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 -
BrooklynGuy

The War on Faith in America

224 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

and then
43 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Hmm, it's almost as if you oppose someone else's beliefs....Do they not have the right to their own belief systems, same for the pagans and the like?

I didn't say anything about removing that statue.  I shared what I thought it represented.  If the people of that community want it then that's their choice.  Opposing an idea isn't the same as disagreeing with it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Do
8 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

That is frowned upon because the KKK is a hate group

 

1 hour ago, XenoFish said:

I hate religion. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
4 hours ago, Dark_Grey said:

Right...nothing to do with Government intervention (gay wedding cake,) removal of prayers in School, head scarf laws, hate crimes or anything like that. Only racist people are religious :rolleyes:

Try thinking outside of identity politics. Otherwise, you may end up racist yourself without even realizing it.

This whole thread is about identity politics :lol:

Thats ALL this entire escapade is , playing identity politics to keep the base emotional.

  • Like 4
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
16 minutes ago, and then said:

I'm like everyone else in that I only have my own frame of reference.  I judge my environment compared to what it was yesterday and so on.  By any objective standard we have coarsened incredibly as a society.  Can you not see that?  Places like Chicago and Detroit are like real war zones.  Drug abuse is rampant along with addiction to porn and all of the heartache and family destruction attending it.  But the primary offender, IMO, is technology and our use of social media rather than face to face human interaction.  

The problems we face are too numerous to try to list, actually.  If I had to use one single marker to point to how broken our culture is today it would be the rate of children killing themselves.  They have life easier and more prosperous than any before them yet they have no hope and apparently not even faith enough to dream.  This generation is NOT just another repeat of the pattern.  A new pattern is emerging.

There does seem to be more violence but the drug addiction doesn't seem to be any worse, just more acceptable to talk about.  As for kids committing suicide nowadays there is more information available and the percentage may not have gone up, just your awareness of it.  I remember hearing about places like Chicago and Detroit being really hard, scary cities in the 60's.  I know Detroit has a much smaller population than it did then, so how could it be worse?  Homelessness is worse there because there are few jobs.  And I would blame that on industry, corporations not lack of religion.  Do you really have a way to determine if Chicago is worse off now than it was 40 years ago?  If so, I would be interested as I don't think it is, just like L.A. or New York, huge cities with too many people crowded in like rats, of course there is going to be violence and crime and drug addicts and homeless on the streets, as you call them war zones.  

No, I don't see as anything except us getting inundated by the media with "what is wrong", when before we had only 3 or 4 networks and television was off air at midnight.  I do agree that social media is a problem, an addiction problem and an isolation problem.

Edited by Desertrat56
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
12 minutes ago, and then said:

I didn't say anything about removing that statue.  I shared what I thought it represented.  If the people of that community want it then that's their choice.  Opposing an idea isn't the same as disagreeing with it.

I posted a link about baphomet. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
34 minutes ago, Michelle said:

Can a business refuse service to a person that is being disruptive or just being a jerk? What if that person happens to be black?

Sure, did someone say otherwise?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle
1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Sure, did someone say otherwise?

I can see how it would be portrayed in the news and on social media, regardless. It would be a veritable witch hunt. Cherry picking and editing video has become the norm.

I'm an atheist, but I would be labeled a white supremacist and who knows what else.

Edited by Michelle
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
2 hours ago, lightly said:

(good grief).    .  The native inhabitants were killed off by liberals.  ?

by pretty much everyone, including themselves, but don't let it stop you from making pointless and irrelevant arguments, keep up the good work

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
24 minutes ago, Michelle said:

I can see how it would be portrayed in the news and on social media, regardless. It would be a veritable witch hunt. Cherry picking and editing video has become the norm.

I'm an atheist, but I would be labeled a white supremacist and who knows what else.

That's possible and would definitely be unfair.  Not probably unfair in proportion to the unfairness that blacks face far more often than the above scenario, and it's not quite like there's zero history of people not being served only because they are black, but your point about the media distortion is well taken and is a problem.  I blame the internet mostly, and am to the point that I blame people more than 'the media' now because today's reality is that you have to be choosier about your sources.  It used to be easier to identify the tabloid-level media, they were by the supermarket checkout and had Bat Boy on the cover.  On the internet that's a lot less obvious but I can only blame these crappy media sources only so far; a lot of it wouldn't exist if no one was actually reading it.

Didn't quite get the 'but' in your last sentence, I know a lot of white supremacists tie their lunacy in with religion, but I'd guess there are probably plenty of white supremacist atheists, unfortunately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle
20 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

That's possible and would definitely be unfair.  Not probably unfair in proportion to the unfairness that blacks face far more often than the above scenario, and it's not quite like there's zero history of people not being served only because they are black, but your point about the media distortion is well taken and is a problem.

Thank you.

The bolded sounds like an eye for eye except on any random stranger. Justifying it because of other people's past reactions is a terrible precedence to set. If that was the case I would hate and take it out on all men because I was severely wronged in the past. People need to look forward instead of dwelling on the past and gauging everything according to that.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Robotic Jew
15 hours ago, and then said:

Do you believe that our government should be in that business?  I'm thinking of China just now.  Their government doesn't like any religion getting in the way of their total domination and they actively work to remove it.  Do you think this is justified or beneficial?

Governments shouldn't tell people what to think or believe. Humans need to be smart enough to realize for themselves that these ancient superstitions are only holding us back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
9 hours ago, Michelle said:

The bolded sounds like an eye for eye except on any random stranger.  Justifying it because of other people's past reactions is a terrible precedence to set.

It's not justifying it, it's providing perspective; to be clear, people being disruptive is grounds for removal from a business.  This is not dwelling on the past, racism exists in the present and is an issue, and just because it was worse in the past doesn't mean it's now inconsequential.  It's been roughly 60-70 years since, as enforced by law, blacks couldn't eat at any ol' restaurant.  That's not ancient history, that's in the lifetime of people alive today, and it's not like as soon as laws were passed/courts found it unconstitutional that it halted all racism.  Sure, I'll bet there are people who are disruptive at a business and asked to leave who made the false charge that they were really being kicked out because they were black; I'd bet there are even more where a business owner didn't want to serve blacks and made the false charge, if even challenged on it at all, that they were kicked out because they were disruptive.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
19 minutes ago, Robotic Jew said:

Governments shouldn't tell people what to think or believe.

True

Quote

Humans need to be smart enough to realize for themselves that these ancient superstitions are only holding us back.

Holding us back from what?  

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Robotic Jew
3 minutes ago, joc said:

True

Holding us back from what?  

Progress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lightly
12 hours ago, aztek said:

by pretty much everyone, including themselves, but don't let it stop you from making pointless and irrelevant arguments, keep up the good work

You made the  pointless and irrelevant, and idiotic argument (in post # 4) that the U.S. was a country for everyone "until the rise of liberalism".   I cited an example of why that makes absolutely no sence.  

Or was the centuries long genocide of the native inhabitants "FAKE NEWS" ? ..put out by lefty liberal media ?   Get a grip.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
2 hours ago, lightly said:

You made the  pointless and irrelevant, and idiotic argument (in post # 4) that the U.S. was a country for everyone "until the rise of liberalism".   I cited an example of why that makes absolutely no sence.  

Or was the centuries long genocide of the native inhabitants "FAKE NEWS" ? ..put out by lefty liberal media ?   Get a grip.

and there you go again,   my argument is actually sound,  we are not talking about things that happened 200 years ago,  you are the only one who does.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BrooklynGuy

Let's assume the people on this is board represents a wide variety of good folks with different thoughts and beliefs and we are a good representation of the country at large. If that is the case then sadly it appears 115 posts in to this topic that there is in fact a war on Faith in America by a small number of individuals who seem to struggle with the principle of live and let live. On a lighter note the good news is we live in a free country. On a sad note the mean people posting in this thread will not be getting a visit from Santa Claus this CHRISTmas.  :santa: :gun:

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
3 hours ago, Robotic Jew said:

Governments shouldn't tell people what to think or believe. Humans need to be smart enough to realize for themselves that these ancient superstitions are only holding us back.

I agree. 

We don't tell men with a penis and a beard that they cannot call themselves a "woman". Why the hell should anyone care about Trudeau putting on black face and calling himself Afro? Like this is a life and death matter??? sheeesh.

I know Trudeau is a liberal but I stick up for him strictly on principle.

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
2 hours ago, lightly said:

You made the  pointless and irrelevant, and idiotic argument (in post # 4) that the U.S. was a country for everyone "until the rise of liberalism".   I cited an example of why that makes absolutely no sence.  

Or was the centuries long genocide of the native inhabitants "FAKE NEWS" ? ..put out by lefty liberal media ?   Get a grip.

lightly,

Right now, if you come from Latin America, South America, Mexico, you get a free pass to come to America.

But if you come from England, Spain, France, Russia, or any country of WHITE people, you have to come in *legally*.

This is not discrimination? this is not unfairly *barring* people from being part of America?

And who does this illegal discrimination? the LIBERALS. That's who. So @joc's accusation is sustained. "It used to be" until the advent of the liberal haters

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark_Grey
17 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Can a business owner refuse service to Blacks ?  Can  a business owner refuse service to Jews? 

Yup.

Quote

What does it mean to have freedom for everybody?  Does it mean we only have to respect and deal with  the people we approve  of?  

Yup, if you choose.

Quote

That is great in private life,  Everybody has that right.

What's your solution? To have thugs with bulletproof vests force business owners to comply with the State's approved beliefs? We are talking about a business owners rights, not engaging in hate crimes.

I have a better solution: go to a business that doesn't discriminate. Let the racist business wither on the vine. That's how this is supposed to work. 

Edited by Dark_Grey
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle
6 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

It's not justifying it, it's providing perspective; to be clear, people being disruptive is grounds for removal from a business.  This is not dwelling on the past, racism exists in the present and is an issue, and just because it was worse in the past doesn't mean it's now inconsequential.  It's been roughly 60-70 years since, as enforced by law, blacks couldn't eat at any ol' restaurant.  That's not ancient history, that's in the lifetime of people alive today, and it's not like as soon as laws were passed/courts found it unconstitutional that it halted all racism.  Sure, I'll bet there are people who are disruptive at a business and asked to leave who made the false charge that they were really being kicked out because they were black; I'd bet there are even more where a business owner didn't want to serve blacks and made the false charge, if even challenged on it at all, that they were kicked out because they were disruptive.

 

So? Women are still being mentally and physically abused by men today too. Right this minute, I'm sure. They don't assume all men are brutes.

Black people my age and older are sick to death of hearing about racism all the time. They say these punks don't know what real racism is. They literally look for it and assume any reaction to their disruptive behavior is because they are black.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lightly
2 hours ago, aztek said:

and there you go again,   my argument is actually sound,  we are not talking about things that happened 200 years ago,  you are the only one who does.  

Your idiotic "argument" is that the U.S. was a country or everyone  "until the rise of liberalism". ...and yet you yourself state that the native inhabitants were    killed off    " by pretty much everyone".   . . So,  you are saying that a country which killed off the vast majority of it's original inhabitants.. was a country for everyone.    

  Can you grasp the self contradiction  in that ?           ?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
3 hours ago, Dark_Grey said:

Yup.

Quote

What does it mean to have freedom for everybody?  Does it mean we only have to respect and deal with  the people we approve  of?  

Yup, if you choose.

Quote

That is great in private life,  Everybody has that right.

What's your solution? To have thugs with bulletproof vests force business owners to comply with the State's approved beliefs? We are talking about a business owners rights, not engaging in hate crimes.

I have a better solution: go to a business that doesn't discriminate. Let the racist business wither on the vine. That's how this is supposed to work. 

Nope.

Nope we don't needs thugs in bulletproof vests, a law was enough to do it.  Your better solution was tried for a hundred years and didn't work.  That is what the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is all about.

What Is the Civil Rights Act?

Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, segregation on the grounds of race, religion or national origin was banned at all places of public accommodation, including courthouses, parks, restaurants, theaters, sports arenas and hotels. No longer could blacks and other minorities be denied service simply based on the color of their skin.

The act also barred race, religious, national origin and gender discrimination by employers and labor unions

A government has to protect the rights of all of its citizens.  If it doesn't, well you have seen that model before too or at least heard of it.  That is what happened in Germany.  

It may be a stretch for you, but could you imagine yourself  being in a minority somewhere?  Banks wouldn't loan you money, gas stations and grocery stores wouldn't serve you and you children were subject to screaming mobs and potential violence when all they wanted to do was sit quietly and  get an education?  Would it be thugs that escorted your children to school or policemen trying to protect the rights of all citizens?

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029

It's not a war on religion.  It's a COUNTER-ATTACK.  What I want, as a liberal agnostic, is to free government of the corrupting influences of religion and to keep religionists from trying to impose their idea of "faith" on others, especially me.

You can see the results of "faith" right here on UM:  when you ask a "Christian" why some other self-proclaimed "Christian" did something bad they tell you "he's not a real Christian."  "Judge not, lest ye be judged."  In other words:  "My version of religion is the only thing that counts as religion."

George Bush actually had an office dedictaed to obtaining govt funding for religion.  It never did anything, though, so I think it was just a political trick.

What about gay wedding cakes?  When your religion intrudes on mine, that's a problem.  The courts have ruled that the Colorado cake maker had a right to refuse service on the basis of religion.  The courts have also ruled that it is illegal to refuse services to blacks because of their race; the Bible was used to support slavery.  To me, these two cases look a lot alike.  Why is discrimination based on race any different from discrimination based on sexual orientation?  Discrimination is discrimination.

Prayers in schools:  Prayer should never have been in school in the first place.  When a teacher (state employee) imposes a prayer on the students, that is the state dictating a religious service.  It is perfectly alright for students to organize a prayer group and lead it themselves as they are not state employees and nobody is compelled to attend a student-run prayer group.  Courses that teach about religion by covering elemenst of all faiths is perfectly legal as long as the teacher does not favor one faith over another.  That is pretty hard to do so most teachers/schools take the safe way out and don't teach it at all.  Nobody likes to hear bad things about his own faith, so any objective treatment of religion will spark controversy.  Watch what happens when I write:  Mountain Meadows Massacre, Walking Purchase, Joseph Smith Murder, Moravian (Church of the Brethren) Massacre, etc.

Maybe you don't know it, but the US govt set aside land for the specific benefit of religion, meaning Protestant churches.  When the Seven Ranges and Ohio Purchase tracts were sold, one section in each township was reserved for religion.  In the Seven Ranges, it was the govt that did it; in the Ohio Purchase, the Ohio Company did it in compliance with its purchase contract with the US govt.  The only thing that kept this from being unconstitutional is that it was done under the Articles of Confederation:  the Constitution didn't exist yet.  After the Constitution was adopted, the General Land Office thought better of the idea and quit doing it.

Head scarf laws in the US are an unconstitutional intrusion by government into religion and this has been so ruled by the Supreme Court.

Hate crimes and conservative religion do seem to go hand-in-hand.  Once upon a time, one had to be a Southern Baptist before he could join the Ku Klux Klan.

All us liberals are asking is that "people of faith" don't try to impose their beliefs on us.  Any time we try to implement that, we are accused of being anti-religion.  We are not anti-religion; religion is irrelevant to us.

Doug

P.S.:  what the courts actually ruled on that Colorado cake maker was that the cake maker's religion was not, by itself, evidence of religious discrimination.  The state had failed to make its case.

Doug

Edited by Doug1029
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
38 minutes ago, lightly said:

Your idiotic "argument" is that the U.S. was a country or everyone  "until the rise of liberalism". ...and yet you yourself state that the native inhabitants were    killed off    " by pretty much everyone".   . . So,  you are saying that a country which killed off the vast majority of it's original inhabitants.. was a country for everyone.    

  Can you grasp the self contradiction  in that ?           ?

 
lmao, again google relevance, and try to apply it to your posts, now you are TROLLING
Edited by aztek
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.