|
Lucienne -> RE: The Problem With Atheists (3/15/2010 11:35:03 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lucienne
stupid shit like having fights about creches on public property. Recognizing and respecting differences.
I think this is the core of the problem today. Atheists are perceived as being out to suppress religion, and as far as possible any signs of its existence.
Just as feminists are perceived by some as being out to suppress men and civil rights activist are perceived by some as being out to suppress white people or straight people. Social justice is never achieved by over-indulging the perceptions of the privileged. It is achieved by challenging and changing those perceptions in enough people that they will voluntarily give up their privilege. And the privileged who can't be convinced have shown a willingness to bitterly fight for its retention and punish those who threaten it.
quote:
The rhetoric of Dawkins and others, and the legal challenges to what is perceived by many as being within the "free expression" clause of the Constitution, create a fear of what would happen if Atheists had their way.
I don't think most Americans have the slightest clue who Dawkins is or what he's had to say. As for the legal challenges, dear Lord (pun intended). Legal challenges are made to religious expression made through government institutions. I'm unaware of any atheists bringing law suits against private individuals. Dawkins isn't suing for equal time on anyone's pulpit. The issue is with the apparent government endorsement of religion. And the legal reason things like "In God We Trust" remain printed on our money is because of "ceremonial deism." The crux of ceremonial deism is that the culture has absorbed rote recitation of certain religious things and because it is rote, it is sufficiently stripped of religious content as to survive challenge under the establishment clause. It survives that challenge because it is found to not be a religious expression at all, as much as a cultural one.
As for fearing what would happen if the Atheists had their way... no "under God" in the pledge, no creches on the front lawn of the town hall, no organized prayer in public schools... um, why is this a nightmare scenario, exactly? If your religious faith will collapse for want of these basically trivial things don't you need to do a little work on yourself rather than demanding a world that deprives you of opportunities to sin? The triviality of them is treated as a defense by promoters but, really, they are trivial in their religious content but a rather raw attempt to promote and maintain an undeserved cultural privilege.
I am a person of faith and I would much rather live in a country dominated by secular humanism than christian fundamentalism. I don't need an assist from the government to maintain my faith.
quote:
But if, instead, Atheists were perceived as being equally as accepting of belief as of non-belief, if their image was one of impartiality, an Atheist might well be trusted more than someone who appears to be too committed to the narrow views of a particular body of faith!
K.
And if people truly embraced the concept of freedom of conscience, they would judge others more on their actions than their religious belief (or lack thereof). What you're saying is basically that if atheists would just stop being atheist, or stop being openly atheist, then this wouldn't be an issue. True. But not helpful.
|
|
|
|
