Democracy does *not* mean equality of outcomes
Fester
citizens because our national gov lacks atheist representation. The
idea behind democracy (and the US is a constitutional, representative
democracy) is that the majority decides who make the laws. As atheists
we are citizens who participate fully in the process. That is what is
meant by full citizenship. That participation does *not* imply that we
are entitled to any outcome, including having an atheist Congressman.
The dissatisfaction with our process is not limited to atheists. We
see pols attempt to redistrict or gerrymander constituencies into safe
districts for this or that minority. This is a corruption of our system
and should not be tolerated by atheists or any other American. Imagine,
for the sake of discussion, a congressional district that transcended
state boundaries and included only those residences that were occupied
atheists. We would then be able to have our atheist representative, but
democracy would not be served. Representation in this country is
designed to be based upon geographic lines, not ideology or special
interests. We are entitled to run, participate and to speak, but we are
not entitled to win any elections. To do that, since we are a small
minority, we must convince others of the correctness of our causes.
That, and the same protections provided to all Americans by our
Constitution, is our entitlement.
chibiabos
<n...@home.com> wrote:
> Repeatedly I've been reading complaints about atheists being 2nd class
> citizens because our national gov lacks atheist representation. The
> idea behind democracy (and the US is a constitutional, representative
> democracy) is that the majority decides who make the laws. As atheists
> we are citizens who participate fully in the process. That is what is
> meant by full citizenship. That participation does *not* imply that we
> are entitled to any outcome,
Other than the ones guaranteed by the Constitution to which you alluded.
> including having an atheist Congressman.
> The dissatisfaction with our process is not limited to atheists. We
> see pols attempt to redistrict or gerrymander constituencies into safe
> districts for this or that minority. This is a corruption of our system
> and should not be tolerated by atheists or any other American. Imagine,
> for the sake of discussion, a congressional district that transcended
> state boundaries and included only those residences that were occupied
> atheists. We would then be able to have our atheist representative, but
> democracy would not be served. Representation in this country is
> designed to be based upon geographic lines, not ideology or special
> interests. We are entitled to run, participate and to speak, but we are
> not entitled to win any elections. To do that, since we are a small
> minority, we must convince others of the correctness of our causes.
> That, and the same protections provided to all Americans by our
> Constitution, is our entitlement.
Part of the deal of having a representative democracy is that
representatives should actually represent their constituents. That
means, if I have an issue with government intrusion into religion (for
instance -- it could be anything else), and I present the issue to my
representative, and the issue turns out to have some validity, he or
she is obligated to represent my interest as if it were his or her own.
-chib
--
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
Denis Loubet
"Fester" <n...@home.com> wrote in message
news:p0dSf.72452$no3....@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
> Repeatedly I've been reading complaints about atheists being 2nd class
> citizens because our national gov lacks atheist representation. The idea
> behind democracy (and the US is a constitutional, representative
> democracy) is that the majority decides who make the laws. As atheists we
> are citizens who participate fully in the process.
Odd how other citizens actually get to be politicians, and we don't.
Seems we DON'T get to fully participate.
--
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
Rob Duncan
"chibiabos" <ch...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:160320060634266339%ch...@nospam.com...
Whered you come up with such a stupid idea? We dont elect them to represent
our views, we elect them because we like the views they represent. They
arent beholden to the electorate in anyway other than during election time.
People elect those who best represent their views. Thats how a
representative republic works.
Rob
Sun...@wastherain.net
Ok, if I read correctly, the fact that religion is so popular means,
rightly, that our government is comprised of people of faith. Mark the
fact that I include deists as well as theists. Blacks, women,
Hispanics and other minorities hold office, too. We should find a few
atheists too, but I bet they would be afraid to admit it (or to reject
a faith-based giveaway) A'hemmm...
I thought that no matter what their religion, sex or nationality is
they are obliged to uphold the constitution and there's nothing in
there saying they (the government) should promote or sponsor a
religion. In fact it states that no religious test be required for an
oath of office.
To wit:
(The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of
the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial
Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall
be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no
religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office
or public Trust under the United States.)
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Religion is obvious by it's absence from the constitution. You don't
think they *forgot, did you? Maybe that's why Madison had to get it
in there in the first, by prohibiting government involvement. If such
cross-influence existed in the past, it was wrong then, and if it
hasn't stopped, it's wrong now. If it's getting better, good, we
thrive on progress and it shouldn't stop now.
Maybe more people are getting aware, I don't know. Many my age have
had bad times in church based things, and ran from religion when of
age to do so. I got a special bitterness re religion from going
through that. I may venture a guess that I have many peers in this
regard. So when we see the godbot pattern in our rulers, after
escaping the religion of our childhood, we get very concerned. We
remember summer camps run almost like a German prison. And we begin to
see the biblical influence in the law.
That's my observation, the only cite I can provide is myself. But I
know the people I escaped from. They are nasty and have domination in
mind, they've planned out our lives for us and they're going to
implement the plan. You have to take my word for that. Trust me. Or
just think about it, of consider it. Por Favor. I would have said
please, but due to a bizarre sequences of tabs, spaces, characters and
backspaces, I somehow ended up with three over-quota. I even got an
extra s or a in there. <-Psssst...That period is one of the best in my
collection.
I can't word this properly but more voters must think for themselves
and make their own opinion, despite whether it agrees with others or
not. And they must get the courage to act, even though it means
gaining and losing friends. (that's what happened to me when I quit
drugs)
Alas, they won't, it's still too comfortable avoiding making a choice
between a religious set of crooks or just crooks. I'd rather have just
crooks. (Gaaa theres an oxymoronic pun there. Ouch, groan, writhe.)
Huh?
Sunyata
Fester
> "Fester" <n...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:p0dSf.72452$no3....@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
>
>>Repeatedly I've been reading complaints about atheists being 2nd class
>>citizens because our national gov lacks atheist representation. The idea
>>behind democracy (and the US is a constitutional, representative
>>democracy) is that the majority decides who make the laws. As atheists we
>>are citizens who participate fully in the process.
>
>
> Odd how other citizens actually get to be politicians, and we don't.
>
> Seems we DON'T get to fully participate.
Of we course we get to participate fully. I have never been required to
sit a a segregated lunch counter, or had my anus violated, or been
denied employment or housing or any other thing because I'm an atheist.
My vote counts the same as everyone else, and I am free to run for
office just like anyone else.
But let's follow your ridiculous logic a little further. Do
Scientologists deserve to have representation reserved just for them?
We don't want them to be 2nd class citizens, do wee? How about school
teachers or 18 to 30 year-olds? Why don't we rewrite our system of
government and designate that every demographic have their very own
representative? We'll slice the pie a million ways, because if
Rottweiller owners or cotton-pickers don't each have their own
representative they are doomed to be 2nd class citizens.
Fester
No, there is and should be no requirement about how our government is
demographically-comprised.
> I thought that no matter what their religion, sex or nationality is
> they are obliged to uphold the constitution and there's nothing in
> there saying they (the government) should promote or sponsor a
> religion. In fact it states that no religious test be required for an
> oath of office.
Yes, whatever their background, all representatives are required to
uphold and follow the law.
> To wit:
>
> (The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of
> the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial
> Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall
> be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no
> religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office
> or public Trust under the United States.)
Exactly, so we shouldn't require the presence of an atheist or
Scientologist in Congress. That would be an introduction of a religious
test.
> http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html
>
> Religion is obvious by it's absence from the constitution. You don't
> think they *forgot, did you? Maybe that's why Madison had to get it
> in there in the first, by prohibiting government involvement. If such
> cross-influence existed in the past, it was wrong then, and if it
> hasn't stopped, it's wrong now. If it's getting better, good, we
> thrive on progress and it shouldn't stop now.
Madison and Jefferson were quite important founders and strongly in
favor of keeping religion out of government entirely. Unfortunately,
they did have to make some compromises. I wish that Madison's vision of
complete exclusion from government of religion had survived intact, but
unfortunately the best he was able to get through the convention wast he
vague language we have inherited. The key word being "establishment."
In the post-revolutionary era, my research into our history suggests
that the word is most directly related to monetary support of religion
through sponsorship of churches, religious education, etc. But does not
exclude voluntary public prayers, official days of worship, our national
motto, etc.
> Maybe more people are getting aware, I don't know. Many my age have
> had bad times in church based things, and ran from religion when of
> age to do so. I got a special bitterness re religion from going
> through that. I may venture a guess that I have many peers in this
> regard. So when we see the godbot pattern in our rulers, after
> escaping the religion of our childhood, we get very concerned. We
> remember summer camps run almost like a German prison. And we begin to
> see the biblical influence in the law.
OK, you were bit by some gawd when you were a child.
> That's my observation, the only cite I can provide is myself. But I
> know the people I escaped from. They are nasty and have domination in
> mind, they've planned out our lives for us and they're going to
> implement the plan. You have to take my word for that. Trust me. Or
> just think about it, of consider it. Por Favor. I would have said
> please, but due to a bizarre sequences of tabs, spaces, characters and
> backspaces, I somehow ended up with three over-quota. I even got an
> extra s or a in there. <-Psssst...That period is one of the best in my
> collection.
Your numerology is impressive 8^)
> I can't word this properly but more voters must think for themselves
> and make their own opinion, despite whether it agrees with others or
> not. And they must get the courage to act, even though it means
> gaining and losing friends. (that's what happened to me when I quit
> drugs)
>
> Alas, they won't, it's still too comfortable avoiding making a choice
> between a religious set of crooks or just crooks. I'd rather have just
> crooks. (Gaaa theres an oxymoronic pun there. Ouch, groan, writhe.)
My preference is that religion never existed, as well. My purpose in
writing is to expound upon and explore my opinions, through discussion,
on what is allowed and what isn't under our Constitution, in terms of
religious participation in public life.
Fester
I agree, but only in part. Their job is to represent the best interests
of all their constituents. Yes, if you have a valid beef, it is their
job to help you to correct it. OTOH, if the intrusion is one that is
lawful (Constitutional, etc) and the majority wants it that way, then
your representative probably shouldn't take up your case. I say
probably, because are representatives must use their own judgment and
not just be reflection of the majority's will.
Denis Loubet
> Denis Loubet wrote:
>
>> "Fester" <n...@home.com> wrote in message
>> news:p0dSf.72452$no3....@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
>>
>>>Repeatedly I've been reading complaints about atheists being 2nd class
>>>citizens because our national gov lacks atheist representation. The
>>>idea behind democracy (and the US is a constitutional, representative
>>>democracy) is that the majority decides who make the laws. As atheists
>>>we are citizens who participate fully in the process.
>>
>>
>> Odd how other citizens actually get to be politicians, and we don't.
>>
>> Seems we DON'T get to fully participate.
>
> Of we course we get to participate fully. I have never been required to
> sit a a segregated lunch counter, or had my anus violated, or been denied
> employment or housing or any other thing because I'm an atheist.
Are you certain it's not because you can hide your lack of god belief better
than an african american can hide his skin or a woman can hide her gender?
> My vote counts the same as everyone else, and I am free to run for office
> just like anyone else.
But you'll never be elected as an avowed atheist. You would fail the
de-facto religious test for holding office.
> But let's follow your ridiculous logic a little further. Do
> Scientologists deserve to have representation reserved just for them?
Depends, does a Scientiologist stand a chance if he runs for office? Sure,
don't see why not.
> We don't want them to be 2nd class citizens, do wee? How about school
> teachers or 18 to 30 year-olds?
I imagine there ARE 30 year olds and school teachers holding office. What
has this got to do with anything?
> Why don't we rewrite our system of government and designate that every
> demographic have their very own representative? We'll slice the pie a
> million ways, because if Rottweiller owners or cotton-pickers don't each
> have their own representative they are doomed to be 2nd class citizens.
Guess what, I imagine that they wouldn't have any problems getting elected
and participating fully in our government.
Your analogies are all invalid because the groups you mention would have no
problem getting elected. The reason they wouldn't have any problem getting
elected is that they have not been the target of deliberate and coordinated
religious slander for the last 2000 years.
chibiabos
<robtakethi...@gobigwest.com> wrote:
Seventh grade civics, which (apparently) you haven't got to, yet.
Although I agree that most of what I learned there has been trashed by
the current administration.
Rob Duncan
<Sun...@wastherain.net> wrote in message
news:9nlj129t850ldr58u...@4ax.com...
The problem, though well written, with your theory is this... People do
think, and contemplate, who theyll vote for, and why... Its only the
arrogant know-it-alls who claim they dont, as if it is above them to put on
their thinking-cap. Give people the benefit of the doubt. There are far
fewer sheep than you think...
Rob
pba...@worldonline.nl
Fester schreef:
Although I can find no fault with your reasoning as it is,
there is a general flaw in the American election system that keeps
minorities
from being represented in congress, and more so in the senate.
The discrict system does that.
Even if your "minority" eccompasses 49% of the electorate in any
constituancy.
That would mean another poarty getting 515 could shut you out entirely.
The only advicde I can give to any (and all) minorities is this:
Don't be active for your own minority but get together.
and become active for one thing only
proporional representation.
we have it in Holland ever since one can remember,
and it means one only needs 0,67 % of the votes to have a member of
parliament.
Ok the idea would probably ruin the ruling two parties,
but who cares?
Get proportional!
Peter van Velzen
March 2006
currently in Thung Song
Thailand.
Fester
> "Fester" <n...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:_QlSf.72493$no3....@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
>
>>Denis Loubet wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Fester" <n...@home.com> wrote in message
>>>news:p0dSf.72452$no3....@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Repeatedly I've been reading complaints about atheists being 2nd class
>>>>citizens because our national gov lacks atheist representation. The
>>>>idea behind democracy (and the US is a constitutional, representative
>>>>democracy) is that the majority decides who make the laws. As atheists
>>>>we are citizens who participate fully in the process.
>>>
>>>
>>>Odd how other citizens actually get to be politicians, and we don't.
>>>
>>>Seems we DON'T get to fully participate.
>>
>>Of we course we get to participate fully. I have never been required to
>>sit a a segregated lunch counter, or had my anus violated, or been denied
>>employment or housing or any other thing because I'm an atheist.
>
>
> Are you certain it's not because you can hide your lack of god belief better
> than an african american can hide his skin or a woman can hide her gender?
Yes I'm certain, because the laws says so!
>> My vote counts the same as everyone else, and I am free to run for office
>>just like anyone else.
>
>
> But you'll never be elected as an avowed atheist. You would fail the
> de-facto religious test for holding office.
That's democracy in action. I am no less a citizen just because I'm not
popular. You are unable to distinguish between the bias of our
citizenry and the the law. As a citizen, I am protected from people's
bias in employment, hiring, etc. I am not entitled to have people like me.
>>But let's follow your ridiculous logic a little further. Do
>>Scientologists deserve to have representation reserved just for them?
>
>
> Depends, does a Scientiologist stand a chance if he runs for office? Sure,
> don't see why not.
>
>>We don't want them to be 2nd class citizens, do wee? How about school
>>teachers or 18 to 30 year-olds?
>
>
> I imagine there ARE 30 year olds and school teachers holding office. What
> has this got to do with anything?
>
>
>>Why don't we rewrite our system of government and designate that every
>>demographic have their very own representative? We'll slice the pie a
>>million ways, because if Rottweiller owners or cotton-pickers don't each
>>have their own representative they are doomed to be 2nd class citizens.
>
>
> Guess what, I imagine that they wouldn't have any problems getting elected
> and participating fully in our government.
>
> Your analogies are all invalid because the groups you mention would have no
> problem getting elected. The reason they wouldn't have any problem getting
> elected is that they have not been the target of deliberate and coordinated
> religious slander for the last 2000 years.
Your ability to miss the simplest of points is quite impressive. I
don't mention this because they couldn't get elected, but according to
you a certain number of each of these groups *must* get elected or
they're all less than citizens. That is nonsense. Nothing about
citizenship requires that we be liked. If I wore some identifying
symbol 24/7 showing that I was an atheist it would be no different. The
law would require that I receive equal treatment. Equal treatment means
that I can run for office, not that I get elected. And, BTW, part of
the reason why atheists are unpopular is because so many, like you, are
both anti-religious and insistent on antagonizing the majority of people
who are by making a big shit out of trivial issues like the pledge, etc.
Denis Loubet
> Denis Loubet wrote:
>> "Fester" <n...@home.com> wrote in message
>> news:_QlSf.72493$no3....@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
>>
>>>Denis Loubet wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Fester" <n...@home.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:p0dSf.72452$no3....@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Repeatedly I've been reading complaints about atheists being 2nd class
>>>>>citizens because our national gov lacks atheist representation. The
>>>>>idea behind democracy (and the US is a constitutional, representative
>>>>>democracy) is that the majority decides who make the laws. As atheists
>>>>>we are citizens who participate fully in the process.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Odd how other citizens actually get to be politicians, and we don't.
>>>>
>>>>Seems we DON'T get to fully participate.
>>>
>>>Of we course we get to participate fully. I have never been required to
>>>sit a a segregated lunch counter, or had my anus violated, or been denied
>>>employment or housing or any other thing because I'm an atheist.
>>
>>
>> Are you certain it's not because you can hide your lack of god belief
>> better than an african american can hide his skin or a woman can hide her
>> gender?
>
> Yes I'm certain, because the laws says so!
Tell that to the african americans, they'll be so relieved.
>>> My vote counts the same as everyone else, and I am free to run for
>>> office just like anyone else.
>>
>>
>> But you'll never be elected as an avowed atheist. You would fail the
>> de-facto religious test for holding office.
>
> That's democracy in action. I am no less a citizen just because I'm not
> popular. You are unable to distinguish between the bias of our citizenry
> and the the law. As a citizen, I am protected from people's bias in
> employment, hiring, etc. I am not entitled to have people like me.
Tell that to the african americans, they'll be so relieved.
Well! Now that equal rights laws are in place, there's no discrimination any
more!
Nice fantasy land you live in.
--
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
Fester
Which African Americans are you referring to? The institutional
atrocities of our historical past have been remedied.
No, that's your hyperbolic assumption. But it isn't the government's
job to cure the country of racism or bigotry or hatred or other forms of
stupidity. It is the government's job only to ensure that all Americans
have equal access to employment, housing, voting and our other
entitlements. Ignorant people will always ostracize or criticize or
abusively speak out against others for the basest of reasons. Too bad.
Sun...@wastherain.net
I meant we should have a few atheists just out of natural odds of the
vote, like the other minorities, not by quota.
It is unfortunate that the first amendment does seem to be open to
interpretation. I think it's terseness calls for a terse, simple
interpretation, like the government is totally out of the religion
business. Naturally, the fundies throw out long permuted
explanations, mixing in paragraphs by our founding fathers that were
not part of the content of the constitution. Make it complicated so as
to fool people. I've noticed that many people I've dealt with are more
concerned with winning than being correct. And the chief way they do
this is making it impossibly complex then stomping on the opponents
first slip.
The issues of the motto and pledge aren't clear cut. Simply put, the
word God shouldn't be there. While it only "harms" a small amount of
atheists, it would harm no Christian to remove the word. Except for
the damage to clothing and furniture when they verbally reflect their
hate and venom with hot spit. Like product placement in a movie,
advertising God in our motto, on our money and in the pledge is an
instance of government marketing of religion. Try using government
media for any other private endeavor. Ok, they say it's trivial then
go bloody ballistic when someone challenges it, especially legally.
There were death threats in the Newdow ruckus. I heard one on the
radio from someone's answering machine.
Well it's not major but technically should be fixed. As though these
God promotions paid for by taxes are the product of a leak and the
leak must be patched and damage removed. Because a leak won't fix
itself. It's going to get bigger and that much harder to deal with.
>
>> Maybe more people are getting aware, I don't know. Many my age have
>> had bad times in church based things, and ran from religion when of
>> age to do so. I got a special bitterness re religion from going
>> through that. I may venture a guess that I have many peers in this
>> regard. So when we see the godbot pattern in our rulers, after
>> escaping the religion of our childhood, we get very concerned. We
>> remember summer camps run almost like a German prison. And we begin to
>> see the biblical influence in the law.
>
>OK, you were bit by some gawd when you were a child.
>
>> That's my observation, the only cite I can provide is myself. But I
>> know the people I escaped from. They are nasty and have domination in
>> mind, they've planned out our lives for us and they're going to
>> implement the plan. You have to take my word for that. Trust me. Or
>> just think about it, of consider it. Por Favor. I would have said
>> please, but due to a bizarre sequences of tabs, spaces, characters and
>> backspaces, I somehow ended up with three over-quota. I even got an
>> extra s or a in there. <-Psssst...That period is one of the best in my
>> collection.
>
>Your numerology is impressive 8^)
(gotta throw in some codswallop to keep it interesting) :)
>
>> I can't word this properly but more voters must think for themselves
>> and make their own opinion, despite whether it agrees with others or
>> not. And they must get the courage to act, even though it means
>> gaining and losing friends. (that's what happened to me when I quit
>> drugs)
>>
>> Alas, they won't, it's still too comfortable avoiding making a choice
>> between a religious set of crooks or just crooks. I'd rather have just
>> crooks. (Gaaa theres an oxymoronic pun there. Ouch, groan, writhe.)
>
>My preference is that religion never existed, as well. My purpose in
>writing is to expound upon and explore my opinions, through discussion,
>on what is allowed and what isn't under our Constitution, in terms of
>religious participation in public life.
Ah yes a source of rich debate, and some arguments. (talking
specifically to religious participation in public life)
My main test is whether any religious event gets freebies from the
government. Just like a band has to buy a permit to play in a public
park, a church group must pay to use that facility, too. And they
should not be tax exempt, period. That fault is so egregious it
escapes detection. It's too horrible for people to see it. Unless I'm
missing something (my history is bad, I learn a lot here) I cannot see
any reason to allow churches tax free status. If my favorite stripper
bars have to pay taxes, then, Goddammit why not the churches? (I'm
half blind but still can't get half price off at stripper bars! The
manager at one laughed.) Maybe my dumbness in history makes me this
way because I don't know what dumbass movement, climate or
rationalization succeeded in perpetrating this fraud.
In a public school stadium, just as I wouldn't be allowed to sell my
product over the public's PA system, neither should anyone say let us
pray for our home team.
The Christians should feel quite content in their churches and in
their houses. And judging by the mess government makes of most of the
things they get involved with, I think religion should *run from any
government sponsorship. Their Bible does tell them to recruit others
but what happens if my books call on me to squirt paint on peoples
houses? Freedom doesn't include oppressing others, IMHO.
Sunyata
Sun...@wastherain.net
Fewer sheep.... so more self-thinkers than I think actually voted for
Bush - I could understand once, but - *twice?*. That many favor
security over privacy, which dooms freedom? They actually still
believe there are WMD's? That nuke fuel was bought in Nigeria? And,
just like the Muslims, feel that killing people is the right solution
to their self induced addiction? (oil and the profits thereof) It
isn't.
I guess I could be described as being a bit harsh. It's difficult for
me to express my feelings about the existing and undue influence
religion does have over the USA. I think too many people are subtly
influenced and don't know it. Religion is legal, and telling others
isn't prohibited. But the church *does politically influence their
congregation. That's illegal but they do it anyway. Few get caught.
One was where a pastor had a television behind him and whenever
goodness, God, prosperity and a whole raft of goodies was the issue,
Bush was on TV. When evil, scandal, impunity and lack of morals were
talked about, Clinton was on TV. That reminds me of subliminals that
were in movies that made people buy tons of snacks. The practice was
outlawed.
These people keep just under the radar and their target is control of
the world through the USA and they are making great strides.
Any other group trying to infiltrate the government would be slapped
down unless it was for Bush. And it is even more confounded
considering that our (b)leaders are using religion as a chief ruse in
their takeover. IMHHO, anyway....
Happy St Patricks day. He drove the snakes out of Ireland and into
Washington.
Drink responsibly - use a coaster.
Sunyata
Fester
I agree with you on this. Churches consume public services (roads,
police, fire protection, etc) just like any other entity and should not
be exempt. This is one of those *real* issues that we should challenge.
> The Christians should feel quite content in their churches and in
> their houses. And judging by the mess government makes of most of the
> things they get involved with, I think religion should *run from any
> government sponsorship. Their Bible does tell them to recruit others
> but what happens if my books call on me to squirt paint on peoples
> houses? Freedom doesn't include oppressing others, IMHO.
I agree. Furthermore, the establishment clause serves to protect
religion from government interference just as much as it serves the rest
of us.
Denis Loubet
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
I stand aghast at your arrogance and abject ignorance. You actually think
that passing a law solves the problem.
And you see no contradiction in what you just wrote? How the hell do you
ensure equal access without dealing with racism?
Clue: You can't.
> Ignorant people will always ostracize or criticize or abusively speak out
> against others for the basest of reasons. Too bad.
And hence access is NOT equal.
Fester
That depends on what problem you're talking about. Passing a law cannot
enlighten the ignorant. But it can protect them from their actions WRT
to education, employment, housing, voting etc. Sorry, but that's all
the gov can do.
By punishing those who act on their racism to deny people their rights.
No contradiction.
>>Ignorant people will always ostracize or criticize or abusively speak out
>>against others for the basest of reasons. Too bad.
>
>
> And hence access is NOT equal.
Of course it is. If I rent my house and I were a bigot, I cannot refuse
a minority the right to live there.
William Wingstedt
Right, like how it protects the Rastafarians from government
interference.
Denis Loubet
So the problem of discrimination is not solved by a bunch of laws. Hence,
atheists remain second class citizens despite the efforts of the law.
For instance, despite the laws against a religious test to hold office,
atheists are disbarred from holding office by a de-facto religious test.
You can tell your atheist children that "Anyone can grow up to be the
president. Except you."
And I suppose that since we have laws that punish murderers and thieves,
there are no more murders and theft?
Passing laws does not solve the problem. You have to be a total idiot to
think it does.
Which would explain your position.
>>>Ignorant people will always ostracize or criticize or abusively speak out
>>>against others for the basest of reasons. Too bad.
>>
>> And hence access is NOT equal.
>
> Of course it is. If I rent my house and I were a bigot, I cannot refuse a
> minority the right to live there.
Sure you can. There's ways to do it cleverly. It's done all the time.
--
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
Fester
>>That depends on what problem you're talking about. Passing a law cannot
>>enlighten the ignorant. But it can protect them from their actions WRT to
>>education, employment, housing, voting etc. Sorry, but that's all the gov
>>can do.
>
>
> So the problem of discrimination is not solved by a bunch of laws. Hence,
> atheists remain second class citizens despite the efforts of the law.
>
> For instance, despite the laws against a religious test to hold office,
> atheists are disbarred from holding office by a de-facto religious test.
>
> You can tell your atheist children that "Anyone can grow up to be the
> president. Except you."
Amazing how you manage to dodge the simplest of truths. A citizen is
one who enjoys all of the rights, privileges and immunities of US law.
Nobody, atheists included, are "disbarred from holding office." An
atheist certainly can grow up to be President. And they would stand a
better chance if you and others didn't stick your thumb in the eye of
nearly everyone you meet because they're theists.
<snip>
>>>And you see no contradiction in what you just wrote? How the hell do you
>>>ensure equal access without dealing with racism?
>>>
>>>Clue: You can't.
>>
>>By punishing those who act on their racism to deny people their rights. No
>>contradiction.
>
>
> And I suppose that since we have laws that punish murderers and thieves,
> there are no more murders and theft?
You can suppose any kind of nonsense you want, just don't attribute it
to me.
> Passing laws does not solve the problem. You have to be a total idiot to
> think it does.
>
> Which would explain your position.
Only an idiot would have accused me of making such a claim. You keep
trying to move the goal posts from citizenship to having all your
problems solved. Well I hate to tell you, but a million shrinks
dedicated entirely to your issues, working 24/7/365 couldn't begin to
solve your problems.
>>>>Ignorant people will always ostracize or criticize or abusively speak out
>>>>against others for the basest of reasons. Too bad.
>>>
>>>And hence access is NOT equal.
>>
>>Of course it is. If I rent my house and I were a bigot, I cannot refuse a
>>minority the right to live there.
>
>
> Sure you can. There's ways to do it cleverly. It's done all the time.
And there are ways to buy a joint too, but it is not legal, and there
are consequences to being caught.
Denis Loubet
> <snip>
>
>>>That depends on what problem you're talking about. Passing a law cannot
>>>enlighten the ignorant. But it can protect them from their actions WRT
>>>to education, employment, housing, voting etc. Sorry, but that's all the
>>>gov can do.
>>
>>
>> So the problem of discrimination is not solved by a bunch of laws. Hence,
>> atheists remain second class citizens despite the efforts of the law.
>>
>> For instance, despite the laws against a religious test to hold office,
>> atheists are disbarred from holding office by a de-facto religious test.
>>
>> You can tell your atheist children that "Anyone can grow up to be the
>> president. Except you."
>
> Amazing how you manage to dodge the simplest of truths. A citizen is one
> who enjoys all of the rights, privileges and immunities of US law. Nobody,
> atheists included, are "disbarred from holding office."
Atheists are, by a de-facto religious test. Laws to the contrary are
irrelevant to the fact that atheists don't have equal access to the same
rights, priviliges, and immunities, due to 2000 years of religious slander.
> An atheist certainly can grow up to be President.
Ah, so now you're saying there's actually no discrimination against
atheists. That the observation that there are none in the government is
merely a coincidence.
> And they would stand a better chance if you and others didn't stick your
> thumb in the eye of nearly everyone you meet because they're theists.
Our very existence sticks a thumb in their eye.
> <snip>
>
>>>>And you see no contradiction in what you just wrote? How the hell do you
>>>>ensure equal access without dealing with racism?
>>>>
>>>>Clue: You can't.
>>>
>>>By punishing those who act on their racism to deny people their rights.
>>>No contradiction.
>>
>> And I suppose that since we have laws that punish murderers and thieves,
>> there are no more murders and theft?
>
> You can suppose any kind of nonsense you want, just don't attribute it to
> me.
Ah, so passing laws to grant equal access doesn't mean there's equal access?
Thank you for agreeing with me.
>> Passing laws does not solve the problem. You have to be a total idiot to
>> think it does.
>>
>> Which would explain your position.
>
> Only an idiot would have accused me of making such a claim. You keep
> trying to move the goal posts from citizenship to having all your problems
> solved. Well I hate to tell you, but a million shrinks dedicated entirely
> to your issues, working 24/7/365 couldn't begin to solve your problems.
Well, you seemed to be saying that passing laws to grant equal access solves
the problem of equal access, and thus everyone enjoys equal access.
Then just above, you seem to be saying that claiming that a problem is
solved by passing a law is a "kind of nonsense", which contradicts what you
seemed to be saying before.
Are you now saying that passing laws that grant equal access do NOT
necessarily solve the problem, and result in equal access?
>>>>>Ignorant people will always ostracize or criticize or abusively speak
>>>>>out against others for the basest of reasons. Too bad.
>>>>
>>>>And hence access is NOT equal.
>>>
>>>Of course it is. If I rent my house and I were a bigot, I cannot refuse
>>>a minority the right to live there.
>>
>>
>> Sure you can. There's ways to do it cleverly. It's done all the time.
>
> And there are ways to buy a joint too, but it is not legal, and there are
> consequences to being caught.
So, you CAN refuse the minority the right to live there.
Just don't get caught.
Sun...@wastherain.net
Now, if we could just get the rest of the voting population in on this
we'd be OK. That's why I propose an intelligence test at the voting
booth.
Sunyata
Fester
I have to take issue with this. The right to the free exercise of
religion is specifically included in the 1st Amendment. An awful lot of
speech is permitted over many a public mike, and I don't think that one
can exclude a person's free exercise, in all instances. The issue is
not simple, in that depending upon who is doing the speaking and what
the circumstances are matter. For example, if a valedictorian uses his
time to exercise religious speech I don't think that we can deny him.
DanielSan
> <snip>
>
>>> That depends on what problem you're talking about. Passing a law
>>> cannot enlighten the ignorant. But it can protect them from their
>>> actions WRT to education, employment, housing, voting etc. Sorry,
>>> but that's all the gov can do.
>>
>>
>>
>> So the problem of discrimination is not solved by a bunch of laws.
>> Hence, atheists remain second class citizens despite the efforts of
>> the law.
>>
>> For instance, despite the laws against a religious test to hold
>> office, atheists are disbarred from holding office by a de-facto
>> religious test.
>>
>> You can tell your atheist children that "Anyone can grow up to be the
>> president. Except you."
>
>
> Amazing how you manage to dodge the simplest of truths. A citizen is
> one who enjoys all of the rights, privileges and immunities of US law.
> Nobody, atheists included, are "disbarred from holding office." An
> atheist certainly can grow up to be President. And they would stand a
> better chance if you and others didn't stick your thumb in the eye of
> nearly everyone you meet because they're theists.
I'd like to see that, actually. "My name is James Smith and I want to
be your President. I seek the presidency in order to provide nationwide
healthcare, national security at our ports, and bringing accountability
back to the White House."
At the inauguration: "Place your right hand on the Bible."
"I'm sorry, but I'm an atheist and do not wish to put my hand on the Bible."
The next day, Fox News: "President Smith is an atheist! He has no
moral values and wants everyone to worship Satan. Where else do you
hear this kind of evil, except from the far-far left?"
6 months later: "The case for impeachment of President Smith heats up."
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "Torture has never been a reliable means of *
* extracting information.... One wonders why it *
* is still practiced." --Jean-Luc Picard *
****************************************************
--
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
Fester
Nothing like a hollow self-serving declaration of victory to make
yourself feel better, is there? We the legal right to the same access
as all other citizens. As I said, the blather that you tried to put in
my mouth is not at all what I said or think.
>>>Passing laws does not solve the problem. You have to be a total idiot to
>>>think it does.
>>>
>>>Which would explain your position.
>>
>>Only an idiot would have accused me of making such a claim. You keep
>>trying to move the goal posts from citizenship to having all your problems
>>solved. Well I hate to tell you, but a million shrinks dedicated entirely
>>to your issues, working 24/7/365 couldn't begin to solve your problems.
>
>
> Well, you seemed to be saying that passing laws to grant equal access solves
> the problem of equal access, and thus everyone enjoys equal access.
>
> Then just above, you seem to be saying that claiming that a problem is
> solved by passing a law is a "kind of nonsense", which contradicts what you
> seemed to be saying before.
>
> Are you now saying that passing laws that grant equal access do NOT
> necessarily solve the problem, and result in equal access?
You keep shifting your ground back and forth as it suits you. Passing
laws that protect our rights makes us full citizens. It does not solve
all of our problems (especially not yours, but that's as nothing to do
with atheism).
>>>>>>Ignorant people will always ostracize or criticize or abusively speak
>>>>>>out against others for the basest of reasons. Too bad.
>>>>>
>>>>>And hence access is NOT equal.
>>>>
>>>>Of course it is. If I rent my house and I were a bigot, I cannot refuse
>>>>a minority the right to live there.
>>>
>>>
>>>Sure you can. There's ways to do it cleverly. It's done all the time.
>>
>>And there are ways to buy a joint too, but it is not legal, and there are
>>consequences to being caught.
>
>
> So, you CAN refuse the minority the right to live there.
>
> Just don't get caught.
And you can kill a man, just don't get caught. Anyone who is vulnerable
to being murdered is a 2nd class citizen too.
Denis Loubet
What is factually incorrect about my question?
> We the legal right to the same access as all other citizens.
Legally sure, but that does not guarantee that we have the same access, does
it?
> As I said, the blather that you tried to put in my mouth is not at all
> what I said or think.
Do you think that the legal right to the same access equates to having the
same access? Yes or no?
>>>>Passing laws does not solve the problem. You have to be a total idiot to
>>>>think it does.
>>>>
>>>>Which would explain your position.
>>>
>>>Only an idiot would have accused me of making such a claim. You keep
>>>trying to move the goal posts from citizenship to having all your
>>>problems solved. Well I hate to tell you, but a million shrinks
>>>dedicated entirely to your issues, working 24/7/365 couldn't begin to
>>>solve your problems.
>>
>>
>> Well, you seemed to be saying that passing laws to grant equal access
>> solves the problem of equal access, and thus everyone enjoys equal
>> access.
>>
>> Then just above, you seem to be saying that claiming that a problem is
>> solved by passing a law is a "kind of nonsense", which contradicts what
>> you seemed to be saying before.
>>
>> Are you now saying that passing laws that grant equal access do NOT
>> necessarily solve the problem, and result in equal access?
>
> You keep shifting your ground back and forth as it suits you. Passing
> laws that protect our rights makes us full citizens.
But the laws do not actually protect our rights, they do not actually grant
us equal access.
> It does not solve all of our problems (especially not yours, but that's as
> nothing to do with atheism).
Do you agree that access is not equal IN PRACTICE?
The equal access the laws promise are irrelevant if the access is not equal
in practice.
What does it matter if the law says I can be president, if in fact I can't
be.
>>>>>>>Ignorant people will always ostracize or criticize or abusively speak
>>>>>>>out against others for the basest of reasons. Too bad.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And hence access is NOT equal.
>>>>>
>>>>>Of course it is. If I rent my house and I were a bigot, I cannot
>>>>>refuse a minority the right to live there.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Sure you can. There's ways to do it cleverly. It's done all the time.
>>>
>>>And there are ways to buy a joint too, but it is not legal, and there are
>>>consequences to being caught.
>>
>>
>> So, you CAN refuse the minority the right to live there.
>>
>> Just don't get caught.
>
> And you can kill a man, just don't get caught. Anyone who is vulnerable
> to being murdered is a 2nd class citizen too.
Since everyone is vulnerable to being murdered, it's not an issue. Everyone
is equal on that score.