From: lyght	Date: May 2nd, 2006 12:10 am (UTC)		(Link)

My understanding of slander (and it may be a mistaken understanding?) is that for something to be slanderous it must be untrue. In other words, it might be somewhat unsavory to point out someone's religion or lack thereof, but so long as it's a fact there's really not much one can call out on except bad manners and stereotyping.

I guess on basic principle I understand that people can go too far in their zeal working against specific problems with religion. On the other hand, I think the concept of a "freedom from religion foundation" is a pretty good idea, mainly because the religion which gets put forth is that of the largest religion in the country. (Note: I don't actually know much about the organization, so it's possible that they're going a lot farther than is reasonable.) As a pagan I don't really feel comfortable being told, either implicitly or explicitly, to worship a god that I believe to be a demiurge. I'm sure that if Christians were in the minority and pagans the majority, Christians would object to worshipping, say, Diana.

I'm sure my worldview is on some level biased, but I think atm there is a bigger threat in the US from too much religion rather than from too little. Still, not being allowed to worship freely is just as much a concern as being told what to worship by others.

	From: enkinhou	Date: May 2nd, 2006 05:27 am (UTC)		(Link)

For something to be slanderous, it must not only be untrue, but the disseminator of that misinformation must also have known that it was untrue and spread the lies despite that knowledge.

	From: theonides	Date: May 2nd, 2006 12:11 am (UTC)		(Link)

I think the difference between the reference to a Catholic governor and Stalin's atheism is that calling someone a Catholic is not considered an epithet--there is no social stigma attached to it. Calling someone an atheist is.

In this case I think it can be used descriptively, while when you refer to someone as an atheist only when they've done bad things (as I read in a recent article about the funeral of Milosevic), but don't refer to them as atheists when they do GOOD things... that's when it becomes problematic.

From: memory_guilded	Date: May 2nd, 2006 12:12 am (UTC)		(Link)

As an atheist/agnostic (I'm under the impression there is no Higher Power, but I could be wrong)- I've grown to detest my fellow atheists. Maybe because I spent too much time in atheist, but I've found that many of them can be just as militant about their views as religious fundamentalists. Many of them attempt to convert the masses to their anti-theism, instead of showing tolerance and respect toward those who have different views than them. How can you expect the religious to accept your belief (or lack thereof) if you can't show them the same courtesy?

It's so hypocritical, and when engaged in discussion with many atheists I find myself defending religion. So much that I've been accused of being a brainwashed Christian.

	From: horvendile	Date: May 2nd, 2006 12:18 am (UTC)		(Link)

Glad to see that somebody else gets it. I really would like the people I agree with aka the Good Guys, to be held to a higher standard than the people I disagree with aka the Bad Guys.

	From: pope_guilty	Date: May 2nd, 2006 12:32 am (UTC)		(Link)

Generally, there's nobody clamouring to murder a lot of people and enslave women and children on account of the lack of a supernatural creator entity wanting them to.

	From: synergybc	Date: May 2nd, 2006 01:14 am (UTC)		(Link)
	intolerance

I agree with just about all you said. And what someone else said which was from horvendile in which s/he said "It isn't a competition about who is worse. Intolerance is wrong on both sides of the issue. We are not little children pointing to each others saying 'but he did it first!' "

	From: eiredrake	Date: May 2nd, 2006 05:47 am (UTC)		(Link)

Yeah I've seen this too, surprisingly in a friend of mine. He's basically a fundamentlist athiest.

Everybody's got faith... whether you have faith in something or in nothing. It's no more right for him to tell a Christian to fuck off than it is for some Christian to start handing him "You're going to hell because of X" pamphlets. He doesnt' seem to get that. For the most part he doesn't actively try to do anything nasty, but he gets really pissy when someone tries to religisofsy (his word, not mine ) to him.

	From: anomali	Date: May 2nd, 2006 12:23 am (UTC)		(Link)

There is one important difference here:

Stalin did not commit attocities BECAUSE of his atheism, whereas the gov of SD and and other Dominionists go so far as to claim that their acts are an expression of their religious beliefs.


I should tell you, however, that there are more than a few atheists who rub me the wrong way (besides Stalin; ) . Ayn Rand and Michael King-of Skepticism Shermer are two that immediately pop into my mind.

Of course, I can still rejoice in the philosophical company of the likes of Voltaire, Bertrand Russell, and that hero of my childhood, Carl Sagan. Not bad, eh?

	From: horvendile	Date: May 2nd, 2006 12:38 am (UTC)		(Link)

You cannot go into their minds. The Majority of Americans that anti-abortion are not Catholic. I am not sure of the exact numbers but very many Catholics, perhaps a majority are pro-choice. It is not a direct cause and effect. Stalin did persecute people for their religious beliefs, it wasn't totally unrelated to his Atheism. People are complex, with complex motives, it is dangerous to blame people for the motives that we assign to them. When you start doing that you lose the ability to negotiate and compromise.

	From: linda_a	Date: May 2nd, 2006 12:23 am (UTC)		(Link)

I am studying both Buddhism and Paganism right now. And so I suppose I am not at all an atheist. I guess for now, I've labeled myself an agnostic. Really, I am just a seeker.

Anyway, sometimes I feel terribly uncomfortable around those who say that "religion is a mental illness."

I have to disagree. It's just as bad as saying an atheist is going to Hell for eternity, which I also don't agree with.

	From: jehovahsfitness	Date: May 2nd, 2006 01:00 am (UTC)		(Link)

I like it when atheists/materialists argue that religion was created by people because they are weak. My response is always, "Yeah, so?"

	From: greymalkini	Date: May 2nd, 2006 12:23 am (UTC)		(Link)

I don't really have issues with the FFRF, since they are working to maintain the "the wall" between church and state on practical concerns. I take issue with those that sue to alter money and other things that can be considered a nuisance.

	From: miss_padfoot	Date: May 2nd, 2006 12:29 am (UTC)		(Link)

I am an atheist as well. I find myself talking to idiot/militant Christians much more than idiot/militant atheists, who are few and far between in my experience (although it has happened and I've sometimes found myself screaming "Get off my side; you are making my side look stupid"). Of course, this may be a sign that I'm bordering on being a militant atheist as well. I'm not sure.

	From: mirandaflynn	Date: May 2nd, 2006 12:37 am (UTC)		(Link)

No. I haven't run into an athiest/anti-religionist who's trying to prevent anyone from living their private life in any way they choose (standard disclaimer of not causing physical harm).

From: memory_guilded	Date: May 2nd, 2006 12:51 am (UTC)		(Link)

So what you're saying is that in the history of mankind, atheists (individual or otherwise) have never been responsible for inflicting their morals on others?

Uh.

	From: metaphorge	Date: May 2nd, 2006 01:03 am (UTC)		(Link)

I'm offended when anyone tries to shove their subjectively determined philosophical "beliefs" down my throat. Fundies suck, no matter what unprovable concept they worship.

	From: jehovahsfitness	Date: May 2nd, 2006 01:09 am (UTC)		(Link)

That's the thing isn't it? As Sartre said, we're living in a world of intersubjectivity.

	From: archanglrobriel	Date: May 2nd, 2006 01:20 am (UTC)		(Link)

One of the things that I found out when I moved to Berkeley (not that I don't love it,'cause I do) was that there are Fundamentalists of all stripes. I ran into Vegan Fundamentalists and Lesbian and Gay Fundamentalists and Buddhist Fundamentalists. You name it, I found a branch of them as intractable and stiff necked in their opinions as anyone on the Focus on the Family task forces.
In Berkeley I was a moderate, and that's saying something.
Anyhow, I think it was really good for me to find out that the Religious Right doesn't corner the market on hypocrisy, narrow-mindedness and judgementality. It can crop up anywhere...and because we know this, we must be vigilant to guard against it in ourselves and in those communities we frequent.
Good for you for emailing on this matter.

	From: catvincent	Date: May 2nd, 2006 01:21 am (UTC)		(Link)

My wife knew a Fundamentalist Discordian at college - really!

	From: the_methotaku	Date: May 2nd, 2006 01:23 am (UTC)		(Link)

As a mainline Christian concerned about the Religious Right I thank you for saying this, though it may be OT in this community. There have been unpleasant people of all beliefs and none; Mao Zedong was an atheist, Hitler was Catholic, and Chaing Kai-Shiek was a member of the same denomination that I belong to, the United Methodist Church. All of them dictators, all of them equally evil. Likewise, Ghandi was a Hindu, Jefferson and Washington were Deists, and Martin Luther King was a Baptist. All did immeasurable good for humanity as a whole.

Please, the Christian Reconstructionists may want to stone unbelievers, but they like to burn liberal Christians as heretics. We all need to oppose them.

In short, thank you for what you said, and I hope God blesses you, even though you don’t believe in s/him. ;)

	From: horvendile	Date: May 2nd, 2006 02:33 am (UTC)		(Link)

What is your source for Hitler being Catholic? I believe he was Protestant but I can't give a source so I might very well be wrong.

	From: sunfell	Date: May 2nd, 2006 02:01 am (UTC)		(Link)

Thanks everyone for keeping this potentially explosive discussion civil. Like some of the posters here, I see a zealot as a zealot- no matter what faith (or anti-faith) they practice. Zealotry is a virulent holding of a belief, and tends towards malignancy in any form it takes: theistic or atheistic. Zealotry is the logical position of the True Believer™, and such people tend to be either naturally belligerant in their outlook, or, more commonly, going through a stage of assimilation and uncertainty that requires them to charge at anyone who might threaten their beliefs. For many, this is a stage in their belief that they eventually outgrow.

	From: dagoski	Date: May 2nd, 2006 02:03 am (UTC)		(Link)
	The Real Foe

The real foe is not belief or the lack therof, it's political theology. I've been searching for a canonical definition, but my polisci references treat it like pornography; we know it when we see it. At any rate, I think a good working definition is using political ends to force other people to worship your god. Thus, Christian Fundamentalism is a political theology, as was National Socialism(Nazism), and, most definitely, the charismatic styles of Communism practiced by Stalin and Mao.

The reason why we're all up in arms is not that Christians exist, nor that evangelicals exist. We wouldn't even care that Fundementalists believe in a god that is inherently inimical to mankind, a malteism in other words, except that they want to inflict their beliefs on the rest of us through coercive use of the state. If atheists or Jews or Buddhists were doing this, we would almost certainly have a dark_fill_in_the_blank group.

The issue of backlash is something I bring up all the time. The Fundamentalists have hurt a lot of people and they will hurt a great deal many more before they are done. An even larger number still will be scared beyond reason from seeing all the hurt that's been done. Neither the hurt nor the frightened are going too be very choosy when about their targets when they begin to fight back(in whatever sense). That's why fundamentalism is very dangerous to Christianity and to every other religion which has a growing fundementalist movement.

	From: jargon_john	Date: May 2nd, 2006 02:05 am (UTC)		(Link)

I myself am an atheist, though, I am not one of the ones you describe. Although I have somewhat of a distaste towards religion, I consider myself tolerant to them, especially the less fanatic, more loving then hateful ones. Those I just love, the ones that put human happiness before their religious views.

Anyway, I see those militant atheists as balancing out those militant fundamentalists. They're the balance that keeps everything even. If there were no militant atheists, the Religious Right would win. If there were no militant fundamentalists, the religious would be oppressed. And if there were neither, it would be a utopia, just a fantasy world.

As I see it, it balance things out. One side doesn't gain too much power without the other fighting back.

	From: anomali	Date: May 2nd, 2006 03:19 am (UTC)		(Link)

From Gov. Rounds' mouth:

"I've indicated I'm pro-life, and I do believe abortion is wrong, and that we should do everything we can to save lives," Rounds said Friday at a news conference. "If this bill accomplishes that, then I am inclined to sign the bill into law."

...

Rounds said his Roman Catholic faith will play a role in his decision.

"I've never made any suggestions that I would not allow my faith to be part of the decision-making process," he said. "I think that's an attribute that people would expect from any elected leader."

...

Much of the opposition to the bill stems from its lack of exceptions for abortion in cases of rape and incest.

Rounds said he has sympathy for rape and incest survivors who become pregnant as a result of the attack, but he contends that "the taking of a life does not take care of the harm that's been done by the sexual assault."

	From: starstealingirl	Date: May 2nd, 2006 04:26 am (UTC)		(Link)

I'm not an atheist, but I certainly support other people's right to perceive the world in whatever way best fits them. However, yes, I have had some problems with atheists in the past-- particularly with the contingency of atheists who equate atheism with free thought. I think it's pretty counterproductive to assume that all supposedly "free" thinkers perceive the world in the same way, and I resent the implication that I am some sort of sheep because I have a spiritual practice. I think freely enough, and after having used my intellectual faculties, I've decided that having a spiritual practice is right for me.

I mean, don't get me wrong-- I fully recognize that not all atheists think that way. It just bothers me when one assumes that having a certain worldview necessitates certain views-- or a certain lack of intellectual freedom.

	From: happydog	Date: May 2nd, 2006 05:01 am (UTC)		(Link)

Many of the atheists I have met have been Evangelical Atheists, who behaved exactly like born-again Christians in reverse. I usually found some sort of excuse to get away from their company. They pretty much ruined any positive perception of atheism I might have had in the same way that evangelical Christians pretty much ruined any positive perception of evangelical Christianity I used to have.

	From: anomali	Date: May 2nd, 2006 05:24 am (UTC)		(Link)

Q. Why can one living in the US in 2006 NOT equate pushy vegans, gays and lesbians, atheists, buddhists, etc... with domininionist christians?

A. Because we are not in danger of losing our right to eat beef, mate and marry those of the other sex, believe in god(s), or disagree with buddhist principles.

Power is the difference between those who merely grate on one's nerves and those who are slicing and dicing one's civil rights.

	From: sunfell	Date: May 2nd, 2006 03:28 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Excellent point. I might add 'money' to power. But power is money in a lot of ways, and the more virulent religious people seem to have it in scads.

	From: enkinhou	Date: May 2nd, 2006 05:45 am (UTC)		(Link)

Scanning all the comments, all I can say is that thank Amaterasu/Buddha/C'thulu/Danu/FSM/God/Jupiter//Odin/Vishnu/Something/Zeus/(Insert Your Deity's Name Here)/(Insert Your Name Here) that all of the active members I've seen here have their heads on straight despite their differing opinions. Hopefully, this fact will not change anytime soon.

	From: theyhavefaded	Date: May 2nd, 2006 06:42 am (UTC)		(Link)

I understand your stance perfectly. People should not ever be judged by their religion, but rather by their actions and decisions.

	From: pope_guilty	Date: May 2nd, 2006 06:49 am (UTC)		(Link)

That's a curious disconnect you're displaying between religion and actions/decisions. Ideally, wouldn't the two be harmonious?