|
|
Post by arkady on Apr 9, 2009 11:52:44 GMT -5
--Best rebuttal ever--
If you've ever heard the idea (and it has been mainpaged a few times) that just because Americans specifically have freedom of religion, they still have to choose one. It's not freedom from religion.
Either way, Americans are constitutionally free to choose whatever religion they want.
In a similar fashion, women over the age of consent are able to choose to have sex any way they want. However, forcing them choose between arse, vagina or mouth doesn't stop it being rape.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hades on Apr 9, 2009 12:33:12 GMT -5
Yeah... I've also heard "Separation of church and state means the government can't tell religion what to do, but it doesn't say religion can't tell the government what to do".
|
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Apr 9, 2009 12:33:55 GMT -5
You're mangling the original meaning here.
The statement originated with religious types who were reacting to the acts of some rather militant atheist groups who were initiating a series of legal actions to try and have religion completely removed from the public sphere, such as Michael Newdow's efforts to have the Pledge of Allegiance declared Unconstitutional because of the "Under God" phrase.
The statement was a way of saying that just because a person is free to choose whatever belief system they want - if they do choose to have one at all - they don't have the right to dictate to others what they should believe, which is what said militant atheists were seen as trying to do to others.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Apr 9, 2009 12:44:20 GMT -5
Sky, shut the fuck up, seriously. Until an atheist goes out and shoots up a church, we're not militant. Compare that to religious nutters blowing up abortion clinics and killing doctors. Yeah, we're the militant ones. Atheists are considered militant for putting up a motherfucking billboard or a bus ad. Do you have any fucking idea how much churches advertise? You're a piece of shit hypocrite.
|
|
|
|
Post by Madame Scarlet on Apr 9, 2009 14:09:14 GMT -5
You're mangling the original meaning here. The statement originated with religious types who were reacting to the acts of some rather militant atheist groups who were initiating a series of legal actions to try and have religion completely removed from the public sphere, such as Michael Newdow's efforts to have the Pledge of Allegiance declared Unconstitutional because of the "Under God" phrase. The statement was a way of saying that just because a person is free to choose whatever belief system they want - if they do choose to have one at all - they don't have the right to dictate to others what they should believe, which is what said militant atheists were seen as trying to do to others. Yeah, it sure is militant to not want to be marginalized, and to not have the government painted like atheists aren't really a part of this nation. And if that was the original meaning, we weren't the ones mangling it. I've read on the main page, and heard from people's mouths, those two exact same statements. |
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on Apr 9, 2009 14:11:45 GMT -5
Well considering "under god" wasn't there in the first place, yeah it should go.
Funny how countries that were actually started as religious nations don't have the problems you Yanks do.
What's up with that?
|
|
|
|
Post by Armand Tanzarian on Apr 9, 2009 14:19:03 GMT -5
In a similar fashion, women over the age of consent are able to choose to have sex any way they want. However, forcing them choose between arse, vagina or mouth doesn't stop it being rape. I love you. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by szaleniec on Apr 9, 2009 15:04:34 GMT -5
Well considering "under god" wasn't there in the first place, yeah it should go. It's the selective historical memory of a lot of fundies. Same reason that people who claim to champion "traditional marriage" don't want to make arranged marriages the norm, even though they're a lot more traditional than the modern idea of marriage being as they were the norm for most of history and well into the 20th century. |
|
|
|
Post by Paradox on Apr 9, 2009 15:37:26 GMT -5
You're mangling the original meaning here. The statement originated with religious types who were reacting to the acts of some rather militant atheist groups who were initiating a series of legal actions to try and have religion completely removed from the public sphere, such as Michael Newdow's efforts to have the Pledge of Allegiance declared Unconstitutional because of the "Under God" phrase. The statement was a way of saying that just because a person is free to choose whatever belief system they want - if they do choose to have one at all - they don't have the right to dictate to others what they should believe, which is what said militant atheists were seen as trying to do to others. This is not true. It was from Jefferson's letter to a Baptist pastor. Baptists have always been big Church State Separation Supporters. You want to see what the founders thought about it, look up the amendment to the Virginia Constitution that Jefferson got passed. |
|
|
|
Post by Undecided on Apr 9, 2009 17:47:44 GMT -5
As to the OP, it is worth noting that I lol'd. The argument is so obviously inconsistent with the U.S. judicial precedent of the last 200 years that it's almost not worth rebuking. Atheism is protected under the U.S. Constitution 1st amendment to the same extent that other beliefs of a religious nature are. Source: www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/019.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by machiavelli on Apr 9, 2009 18:01:32 GMT -5
Actually
Freedom OF religion IS Freedom FROM religion.
Freedom OF religion guarantees individuals and their families to follow their own religious paths, which consequently leads to Freedom FROM religion that guarantees state neutrality vis-a-vis these diverse beliefs
When it comes to religion, The State ought to always be free from religious BS.
|
|
|
|
Post by gotpwnt on Apr 9, 2009 18:02:30 GMT -5
People who use the "Freedom of not from religion" arguement then proceed to drestroy their own argument by asserting that Atheism is a religion whenever subjects like, say, Evolution being taught in school comes up. As if though Evolution = Atheism, which it doesn't.
It's kind of like when a Fundie uses the "America is a Christian nation because X amount of the population is Christian" argument and then proceeds to fail by insisting that his and ONLY his sect of Christianity is the ONLY true Christian faith.
It's just a big shitload of fail.
|
|
|
|
Post by Trevelyan on Apr 9, 2009 18:33:28 GMT -5
The statement was a way of saying that just because a person is free to choose whatever belief system they want - if they do choose to have one at all - they don't have the right to dictate to others what they should believe, which is what said militant atheists were seen as trying to do to others. No it was a way to ensure that the Federal Government tried to remain as neutral as possible on things that were spiritual in nature. Despite the best efforts of many fundies, atheism is NOT a religion. Rather, it is merely pointing out what is abundantly clear, there is no evidence for any type of god, hence a meaning without and theist meaning god. See how that works? The reason that references to god should be removed from things that the government does is quite simple. The government should be dealing solely in things that can be proven. By putting references to ANY god in ANY thing it does the government is supporting a religion. This is expressly prohibited by the first amendment. The government position should be, "Hey believe whatever you want, pray to your damn shoe if you want, but we have no official position on any type of sky daddy, magical or otherwise." That is all that atheists are doing when they try to get rid of religious things in the government, ensure that the government is truely without religion. To say that atheism is a religion that is being forced on people is ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Post by Vypernight on Apr 9, 2009 18:39:09 GMT -5
[quote author=arkady board=lounge thread=650 post=20193 time=1239295964In a similar fashion, women over the age of consent are able to choose to have sex any way they want. However, forcing them choose between arse, vagina or mouth doesn't stop it being rape.[/quote]
She could choose to Not have sex at all, just like people can choose to Not follow any religious path.
|
|
|
|
Post by Old Viking on Apr 9, 2009 19:03:52 GMT -5
" ... not freedom from" is the pinnacle of lameness. It shows up fairly often. Fundies like it not because it makes any sense, but because it seems to be a witty aphorism. Very Oscar Wilde-ish (although I doubt if that's the comparison they'd draw). What's more, each time one of them utters it he thinks he's being original. They don't realize that it has the intellectual impact of a turd in a punch bowl.
|
|
