17th May 2012

“Bigotry against people who don't believe in a god is still very real in America.”

Shawn Jeffers

6 Responses to “17th May 2012”

  1. Defiantnonbeliever Says:

    Hear, hear, here.
    Lay it out stanza, law by unconstitutional law, detail by detail, bloody nose, murder, disfranchisement, media slur, bar fight, community shunning, lost friendship, gay bashing, racist assault, child custody denial, job discrimination, online mental health support group expulsion, anti-science blog and editorial, etc. etc., and verse.

  2. Dan Says:

    I don’t know if I’d call it “bigotry,” but the outrage on the part of Christians in the US because they’re being told that they can’t shove their delusions down our collective throats is definitely a problem that defies common sense.

  3. Sinjin Smythe Says:

    It is very telling that the typical Christian response to meeting an atheist is emotional, threatening, and anger driven. It says something about the real nature of their god and Christ that they be quick to anger. The hypocrisy of their claims of a just god, of a fair god, are demonstrated by the followers to be false and a lie. God is not real!

    Religion is the identifier that distinguishes the unreliable, the bigot, the gullible, the hater, the deviant.

    Bigotry against people that that lack belief in god is everything any person needs to understand that god ‘s existence is a false claim.

    Generations of bigotry against people lacking belief, bigotry expressed in murder, violence, and theft, represent a condemnation of faith that no argument can ever overturn.

    Faith, belief in god, is the hallmark of the evil vainglorious ego of humans not interested in their fellow man. Religion is selfish in the worst sense of the word.

    The construct of the Jesus archetype is a fraudulent wallpaper covering the private perversions of sociopaths.

  4. The Heretic Says:

    I didn’t see anyone also say – Political.

    I am a Fiscal Conservative/Libertarian. Although I consider some of my social concepts to be traditional, I do not subscribe to any notions that are not backed by common sense. I am a pariah in the eyes of many Republicans, as are many gays, I would imagine. It doesn’t stop us voting for what we believe in; it just makes it a little harder to mingle, because we are not cookie-cutter.

    I could never run for a political office (not that I would want to.) Even though I don’t have any skeletons in my closet, unlike many of the ‘faithful’, I am not main-stream.

    Some people have very closed minds; others do not. Many are hypocrites. But, I see them more as people of character flaws than as the fault of religion. I just think that religion allows them to overlook their hypocracies – so they do.

  5. Sinjin Smythe Says:

    Heretic I wanted to speak to you today.

    Heretic I would describe myself as a fiscal conservative Libertarian too. At least where socially I’m progressive but in disagreement with the great many fiscally progressive or liberal minded folks who favor excessive government spending to solve economic problems. (Keynes)

    I like laissez-faire capitalism where government involves itself only enough surveillance over the enterprise system to ensure the social usefulness of all economic activity. (common defense)

    As Andrew Jackson (Democrat) did, I too dislike it when the government imposes “unnecessary burdens upon the people” and that the government “has no power to raise a revenue or impose taxes except for the purposes enumerated in the Constitution; and if its income is found to exceed these wants, it should be forthwith reduced, and the burdens of the people so far lightened”.

    By “common sense” I’m thinking you speak of “unnecessary spending”?

    As a Republican atheist I too am not mainstream/a pariah. I objected to a local Republican politician yesterday who said the following:

    1) “At what point exactly do we as individuals give up our rights when we join a group?”
    2) “Are we going to allow the collective rights of members of a group to be trampled if the basis of the group happens to be a profit motivation?”

    I ask: Since when did groups of individuals get to expand their rights as members of groups? and “Since when do Republicans talk about being part of the collective?

    The man explained that he should have rights as a small and medium business owner or member of a corporate group to use company funds to lobby and contribute to political influence and election and that I understand but I clarified for him that it is not the small and medium size groups that win that game, it is the large multinational corporations that overwhelmingly influence governance and that is corporatism. Champions of corporatism would include: Henry Ford, Benito Mussolini, the Roman Catholic Church to name a few.

    People embody rights as individuals only, never as groups!

    I have skeletons, and lots of them, I just don’t insist they stay locked up in any closet.

    As for being gay, I don’t see sexuality as an absolute. I mean if we dig down to the ultimate deciding factor as a definition: “Would you every engage in sex with a member of the same sex?” then I can’t see me ever doing that. But if feelings of affection for a member of the same sex, or love of, or enjoying an embrace of count for anything then there must exist a space between extremes and in that space understanding is possible, even appreciation. (I’m pro same sex marriage)

    At the risk of sounding like a closeted typical dopey cliched bigot “I have a black friend” well, I have a gay friend. She is my oldest friend, most dear to me, and I had hoped we could have been…Well you get the picture. Maybe there is truth to the idea that no one sympathisizes until it happens to you, maybe I’d not appreciate the difficulties gay people deal with if not for.

    I agree it is a character flaw to depend upon religion for your morality. Nothing points to a lack of morality that a reliance on something other than one’s on character for morality. (If you need a 10 commandments you can’t be a moral person)

  6. The Heretic Says:

    Groups of like-minded people are more powerful than a single voice. Hence the reason for a political party. You can lump corporations in with unions if you like. A group leader dictating what is spent where. If you wish to go after corporations, then you would necessarily go after unions, Superpacs, and other political-voiced organizations. Profit should not be an issue. As the Supreme Court has just upheld these organizations, per the 1st amendment, I fail to see your argument, other than you disliked the decision.

    As for being part of a group, I am tangential to any group. They do not embody me – just a particular interest on any given day and time. That way I can keep an objective mind and actually think about an issue, rather than being a mindless drone.