bound by existing law. Now if you think a law is unfair, or unjust, then the mechanism exists to change it (which incidentally is exactly what happened), or are you honestly suggesting that people should simply ignore laws they don't agree with?
That’s not the only imprecision you’ve let slip, though, in this fanciful thought experiment you assure us isn’t at all what you believe. This notion of “twenty years” is a shorthand mark for “since the founding of this republic,” isn’t it? Because, on behalf of others you tell us, you can see how the separation of church and state itself is an intolerance of whatever specific form of Christianism you’ve actually had in mind. Mind you, not a very Christian one.
I find it troubling that you refer to that ability to look at things rationally as a “fanciful thought experiment”.
That said, by “twenty years” I meant twenty years, as in: two decades, twenty consecutive trips around the sun, 7,300 days. The way you can tell that that’s what I meant is because that’s what I wrote: “twenty years”.
As for the separation of Church and State, those are your words, not mine; your interpretation of what was a fairly straightforward statement. And as for my form of “Christianism”, again, I don’t have one. I know this may be hard to believe, but some- dare I say, most Atheists, are capable of being both an Atheist, and a rational person, at the same time. Rational people don’t have a cafeteria view of the Constitution, and we don’t cherry-pick. We respect the First Amendment- the whole thing, including the part that some people love to leave out:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of r...
Odd for someone to empathize so strongly with someone that they take over the nitty gritty work of charting out delusions of persecution that they should be having, isn’t it?
No, it's not odd at all to empathize when you're not a zealot.
I don't feel the need to justify my Atheism by actively attacking faith at every turn, much in the same way that I don't have an overwhelming urge to run around telling little kids: “Hey, you know there's no Santa Clause right”, or “The 'Tooth Fairy', that's just your mom and dad”. I don't have a problem with people believing whatever they want to believe. I do have a problem with legislation based solely on those beliefs. I do have a problem with them trying to force their beliefs on others. But unlike some people, I don't view every expression of faith as an attack on secularism.
As you describe it, a little old lady unable to even visit her wife in the hospital room let alone make end-of-life decisions is “waging a near nonstop campaign against Christianity.” By which you don’t actually mean ‘Christianity’ per se, do you? No, you mean whatever sort of Christianity that sets itself against enemies like that lady that can’t even get onto the ward.
Again we see zealotry as opposed to rational thought.
First off, there's one little part you're leaving out of your scenario here: that “little old lady” wasn't actually her wife. Whether you like it or not, whether you agree with it or not, the fact is: before June of last year (2015, when Obergefell was decided), with a few exceptions, same sex marriages weren't legal. So regardless of the relationship that existed between them, the little old ladies weren’t married as far as the State was concerned, and the Hospital was bound by existing law. Now if you think a law is unfair, or unjust, then the mechanism exists to change it (which incidentally is exactly what happened), or are you honestly suggesting that people should simply ignore laws they don't agree with?
That’s not the only imprecision you’ve let slip, though, in this fanciful thought experiment you assure us isn’t at all what you believe. This notion of “twenty years” is a shorthand mark for “since the founding of this republic,” isn’t it? Because, on behalf of others you tell us, you can see how the separation of church and state itself is an intolerance of whatever specific form of Christianism you’ve actually had in mind. Mind you, not a very Christian one.
I find it troubling that you refer to that ability to look at things rationally as a “fanciful thought experiment”.
That said, by “twenty years” I meant twenty years, as in: two decades, twenty consecutive trips around the sun, 7,300 days. The way you can tell that that’s what I meant is because that’s what I wrote: “twenty years”.
As for the separation of Church and State, those are your words, not mine; your interpretation of what was a fairly straightforward statement. And as for my form of “Christianism”, again, I don’t have one. I know this may be hard to believe, but some- dare I say, most Atheists, are capable of being both an Atheist, and a rational person, at the same time. Rational people don’t have a cafeteria view of the Constitution, and we don’t cherry-pick. We respect the First Amendment- the whole thing, including the part that some people love to leave out:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
You see, as a rational person, I don’t have a problem with kids praying in school if they so choose, or high school football players that want to pray before a game. I have a problem with them being forced to pray. I don’t have a problem with a City/State Government allowing a privately funded nativity scene to be displayed on public grounds at Christmas. I have a problem with them not allowing a privately funded Menorah, or Kinara to be displayed also.
Again: rational thought, not zealotry.
Right... because not establishing Christian Dominionism at the outset of this great nation is a terrible injury that’s been done to the great and noble cause of a government by, of, and for a vengeful Old Testament Jehovah.
I asked what you meant because it was vague enough there may've been something to it. Now it’s become clear you were playing Mad Libs, only you claim your answers are on behalf of someone else with convictions you’ll not admit having yourself. Not to put you on the spot, but are you entirely putting yourself in the shoes of a proud, but easily-offended, quick-to-pass-judgement, not-entirely-self-aware part of the body politic? Or are you hesitant to speak for yourself?
You’re all over the map here; I honestly have no idea what you’re trying to get at with this one. You took a simple statement about the shifting demographics of a political Party, and somehow came up with this rambling, incoherent… nonsense.
Still wondering, then, what justifies language like ‘attacking anything’ and ‘waging a nonstop campaign’ and ‘attacked by the Left’ if, as you so reasonably describe above, change has come in Supreme Court decisions. Unless that language is what you are suggesting the religious right would use about separation of church and state issues like not having nativity scenes, or satanic sacrificial altars, or pit temples of Kali, on government property. Are you using that language, or are you saying others would?
No, it's not odd at all to empathize when you're not a zealot.
I don't feel the need to justify my Atheism by actively attacking faith at every turn, much in the same way that I don't have an overwhelming urge to run around telling little kids: “Hey, you know there's no Santa Clause right”, or “The 'Tooth Fairy', that's just your mom and dad”. I don't have a problem with people believing whatever they want to believe. I do have a problem with legislation based solely on those beliefs. I do have a problem with them trying to force their beliefs on others. But unlike some people, I don't view every expression of faith as an attack on secularism.
Again we see zealotry as opposed to rational thought. First off, there's one little part you're leaving out of your scenario here: that “little old lady” wasn't actually her wife. Whether you like it or not, whether you agree with it or not, the fact is: before June of last year (2015, when Obergefell was decided), with a few exceptions, same sex marriages weren't legal. So regardless of the relationship that existed between them, the little old ladies weren’t married as far as the State was concerned, and the Hospital was bound by existing law. Now if you think a law is unfair, or unjust, then the mechanism exists to change it (which incidentally is exactly what happened), or are you honestly suggesting that people should simply ignore laws they don't agree with?
I find it troubling that you refer to that ability to look at things rationally as a “fanciful thought experiment”.
That said, by “twenty years” I meant twenty years, as in: two decades, twenty consecutive trips around the sun, 7,300 days. The way you can tell that that’s what I meant is because that’s what I wrote: “twenty years”.
As for the separation of Church and State, those are your words, not mine; your interpretation of what was a fairly straightforward statement. And as for my form of “Christianism”, again, I don’t have one. I know this may be hard to believe, but some- dare I say, most Atheists, are capable of being both an Atheist, and a rational person, at the same time. Rational people don’t have a cafeteria view of the Constitution, and we don’t cherry-pick. We respect the First Amendment- the whole thing, including the part that some people love to leave out:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of r...
Read FullIt may be a bot experiment.
Still wondering, then, what justifies language like ‘attacking anything’ and ‘waging a nonstop campaign’ and ‘attacked by the Left’ if, as you so reasonably describe above, change has come in Supreme Court decisions. Unless that language is what you are suggesting the religious right would use about separation of church and state issues like not having nativity scenes, or satanic sacrificial altars, or pit temples of Kali, on government property. Are you using that language, or are you saying others would?