Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Kansas commissioner attacks atheists


GoldenWolf

Recommended Posts

For First Amendment protection purposes, atheism falls within the free expression provision, as the courts have already ruled. In general, personal rights are interpreted expansively, and so on this issue, there isn't much worry about whether or not atheism "is" a "religion,"  nor should there be.

It may be worth pointing out on an international forum, that "Go to Hell" is an American idiom. It is a colorful way to say No. The commissioner may have appreciated its dry humorous aspect when applied to atheists, but chances are that atheists aren't the only people he's told to go to hell this week. Just the funniest.

BTW, when the atheist gets the microphone, (s)he could reasonably be required to stay "on topic," wishing good things for the successful and productive outcome of the meeting, but not counterpreaching or disparaging the views of others.

Quote

To meet the spirit of the constituion, atheists and Buddhists muslims, etc. might all have a right to deliver the invocation

No spirit needed. It's the law. It's also as American as Ben Franklin. Apparently, he and his colleagues sponsored the first public lecture on Islam by a Muslim in the New World. Ben's funeral attracted clergy from all the denominations in Philadelphia; irreligion (or at least very personal religion) was represented by the guest of honor :) .

-

Edited by eight bits
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, eight bits said:

For First Amendment protection purposes, atheism falls within the free expression provision, as the courts have already ruled. In general, personal rights are interpreted expansively, and so on this issue, there isn't much worry about whether or not atheism "is" a "religion,"  nor should there be.

It may be worth pointing out on an international forum, that "Go to Hell" is an American idiom. It is a colorful way to say No. The commissioner may have appreciated its dry humorous aspect when applied to atheists, but chances are that atheists aren't the only people he's told to go to hell this week. Just the funniest.

BTW, when the atheist gets the microphone, (s)he could reasonably be required to stay "on topic," wishing good things for the successful and productive outcome of the meeting, but not counterpreaching or disparaging the views of others.

No spirit needed. It's the law. It's also as American as Ben Franklin. Apparently, he and his colleagues sponsored the first public lecture on Islam by a Muslim in the New World. Ben's funeral attracted clergy from all the denominations in Philadelphia; irreligion (or at least very personal religion) was represented by the guest of honor :) .

-

The law is interpreted by judges who all have personal biases beliefs and values.

However I was actually agreeing with you  I said the law will have to interpret the  case.

 I also said that the spirit of the constitution was to allow all beliefs to be represented  in such a situation, not to deny the expression of ANY beliefs.

  The only thing I would question is whether atheism per se is a belief.

  Many atheists claim it is not, but is rather a lack of belief. Personally i see atheism as a a belief that no gods exist. Simple absence of belief is something else. In simple terms a rock cannot be an atheist yet it has no belief in gods.Thus, in my mind, an atheist would have as much right to speak in accordance with their beliefs, as any theist.

A practical consideration might be representation and  opportunity Ie if a community is 95 % christian and 5% atheist, can atheists still claim equal time to speak, or is a 5% time allocation, overall, a fair representation

    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr W

Quote

The law is interpreted by judges who all have personal biases beliefs and values.

Granted. We Americans govern ourselves, another way of saying the same thing.

Quote

The only thing I would question is whether atheism per se is a belief.

Yes, for the purpose of First Amendment protections. There's more than enough case law on point to derail the thread. Google is your friend, Bing would be, too, but nobody uses Bing.

Quote

Many atheists claim it is not, but is rather a lack of belief.

That's fine. The belief that is lacking is religious in character, and that will suffice for its protection.

I hear that loads of secular folk aspire to be agnostics, so long as they get to call themselves atheists :) .

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"GOD IS LOVE"

"GOD GAVE YOU FREE WILL"

"NOW USE THIS FREE WILL TO UNQUESTIONINGLY FOLLOW THE RULES OF THIS BOOK OR BURN FOR ETERNITY IN HELL FIRE"

Sheesh.

Edited by I'mConvinced
  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

"GOD IS LOVE"

"GOD GAVE YOU FREE WILL"

"NOW USE THIS FREE WILL TO UNQUESTIONINGLY FOLLOW THE RULES OF THIS BOOK OR BURN FOR ETERNITY IN HELL FIRE"

Sheesh.

Which never existed in Jewish belief to begin with as Sheol was not remotely like the Christian Hell, not even close. 

cormac

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Which never existed in Jewish belief to begin with as Sheol was not remotely like the Christian Hell, not even close. 

cormac

Isn't supposed to just be the grave? I honestly can't remember the Jewish view on death. 

Edited by XenoFish
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Isn't supposed to just be the grave? I honestly can't remember the Jewish view on death. 

Sheol, the common grave (Earthbound) or reincarnation depending on the sect and what you did in life.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, XenoFish said:

2014-01-08-original2-thumb.jpg

I'd bring a jacket.

The City of Negaunee in the UP means "a low place," or hell.  Lots of low places in MI getting ready to freeze over.

Doug

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, and then said:

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world

That's why Quakers do not fight with "carnal weapons."  They can, nevertheless, organize marches, protests, strikes, etc.  They couldn't fight slavery with weapons, but they organized the Underground Railroad.  During the Reagan Administration they organized "coyotes" to bring refugees across the border from Guatemala and Honduras.  Today they are part of the Sanctuary Movement.  On the American frontier, there were even a couple times when they used "Quaker guns (broomsticks)" to simulate the appearance of real weapons and scare away British/Indian attack.  Pretty good for not being allowed to use weapons.

Doug

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, XenoFish said:

Isn't supposed to just be the grave? I honestly can't remember the Jewish view on death. 

Sheol was seen as both the grave and the land of the dead, who were seen as shades, and consisted of both the righteous and unrighteous alike. Later iterations equated it with Gehenna, Hades and Hell none of which were original beliefs. 

cormac

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Sheol was seen as both the grave and the land of the dead, who were seen as shades, and consisted of both the righteous and unrighteous alike. Later iterations equated it with Gehenna, Hades and Hell none of which were original beliefs. 

cormac

Thanks. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh look, Christians showing how tolerant and peaceful they are again. What ever happened to Love Thy Neighbour? I guess it was cherry-picked away, just like all the good stuff in the bible.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Podo said:

Oh look, Christians showing how tolerant and peaceful they are again. What ever happened to Love Thy Neighbour? I guess it was cherry-picked away, just like all the good stuff in the bible.

Alot of times it’s more like “Do unto others BEFORE they do unto you” or even “Do unto others, then split”. 

cormac

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Podo said:

Oh look, Christians showing how tolerant and peaceful they are again. What ever happened to Love Thy Neighbour? I guess it was cherry-picked away, just like all the good stuff in the bible.

Oh look, someone who generalize. Do you really think this guy speaks for all christians?

Edited by Clockwork_Spirit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Podo said:

Oh look, Christians showing how tolerant and peaceful they are again. What ever happened to Love Thy Neighbour? I guess it was cherry-picked away, just like all the good stuff in the bible.

If you strip all the spiritual and religious b.s. from the bible, you're left with some decent "life rules". Then again the more I think about it, only the golden rule remains.:hmm:

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/15/2018 at 8:35 PM, and then said:

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world

But in reality...a completely misplaced concept in the realm of religion...what we actually are wrestling against is our own personal demons.  We are always wrestling with our own minds...attempting to determine the concept of what is good or evil in any given precarious situation.  Both Good and Evil are concepts and definitions...in realidad...neither exist.   There isn't a Ruler of the Dark Place that makes or encourages people to do bad things...there is only their twisted minds responsible.  My opinion.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

If you strip all the spiritual and religious b.s. from the bible, you're left with some decent "life rules". Then again the more I think about it, only the golden rule remains.:hmm:

 

History and the present clearly points to the bible thumpers rejecting it with the utmost contempt.

It is easy to see they embraced might is right with the "God Almighty" as their malignant narcissist in chief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think politicians should quit pretending they care about spirituality.

If they lose the farce, then there won't be any opportunity for their opening remarks to be "invaded" by people they don't like. 

If they really are Christian, then they should listen to what Jesus told them.

He told them not to use prayer to make themselves look good in public.

Edited by ChaosRose
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/16/2018 at 8:32 PM, Clockwork_Spirit said:

Oh look, someone who generalize. Do you really think this guy speaks for all christians?

Not at all. But far too often, the perpetrator of some type of high-profile regressive bigotry is Christian. When I read headlines like this, I would love for it to be something other than an Abrahamic Theist. But it always is. He may not speak for you, but he still represents your chosen mythology.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Podo said:

Not at all. But far too often, the perpetrator of some type of high-profile regressive bigotry is Christian. When I read headlines like this, I would love for it to be something other than an Abrahamic Theist. But it always is. He may not speak for you, but he still represents your chosen mythology.

No, it's Muslim, Buddhist, Christian or even Atheist depending on when and where one's live. Bigotry has always been part of human nature. However, the actions of a few individuals shouldn't be used against an entire religious or faith system. That'd be faulty generalization.

Edited by Clockwork_Spirit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

No, it's Muslim, Buddhist, Christian or even Atheist depending on when and where one's live. Bigotry has always been part of human nature. However, the actions of a few individuals shouldn't be used against an entire religious or faith system. That'd be faulty generalization.

The vast majority of them being religious. Fancy that. I wonder how that could have happened.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A "prayer of invocation" is used to call a deity or spirit to be present in a gathering of people. It is common for religious or formal gatherings to commence with a prayer of invocation by a pastor or another leader of the gathering. Frankly, it would be interesting to hear how an atheist would go about it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

A "prayer of invocation" is used to call a deity or spirit to be present in a gathering of people. It is common for religious or formal gatherings to commence with a prayer of invocation by a pastor or another leader of the gathering. Frankly, it would be interesting to hear how an atheist would go about it.

I've always thought that, but then again governments shouldn't be establishing religion to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Mystic Crusader said:

I've always thought that, but then again governments shouldn't be establishing religion to begin with.

Ours didn't. The experience with a State Religion in Ulster left a bad taste in the mouths of my Calvinist forebears, for instance. Many of the colonies were founded on the principal of the freedom of practice of various doctrines and sects, so it was thought to be important to be free of anyone else's. It's difficult to free governments founded by the religious from the taint of religion.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hammerclaw said:

A "prayer of invocation" is used to call a deity or spirit to be present in a gathering of people. It is common for religious or formal gatherings to commence with a prayer of invocation by a pastor or another leader of the gathering. Frankly, it would be interesting to hear how an atheist would go about it.

Inasmuch as a public prayer is nothing more than someone running his mouth, it little matters how the atheistist does it.

My own choice would be for a minute of silence.  If one prays in his heart, then he need not speak aloud.  If he doesn't pray in his heart, then he SHOULDN'T speak aloud.

Doug

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.