Whiny Atheists

[quip]

Thank you. You twit!

:rotfl: ...wrong side of the bed bybee!

 

[bybee]

:rotfl: ...wrong side of the bed bybee!

Now it is!

 

[WizardofOz]

Here in the UK we have no actual segregation of state and church and state schools can be openly faith specific or none at all. Nobody imo would dream of complaining (whining?) if say a Catholic faith school put up banners extolling their beliefs for their kids to see, it would be expected.
If parents want their kids to be presented with such religiosity then that's their choice, or indeed not to be.

It is strange that the UK with a state religion is yet more secular and doesn't have all the whining and contention we see in the states. The atheists here are whining and whining loudly as of late.

If a school is supposed to be secular then a judge really has no option imo than to uphold any such objection as a no-brainer. Sooner or later surely someone will object(whine?) about any displayed sectarian messages or mottos.

Is our money supposed to be secular? It says "In God we Trust" et al. The line is certainly blurred. I wish this case would have been appealed because I'm not sure the original decision would have held up. It wasn't specifically Christian (Heavenly Father, amen) and the "prayer" was completely secular. There are numerous examples of these battles going on here.

Did this plaque but indirect coercive pressure upon religious minorities to conform to the officially approved religion? I don't think so.

Yet we in the UK are a less religious society than the US, openly atheistic people often do get elected and hold public office. No one needs to pretend to be religious if they're not and no one will worry if denominational schools put up religious messages, while equally no one would expect such things in secular schools.
Perhaps it's simply the American system that encourages "whining" if that's what it is, not any specific "whineese"? :think:

I just find it strange that this "prayer" has been there since 1962. No one has sued before. I wonder why that is? The sea change of secularization has hit a tipping point perhaps. It seems litigious humanist organizations are salivating over the next case they can bring forth to scrub all religious connotation from all public areas.

They need a new hobby perhaps. Why do they care about such trivial matters? Does taking down this plaque make things better or simply more contentious?

Btw I went to Christian faith schools and I turned out alwight.

 

[WizardofOz]

more quip deflective nonsense

more quip deflective nonsense

No, not in every case. Thus, I didn't "answer my own question there. "

:liberals:
I didn't say in every case. I said ""whine" is a synonym of "complain"", which it is. Sorry that you disagree with the dictionary/thesaurus.

Are we going to debate semantics? Did you have a meaningful point to make?

I'll take on faith that fool subjected his namesake upon you.

You could just :idea: read the thread.

Just question your own motives for using "whine" instead of "complain".....then get back with me regarding this synonym assertion.

I think these litigious humanist organizations are whining for the sake of whining. Call it complaining if it helps you sleep better. I honestly couldn't care less about this semantic non-point.

 

[WizardofOz]

‘A Charlie Brown Christmas’ Violates the Constitution​

An atheist group is accused of waging war against Christmas by attacking an Arkansas elementary school for a field trip to see "A Charlie Brown Christmas" at a local church. The group is arguing that the trip 'violates religious freedom' and 'entirely' oversteps the line between church and state. Students at Little Rock's Terry Elementary School were invited to attend a Dec. 14 staged performance of the holiday classic at Agape Church. Teachers sent letters home to parents informing them of the trip, and allowed students to opt out of the performance: story

Church Calls Off ‘Charlie Brown’ Christmas Show Amid Controversy

story

This is just plain stupidity

 

[WizardofOz]

Atheist Group Demands That Cross Be Removed from Marine Base​

An atheist group is demanding a 13-foot cross, erected at Camp Pendleton by an independent group of Iraq War veterans and two Marine widows, be removed out of concerns that it makes non-Christians in the military feel like “second class citizens.” Jason Torpy of Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers (MAAF), the group which has been at the forefront of a fight against the cross, told The Daily Caller that MAAF is trying to protect the separation of church and state and ensure the military is inclusive of all beliefs. “It’s an important message that we certainly respect veterans because we are veterans and we have active duty personnel,” Torpy said. “They can have a war memorial — that is fine. But if it is a Christian memorial, it needs to be on private land. That is the long and the short of it.” According to Camp Pendleton, legal authorities are currently investigating the situation, and upon completion of the review, will send their findings up the chain of command. “As Marines, we are proud to honor our fallen brothers, and are also proud of our extended Marine Corps family,” Pendleton wrote in a statement to TheDC. “However, it is important to follow procedure and use appropriate processes for doing this in a correct manner to protect the sentiment from question as well as be good stewards of our taxpayer dollars.” The cross, put up on Veterans Day, replaced a cross erected in 2003 that burned in a base wildfire years later. The new cross is made of fire-retardant material in the hope that it will not meet its predecessor’s fate. “We wanted them all to know that they’ll always be in our hearts, that they’ll never be forgotten,” Staff Sgt. Justin Rettenberger, one of the Marines who put up the cross on Veterans Day, told the LA Times. story

:mock: Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers (MAAF)
:mock: Jason Torpy :allsmile:

 

[WizardofOz]

I cannot find info on the Camp Pendleton cross memorial anywhere. A decision should have been handed down by now. Anyone know how it turned out or is it still being mulled over? :idunno:

 

[Spectrox War]

Here is what wikipedia says about the separation if church and state and how it relates to the First Amendment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

"Separation of church and state" (sometimes "wall of separation between church and state") is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The phrase has since been repeatedly used by the Supreme Court of the United States.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...." and Article VI specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." The modern concept of a wholly secular government is sometimes credited to the writings of English philosopher John Locke, but the phrase "separation of church and state" in this context is generally traced to a January 1, 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper.

Echoing the language of the founder of the first Baptist church in America, Roger Williams—who had written in 1644 of "[A] hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world"— Jefferson wrote, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

Jefferson's metaphor of a wall of separation has been cited repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Reynolds v. United States (1879) the Court wrote that Jefferson's comments "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment." In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo Black wrote: "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state."

However, the Court has not always interpreted the constitutional principle as absolute, and the proper extent of separation between government and religion in the U.S. remains an ongoing subject of impassioned debate.

I think the difference between the US and the UK is that atheists and agnostics and liberal / nominal christians (who don't really accept all Biblical claims) in the UK are in the majority whereas in the US the opposite is true so atheists feel they need to be more vocal to be heard.

The difference is clear in politics when in the US a self-professed atheist would never be elected as President wheras in the UK, Nick Clegg (the Deputy Prime Minister) has openly said he is an atheist.

 

[noguru]

What does Leviticus have to do with it? The baker wasn't Jewish

You do not have to be Jewish to make kosher baked goods. I work at a bakery owned by non-Jews. The only thing necessary is that a Rabbi inspects our method of production.

A while back my boss was cooking a pig in one of the ovens just prior to a Rabbi coming for inspection. We still passed their inspection. It's a good thing our customers are not a bunch of whiny Jews. :rotfl:

Hey that reminds me of a joke.

Have you ever heard of a Jewish whine?

"I want to go to Miami."

 

[WizardofOz]

FFRF to appeal Montana Jesus shrine ruling

“Unquestionably,” wrote the judge, “Big Mountain Jesus is a religious symbol commonly associated with one form of religion. But not every religious symbol runs afoul of the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. Big Mountain Jesus is one of the only vestiges that remains of the early days of skiing at Big Mountain, and to many serves as a historical reminder of those bygone days.” FFRF has announced it will appeal the decision to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

 

[xAvarice]

You do not have to be Jewish to make kosher baked goods. I work at a bakery owned by non-Jews. The only thing necessary is that a Rabbi inspects our method of production.

A while back my boss was cooking a pig in one of the ovens just prior to a Rabbi coming for inspection. We still passed their inspection. It's a good thing our customers are not a bunch of whiny Jews. :rotfl:

Hey that reminds me of a joke.

Have you ever heard of a Jewish whine?

"I want to go to Miami."

You make a mockery of the Jewish desire not to eat food contaminated with swine and yet you take your stupid fantasy so seriously?

Hypocrite child.

 

[noguru]

You make a mockery of the Jewish desire not to eat food contaminated with swine and yet you take your stupid fantasy so seriously?

Hypocrite child.

I can laugh at myself.

The Jewish contractor who built the club I use to manage told me that joke. He had a couple good one about Christians, though I think some might be offended here (I could PM it to you if you like).

If there was contamination I think the rabbi would have said something. I do apologize if I offended you.

 

[xAvarice]

I can laugh at myself.

The Jewish contractor who built the club I use to manage told me that joke. He had a couple good one about Christians, though I think some might be offended here (I could PM it to you if you like).

If there was contamination I think the rabbi would have said something. I do apologize if I offended you.

You didn't offend me - I'd do the same for a Christian. I just don't find it funny to make a mockery of what you know someone to strongly believe.

If there was a commandment to not eat meat and people found it hilarious to make Christian's food right near meat then I don't care about contamination, that's not the problem. The problem is that someone finds it amusing to do such a thing and then expects their beliefs to be taken seriously.

I do take religious belief seriously, unless they're trying to kill me or silence me, or I'm in a really bad mood. And I think other people should too. There's nothing to be guilty about how you cook a Jew's food if you can't help, but there's no pleasure to be had in what you wrote.

I hope you have a cheerful day.

 

[noguru]

You didn't offend me - I'd do the same for a Christian. I just don't find it funny to make a mockery of what you know someone to strongly believe.

If there was a commandment to not eat meat and people found it hilarious to make Christian's food right near meat then I don't care about contamination, that's not the problem. The problem is that someone finds it amusing to do such a thing and then expects their beliefs to be taken seriously.

I do take religious belief seriously, unless they're trying to kill me or silence me, or I'm in a really bad mood. And I think other people should too. There's nothing to be guilty about how you cook a Jew's food if you can't help, but there's no pleasure to be had in what you wrote.

I hope you have a cheerful day.

Well, I was not actually there when it happened. The owner of the bakery told me about it. I was asking him about the rabbi's coming to inspect our processes, because I know we produce a lot of kosher baked goods.

I don't see joking about things so much as mockery. I think mockery is more about a serious insult, rather than seeing the humor in a certain position or action.

 

[WizardofOz]

High School Administrator in North Carolina Blocks Formation of Atheist Club​

After first meeting with Assistant Principal Connie Weeks, the student was told that Weeks needed to “look into” the formation of the group. At subsequent meetings, the student was told by Weeks that they should just join a different club, because the secular club didn’t “fit in” to the community at Pisgah High School, and there were no faculty sponsors available — despite the Equal Access Act stating that if a sponsor couldn’t be found, the administration is required to assign one.

So, humanist organizations like the Secular Student Alliance (SSA) and the ever litigious Freedom From Religion Foundation and ACLU get involved in an effort to pressure the school to allow an atheist club.

The SSA played “Good Cop” months ago, sending a civil letter to the school’s principal, only to get no response in return. Now, FFRF along with the ACLU of North Carolina are getting involved, with a much more detailed letter to the district’s superintendent: Preventing Pisgah High students from forming an SSA group not only violates the law but is also bad policy. Nonreligious and non-Christian students within Pisgah High should have an equal opportunity to make their school a better place for themselves and their classmates. If students want to build a community as a nonreligious minority, they should be allowed to do so. There’s just no excuse for administrators to deny an atheist group from forming when it appears that they have no problem with a Fellowship of Christian Athletes group at the school.

What the heck would an atheist club's purpose be? Should the school allow other clubs to form based on other things people do not believe in? :idunno:

"Weeks is basically telling students who are already marginalized that they can’t have a group because… they’re too marginalized." :allsmile:

This is ridiculous.

After Initially Rejecting It, North Carolina High School Now Says It’ll Allow Atheist Club to Form

Whining pays. I just hope someone in the know can tell us what the heck is discussed at atheist meetings...

 

[alwight]

What the heck would an atheist club's purpose be? Should the school allow other clubs to form based on other things people do not believe in? :idunno:

"Weeks is basically telling students who are already marginalized that they can’t have a group because… they’re too marginalized." :allsmile:

This is ridiculous.

It doesn't really matter if you think there is no purpose, they presumably do feel a need for some form of refuge from religion, a way of demonstrating that a religious belief in their school should not be simply presumed as the norm and to represent all.

After Initially Rejecting It, North Carolina High School Now Says It’ll Allow Atheist Club to Form

Whining pays. I just hope someone in the know can tell us what the heck is discussed at atheist meetings...

I can't understand what religious groups have to talk about, it's not as though gods really exist or anything. :angel:

 

[WizardofOz]

It doesn't really matter if you think there is no purpose,

By all means...what could the purpose possibly be? :idunno:

they presumably do feel a need for some form of refuge from religion,

In a public school?

a way of demonstrating that a religious belief in their school should not be simply presumed as the norm and to represent all.

So they have club meetings just for the sake of demonstrating this? How about an actual purpose or goal?

What is the purpose or goal of atheism? How can a lack of belief have a goal? :think:

I can't understand what religious groups have to talk about, it's not as though gods really exist or anything. :angel:

They have a belief in something. That would be something to discuss, yes.

How is a lack of belief in something a foundation for a club?

 

[PureX]

I just find it strange that this "prayer" has been there since 1962. No one has sued before. I wonder why that is? The sea change of secularization has hit a tipping point perhaps. It seems litigious humanist organizations are salivating over the next case they can bring forth to scrub all religious connotation from all public areas.

They need a new hobby perhaps. Why do they care about such trivial matters? Does taking down this plaque make things better or simply more contentious?

Jim Crow laws were in place for many decades before someone finally began to "whine" about them, and make enough of a fuss that the states that employed them finally had to stop.

Just because we have done things a certain way for a long time doesn't mean they were ever right or legal to do. Nor does it mean that when someone does finally challenge them, they are just cry-babies and whiners.

 

[gcthomas]

They have a belief in something. That would be something to discuss, yes.

How is a lack of belief in something a foundation for a club?

Perhaps they share the problems of being a reviled minority, who are routinely, openly insulted and treated badly. Perhaps is acts as a support group for a demographic that even you think the school should be able to illegally discriminate against.

Why are you against litigious special interest groups? Surely, if the school was following the law there wouldn't be an issue? It seems that gentle reminders of their legal duties were thoroughly ignored by the school, so what other route would you recommend for stopping illegal behaviour in a public school?

 

[WizardofOz]

Jim Crow laws were in place for many decades before someone finally began to "whine" about them, and make enough of a fuss that the states that employed them finally had to stop.

Just because we have done things a certain way for a long time doesn't mean they were ever right or legal to do. Nor does it mean that when someone does finally challenge them, they are just cry-babies and whiners.

I general, I never said that they are. That's why I'm giving specific examples of humanist organizations whining.

Atheism is the new black, hmm? :think: