28 Comments »

1. Ross:
   May 5th, 2006 @ 2:48 pm

   Should we govern by majority rules or minority rights? Why must we tear down the great Catholic Hospital System? Why can’t others build better ones and out compete with the Catholic Hospitals? What about the people who are comforted by the sight of a cross on a hill or a nun in a hospital? Why not put these issues to a vote and see what the majority wants? Why do you have to refute May 4th rather than choose your own day to build up your own cause? I thought you would be more tolerant of other views…

   See I’m always right,

   Ross

2. Stephanie:
   May 5th, 2006 @ 3:56 pm

   I think we need to govern based on minority rights. If we governed based on majority rules, women would not be able to vote and we would be a racially segregated country. The majority is not always right….the Holocaust was attrocious because it disregarded the minority rights. When we start claiming that the best government is based on majority rules, we run the risk of violating basic human rights.
   The problem with the Mt. Soledad cross was that it was on public property thus it is maintained through taxation. Catholic hospitals are privately owned and can display religious symbols if they please. I think agnostics and atheists are very tolerant of other peoples’ views because we are surrounded by them. The reason the National Day of Prayer is protested is precisely because it was declared a “National” day of prayer. It violates the church state seperation.
   In regards to Noell’s question regarding the removal of historically significant crosses, I think it should be pursued if they are located on public property. We are not a Christian nation and should not display religious symbols on public property. If we were to say that historical religious symbols are OK, it would open a can of worms as far as interpretation of what is considered historical and what is not. Should the ten commandments displayed in courtrooms be considered historical? I think there needs to be a definite line drawn between church and state with no exceptions.

3. Justin Kissel:
   May 5th, 2006 @ 4:04 pm

   I think that such efforts will only make Christians and other religious people more defensive. It might even annoy some non-religious people, who perhaps have a sentimental liking or spousal attachment with some religion (even if they are non-religious themselves), or who see some utilitarian value in religion. I don’t know if many agnostics/atheists know this, but many prominent conservatives (e.g., Rush Limbaugh) are not Christian, but are more like Deists, who see religion primarily as a way to teach values (I’ve even heard Limbaugh say on the air “We need more God. Any God will do.”) I am not saying that people like Limbaugh, much less people like Pat Robertson, are going to be favorable to agnostics or atheists. What I am saying is that many of the perceived enemy (or opponents) are probably more secular than most agnostics and atheists realise. And the pledge of allegiance thing, the ten commandments thing, or taking down crosses, all of this just gives ideologically diverse conservatives a reason to unify, just like Christians who are normally divided will unify when confronted by an agnostic or atheist on a discussion board.

   Rather than taking away from people that which they wish to hold on to (for many possible reasons), perhaps a better approach would be to positively and consistently fight in favor or something, such as agnostic clubs in school to counter Christian ones, or lessons on agnosticism and atheism in social studies classes to go along with the lessons on the major religions. Religious people would still lament such actions, of course, but through these steps maybe inroads can be made into changing the culture at large. Unless and until the culture as a whole changes in America, agnostics and atheists will always be perceived (at best) as iconoclastic rebels, or (at worst) people who are bitter and want to “destroy the moral foundation of this country”. Agnostics/atheists need to get it across that if they had their way, America wouldn’t be an immoral cesspool, but would actually be more productive and happy. But it’s hard to get that message across when all most Americans see is agnostics/atheists trying to get religious imagery banned.

   Anyway, I HOPE the above doesn’t sound to much like something said from a soapbox. I don’t claim that it’s anything but the opinion of a young man who recently left Christianity. But those are my initial impressions, now that I’m looking at things from “the other side” of the fence, but still remembering how I thought back when I was a Christian.

4. Noell:
   May 5th, 2006 @ 4:27 pm

   Hey, Ross. I never explained my plan for the National Day of Prayer.

   I am sorry you assumed I would protest it. I had no intention to protest, even if the purpose of it is questionable (take a look at the website’s stated purpose).

   My intent with the Day of Prayer was to join with the rest of the nation in the way that WE practice blessing the country, which is to do something to combat social ills in the U.S. (poverty, disease, etc). I was going to suggest we all plan an activity of service and write letters to our newspapers ahead of time to tell them how we will spend the day. I wanted to let the country see who we are and the positive that we do. I wanted to unify ourselves with the rest of the country, but in our own way.

   Your assumptions about me wanting to take away your day of prayer, your Catholic churches, go to show how prejudiced mainstream Americans are about us. While I can (sort of) understand where you got those ideas from, I am trying to demonstrate here that we are not, as a whole, trying to rob you of your religious stuff.

   Personally, I think that cross is beautiful. Which is another reason I have mixed feelings about it.

   Also, I think there needs to be a proper balance between majority rule and minority rights. It’s not one or the other. Our government is set up in a way to maintain, in the best way possible, a good balance between the two. This is why we have the right to protest the addition of the phrase, “Under God” in the Pledge. That is why we have the courts to work with. Would you try to rob the country of that essential aspect which the Founding Fathers set up?

   Justin, I agree that it would probably be best for us to focus more on positive action. While there are some things we MUST fight (in my opinion), such as prayer or “moments of silence” in school, a higher percentage of our work should emphasize creating rather than destroying.

5. Rodolfo:
   May 5th, 2006 @ 5:43 pm

   I live in San Diego and I’m one of the lucky few that get to see Mt Soledad from the air. Pilots use the landmark as a reporting point to land at one of the airfields near the site. Very handy! Anyway its beautiful like Noelle said. As a recovering Catholic I still find most religious displays very pretty. But the cross being on that particular property is illegal so it should be removed. It’s only natural for some people to fight change but I believe this is the right choice based on our existing laws.

6. Noell:
   May 5th, 2006 @ 9:40 pm

   Rodolpho, do you fly planes?

7. fran:
   May 6th, 2006 @ 4:56 am

   If we were governed based on majority rules we’d all be on our knees in some church praying to a make believe god by now.The Constitution was written with safeguards to protect majority’s from overrunning minority’s . That’s not to say Republicans haven’t tried , but they simply aren’t able to nor will they ever be and vice-versa. That is the beauty of democracy!!!!

8. ffuege:
   May 6th, 2006 @ 9:18 am

   You could always check out the National Day of Reason at http://www.nationaldayofreason.org/ if you want to support an existing campaign to counter the National Day of Prayer every year.

9. Hifi:
   May 6th, 2006 @ 12:06 pm

   Here’s a postive action by students, I just came across. They are creating an affinity group for naturalists on campus in order to push back against religion iin government.
   http://www.argonaut.uidaho.edu/content/view/1806/48/

   As for how America was set up to handle these differences – our country was founded in opposition to the idea that tradition rules the day, or that the majority is entitled to impose their beliefs on others, or that minority views may be steamrollered by the popular opinion of the day.

   Our excuse for inaction is that we are worried about being inconsiderate…to those who would affront our beliefs without nary a thought? Is it insensitive to right such wrongs? For instance, to roll back what the Knights of Columbus did to advance theocracy by promoting the Pledge and God motto to government? Or oppose a government, so callous to it’s non-Christians, that is erected a cross on public land? While we hesitate to ruffle feathers, they are decided. Yes, it is a shame that our progenitors didn’t take up this fight earlier on our behalf. But now it’s on our plate. Are our children going to wonder why we too didn’t try to level-set government practice to it’s Constitutional demands?

   I would advocate that it is not only our responsibility as “Agnostic Parents”, but our patriotic duty as Americans, and our obligation as humans to make every effort to expand right and reason in the world. I’m not the only one.

   “I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand and hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change. . . institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”

   ~Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Samuel Kercheval, July 12, 1816

10. Rodolfo:
    May 6th, 2006 @ 12:10 pm

    Noelle-Yup! I started my flying lessons here in San Diego back in January. I don’t get to fly as often as I’d like to because of my finances but every dollar I save goes into my flying. It’s soooo much fun! It’s like a roller coaster ride on every flight. When I got the flying bug I decided to take a separate course on airplane maintenance at the community college. Best move I ever made. My instructor has been teaching at the school for over 25 years and he’s fueled my interest even more. He’s like a walking encyclopedia when it comes to aviation history. He’s retiring in a couple of years so I’m really lucky to have had him as a teacher.

    There’s something very spiritual about flying too. My favorite part is right before the airplane’s wheels are off the ground. At that moment you enter a different element and its like being in another world. The fast moving ground below you and everything else that is left behind begins to move slower and slower and for a brief second you’re in… heaven. It’s a very humbling experience. This quote I found pretty much sums up everything for me: “I fly to release my mind from the tyranny of petty things.”

    I think that the idea of humans propelling themselves to the air and back safely has to be one of the greatest achievements by our species. And to think that only sixty years after the Wright Brothers flew their flying machine we were able to put a man on the moon! That’s unreal!

    I could talk about flying all day but no words could ever truly describe the feeling. Learning to fly is probably the most challenging thing I’ve ever focused my efforts on. It’s fun but the discipline required is tremendous. Like a lot of worthwhile goals it requires a great deal of sacrifice. Like science, aviation has given me more than I could ever possibly give back in return.

11. Noell:
    May 6th, 2006 @ 1:45 pm

    ffuege–Thanks for that information. I had no idea there was already a movement. I have to take exception to one statement on the website for the National Day of Reason, though. It said, “The goal of this effort is to celebrate reason – a concept all Americans can support.”

    I’m just not sure if that’s true. Hee hee!

    What Ross and many other Christians do not understand about our movements is that we are asking for things that INCLUDE EVERYONE, whether Christian, Atheist, Agnostic, or Hindu. You can read that in the quote above. That is all we ask, and they claim we are taking things away from them.

    For example, what I love about Hifi’s movement with the Pledge of Allegiance, he is asking that the school provide activities of patriotism that all the students can participate in, including religious Jehovah’s Witnesses. He’s not trying to rob the nation of its patriotism.

    Personally, I prefer the idea of a Day of Action over a Day of Reason when it comes to the National Day of Prayer.

12. Noell:
    May 6th, 2006 @ 1:47 pm

    Hifi, just to clarify, I am with you on this. I am trying to communicate that there should be a nice balance between positive PR activities that promote our great values along with important campaigns that protect our rights, even if that offends some people. I just don’t think we do enough of the positive PR.

    I also think we need to eliminate the really nasty, offensive movements, like the ones I listed before.

13. Noell:
    May 6th, 2006 @ 1:48 pm

    Rodolpho–So COOL! You gave a great speech for humanist ideas, too.

14. fran:
    May 6th, 2006 @ 4:26 pm

    

15. Aaron Rossetti:
    May 6th, 2006 @ 8:15 pm

    Hello,

    I just wanted to drop a quick note about a new blog that has just opened up called… Out of Christianity. It is a community that is inviting anyone that is coming or has come Out of Christianity to share there story and engage in discussion of their journey.

    We were once not only Christians, but youth pastors, evangelists, nuns, and music ministers, yet we’ve left the Christian faith.

    In order to create a ‘safe’ environment that is free from the evangelism that we used to engage in ourselves, we’re asking that Christians respect this forum as being off limits to try and ‘save’ those of us that have already been set free. It didn’t take long for this request to be violated by the ambitious Christians who were out to rescue the backsliders , so we’re moderating all comments.

    You can read ‘Your Invitation’ to catch the vision of what our purpose is and read some of our stories.

    http://www.outofchristianity.com

    Thanks.

    Aaron

16. fran:
    May 7th, 2006 @ 3:55 am

    I went to the deconversion interview page and checked out the blog page with the eight comments , but quite frankly , maybe I’m wrong, my gut instincts tell me they were all written by the same person using different names.Anyway , I could be wrong , welcome Aaron !!!

17. Ed Darrell:
    May 7th, 2006 @ 6:30 am

    A day of ethical action is a wonderful idea.

    One hopes that there would be little difference in ethical action and what is prayed for — but one might be surprised on occasion, and that might be greater cause to do it.

18. Ross:
    May 8th, 2006 @ 11:28 am

    So if the majority cannot enforce it’s values or rules or laws on others than why do we vote for laws and those who makes our laws?

    Why not just have some non-elected supreme judges determine the speed limit for all our roads?

    And why not fund the indigent and medicare patients (with public money) in Catholic Hospitals without any qualifications on receiving those public funds?

    Why should we fund schools that do not teach majority values? Or why not offer vouchers and let the parents decide what values their children should be taught?

    As to how America was founded, I assume all new governments want to change the way things were governed or why did they not try to change it from the inside rather than by revolution.

    And I guess those old rights “endowed by our Creator” are not the basis for good values or meaningful rules. In fact some may argue with me over how we even define goodness in the Constitution and DOI.

    I do think you need to recheck your history books on suffrage and segregation as many religious leaders led the charge while believing that “All men are created equal.”

    What I truly worry about is the fact that people only read or listen to their own side and don’t understand the valiant struggles and wisdom that exists on the other side. So far I find the conservative side better able to defned their positions as they are more tolerant of other views. Some see crosses in Arlington while others see pluses adding to the number of war dead. The truth is somewhere in between and may best be defined by each family – http://bobbywarns.com

    I don’t want to convert any of you as some of you assumed, but I don’t want to be coerced into funding your public values/displays (or emptiness) either. I found your forum through Izzy and I enjoy the intelligent discourse and the only talk show I listen to is Dennis Prager (townhall.com), but I’m not Jewish either.

    Sorry if this tries to cover too much in one post and let me know if my posting is disruptive to your forum.

    I prefer clarity to agreement and thanks for any thoughts,

    Ross

19. Noell:
    May 8th, 2006 @ 12:58 pm

    Ross, I remember you from your first comment when you came over from Izzy Video.

    No, your postings are not disruptive. I do not mind them at all. My only two problems with them are (1)As you said, they sometimes do cover an enormous range of issues and I don’t know where to begin with them. (2)Many times I just do not understand where you are coming from, what you are opposed to, or what you’re asking.

    For example, you said, “As to how America was founded, I assume all new governments want to change the way things were governed or why did they not try to change it from the inside rather than by revolution.”

    I don’t understand the significance and meaning of that statement. I need more context, I guess.

    Ross, the more you post, the more I realize you have misunderstandings about us. And when I try to clarify I don’t get any impression that you tried you understand my explanation.

    For example, the topic of Democracy (a major Humanist value, by the way). The majority votes in the laws. But the laws HAVE to be constitional, even if the majority wanted them. At one time a majority wanted slavery. Slavery is not constitional. The constitution protects the minority against majority rule that violates the inalienable rights of individuals.

    I know you don’t mean this, but by the way you were talking, Ross, it would seem you would condone slavery if the majority wanted it. Of course, you wouldn’t. But this is what we are talking about. Just because the majority of Americans are Christian, they cannot violate the Constitution, which was meant to protect the rest of us, and establish laws upholding a specific religion.

    On to another one of your topics: Secular Humanists value the same rights “endowed by Our Creator” that the religious do. We just don’t believe there was a Creator. We still value those rights.

    Another topic: You said, “I don’t want to be coerced into funding your public values.” I have never understood what people are referring to when they talk about us pushing our values on people, ie, through the public schools. What are these awful values that you are referring to?

    Another topic: You said, “I don’t want to convert any of you as some of you assumed.” I am not aware of anyone having assumed you were trying to convert anyone.

    The last topic: Dennis Prager is my favorite talk show host. He is the only one I have ever listened to that really does try to understand what his guests want to communicate. You said, “What I truly worry about is the fact that people only read or listen to their own side and don’t understand the valiant struggles and wisdom that exists on the other side.” I listen to conservative talk radio: a little Rush, a little Hannity, a lot of Medved and as much of Prager as I can.

    I was a die-hard conservative from high school until only three years ago. I am now an Independent. I was a devoted Christian until I began questioning beliefs 5 years ago. At that point I remained devoted, led the congregational choir while I spent a year figuring things. I have only been a non-Christian for 4 years.

    Do you still think I only listen to one side?

    And do you really think that non-believers should live under the tyrrany of Christians just because they are the majority?

20. Jen:
    May 8th, 2006 @ 2:49 pm

    Bah! I just lost my (oh so eloquent) response because I forgot to do the addition! Let’s see if I can recreate it, though surely not as eloquent as before…

    Ross wrote:
    “So if the majority cannot enforce it’s values or rules or laws on others than why do we vote for laws and those who makes our laws?”

    The U.S. was founded on majority rules but with careful provisions and limitations in place to protect minority rights. It was founded as a republic and not an unlimited majority.

    ————————————-

    As to the national day of action, I think it’s a wonderful idea, but I’d advocate for holding it on a completely separate day, as an activity totally independent from a national day of prayer. It’s a worthy concept, and can certainly stand on its own merit. If we concentrate our energy on reaction to religion, we’ve made that our focus, and I don’t think that is the core of secular humanists. Rather, I see our core as moral and concerned humans who want to improve life on earth for our fellow humans and other living creatures and organisms. Reaction, rather than action, can result in negative nuances.

21. fran:
    May 8th, 2006 @ 2:58 pm

    I think that Ross may be referring to my comment about majority’s not being allowed to over run minorities as provided by the constitutional ammendments . Let me try a simple explanation as to why that’s so . Ross let’s say the one day you wanted to start an organization that wears long funnel hats on certain days of the week as a function of your group . Then lets say that one day congress decides that they no longer want to see people wearing funnel hats so they up and pass a law that says americans can no longer wear funnel hats for any reason. That law would never survive a legal challenge in the courts because it would be a gross violation of your right to the freedom of speech. It is also a crude example of the protection the constitution affords to minorities . The ACLU , though they are often criticized for doing so, often defend what most people would consider unsavory characters based on the provisions of the constitution . What we have to remember though is they are not defending the organization per se’ . They have no interest in the purpose of any organization or what the function is. They are defending the constitution as it is written. So Ross I think it’s important that government function in this way even though at times we don’t agree with the outcome.

22. Noell:
    May 8th, 2006 @ 3:01 pm

    Jen, you make an excellent point. It would explain why Ross jumped to the conclusion that I wanted to protest the National Day of Prayer when I, myself, thought that would be a bad idea.

    Fran–I looked at the deconversion site but haven’t had time to read over the stories. I’m curious now. Your comment about it is an excellent example of something I hope Ross and a few others will learn about us: Most non-theists are skeptical in general. Not just of religion. While I have seen an atheist blogger here and there that I thought were acting out of prejudice against religious people (and I got on one’s case for it a couple times), most of us are skeptical of everything. Including our fellow atheists. We tend not to take things at face value.

23. fran:
    May 9th, 2006 @ 4:29 am

    I don’t think it’s a matter of distrust. I’ve spent most of my life questioning individual rationale ,but most of the people I’ve been surrounded by have been honest and hard working . The problem is they were indoctrinated into this world with a faulty frame of reference.They were made to rely on the products of ghosts and gods ” that typically “explained away problems” instead of working toward finding a realistic answers using science and reason.They often infiltrate the town square in Pittsburgh and preach there nonsense so a couple of days ago I happened to be there and I asked one of the faithful . Do you believe in ghosts. She said , “Why no”. To which I replied , ” Then you are being hypocritical ” , because god’s a ghost , he fits all of the criteria , he is invisible , he certainly is scary at times and most of all no one can vouch for ever having seen him . She walked away from me. hmmm

24. fran:
    May 9th, 2006 @ 4:40 am

    If you are going to enter into a belief system at least have sense enough to understand the basis for which you are undertaking such a project . The whole purpose of religion is to get em while they’re young. Brainwashing is so much more effective when you attack vulnerable minds . By at least giving them an option you are doing a good job Noell !!! Keep it up

25. Hifi:
    May 12th, 2006 @ 10:11 am

    The latest on how the San Diego cross litigation is drawing the lines between theocrats and secularists.

    http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060510/news_lz1e10battle.html

26. Ross:
    May 15th, 2006 @ 9:13 am

    Sorry it takes me so long to get back here, but I’ll try to keep it in context:

    #25 – This is descriptive not analytical – or it’s opinions not legal rulings. One of the issues I have with humanists and many Christians is that they want to validate everyone’s feelings. Criminals feel good about themselves when the commit crimes, but the analysis says that what they do is bad for society.

    #24 – as soon as I see brainwashing – I plug my ears…

    #23 – another descriptive event…

    #22 – I didn’t “jump” as the day you picked is my prima facie evidence that you want to refute it’s meaing.

    #21 – replace “funnel hats” hats with the word Christianity and see how your logic works.

    #20 – If minority rights are to be protected then a minority of slave owners have a right to their slaves.

    #19 – Tyranny is the few pushing their will on the majority. I want to live in a free country where I can smoke in any city park and put a cross or swastika on public property. If I have an issue with the smoke or swastika, then I go and talk to the person instead of dialing 911. And unfortunately what you call a devoted Christian life, I consider a cult and I expect you to be traumatized, but then I expect you to calmly consider both sides and keep the baby while tossing the cultic bath water.

    Thanks for reading,

    Ross

27. Noell:
    May 16th, 2006 @ 1:22 pm

    Ross–Numbering your responses to the various comments helped tremendously! Your comment made much more sense to me this time.

    #25–I thought the pro-cross letters in the link were emotional while the anti-cross letters seemed very logical to me. Not to you?

    #20 Ross, you said, “If minority rights are to be protected then a minority of slave owners have a right to their slaves.”

    Does your statement really make sense to you? There is no right to own slaves, whether it is for a majority or minority. You can’t protect minority rights to take away another person’s rights.

    The purpose of the rights is to protect freedoms.

    #19 Let me put this in your own language: Why should I have to pay for your cross? Why should any Jehovah’s Witness, Mormon, Muslim, Atheist, Buddhist, or Hindu have to pay taxes to support a symbol of another religion’s god?

    What I don’t understand is why it is so hard to fathom using a symbol we can all agree on?

    Ross, I hope you will answer these questions, especialy the one about the taxes, since that is a purely conservative argument.

28. Wesley Williams:
    April 1st, 2007 @ 1:29 pm

    Just to make things clear: So many people today are eager to jump on conservative Christians as “closed-minded biggots who have no reguard for other people’s wishes and seek only to impose their own beliefs on others”. This is true a lot of times. Speaking as a devout christian, myself, it shames me a lot of times to see what people like them have done to the truth, making it seem ugly to the rest of the world. But whether or not people are like this is beside the point. This is America, and as so many of you are fond of pointing out, part of America’s identity is it’s lack of upholding one religious institution. Christians should be allowed to try to “impose” their beliefs on you because it is part of our religion and for people to try to stop us from doing so is a violation of our rights as written in the constitution. You may think over this and start to see flaws, holes, and paradoxes in the logic of this constitutional edict. the reason is this: America, however free and tolerant it tries to be, was founded by Christian men. It’s laws were based on Christian principles. It was created in a world where everyone was, to some degree, a Christian. You don’t like that? Fine. that’s your right. But nothing short of revolution is going to change it.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>