Atheism: Love it or Leave it? - Part 2

[8wid]

^Yes it's a eulogy but it should have been secular in content to be totally fair to all.

 

[SuperFerret]

How about this: you find me one other person who finds this unfair, and I'll relent on that?

But, even then, it still doesn't change that, at the core of the matter, you're upset because an emotional response isn't based off of something you deem rational. Emotion and religion go hand in hand, like rational thought and the scientific method do, and like emotion and rationality, science and religion aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[8wid]

^No, because the content of Obama's speech was not totally secular which is the only true way to be fair and neutral towards religions/faiths. He can be emotional as he wants if he avoid the references to religions in them.

 

[TheIncredibleSk]

It was just a prayer at a eulogy. Get over it.

 

[Manic]

It was just a prayer at a eulogy. Get over it.

Thank you.

 

[WildcatNC]

 

[8wid]

It was just a prayer at a eulogy. Get over it.

Thank you.

He should cite no religious texts for any reason while a public representative who works a 24/7 job which politicians mostly are. They can have days off or wait until they leave office, but they should not be allowed to have such an opinion. I may sound a little nuts here, but I believe that political representative should have no stance on a political party or religious belief until they leave office. The supreme court and military, except for the Chief of Staff typically should have no right for this. Ordinary citizens out of office can do whatever they want, outside it should all be kept secular with the exception of informative historic context only. The Bill of Rights protects citizens not members of the government.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

He should cite no religious texts for any reason while a public representative who works a 24/7 job which politicians mostly are. They can have days off or wait until they leave office, but they should not be allowed to have such an opinion. I may sound a little nuts here, but I believe that political representative should have no stance on a political party or religious belief until they leave office. The supreme court and military, except for the Chief of Staff typically should have no right for this. Ordinary citizens out of office can do whatever they want, outside it should all be kept secular with the exception of informative historic context only. The Bill of Rights protects citizens not members of the government.

Sure, it'd be great if our world leader's had absolutely no religious or political bias.

But that's IMPOSSIBLE because they are human beings. They have thoughts, they have beliefs. You can't BAN those things, you can't erase them, you can't ignore them, you can't pretend they aren't there.

Obama doesn't preach his beliefs in an overt fashion. He just has them. He doesn't deny that they are there. And there is nothing wrong with that.

In fact i'd say there was something wrong with the state of the world if you had to deny your own beliefs in order to keep the peace.

People should be able to accept each other's beliefs.

 

[8wid]

I think it can be the same for any employee. You have no right to be giving certain topics in a political opinion while on the job, as before the Supreme Court and military do this very well. It's like at State of the Union addresses when Congress its cheering and booing for their own party or where logos and such. It should be completely banned for these individuals while they work. Then practice whatever they want on their own free time, but while in office they simply have no right. But I think my preference for government doesn't really work that well for the overtly powerful US Federal government which has all kinds of bias in it, especially from special interests, it's not really something effective that can be implemented. But I must disagree it's possible to have a government that remains always secular.

 

[Manic]

I gotta say, you're possibly the first person I've ever encountered who was offended by prayer at a memorial. I've met people who've been into prayers, indifferent to them, and bored to tears by them, but I thought people who flipped out at stuff like this only existed in the talking points of news commentators.

 

[8wid]

^I'm only upset over a government representation giving a prayer in public while he serves in office. I went to my own 9/11 memorial service yesterday held by the community with prayers offered up by most of the community, but the most any city official did was offer a moment of silence at the end of their speech that was it. Prayers and "God Bless..." was said a least two hundred times, by average citizens, but not public officials on the stand. They may have had a prayer during the moment of silence, but that was it.

 

[DBryan]

I think atheists gotta pick their fights carefully.

 

[8wid]

^Why they're the only ones that look to physical proof or evidence of contradictions in religious text to actually truly challenge their own belief system. Seems to me the non-theist is the only that really does win and not try to change the subject or reexplain an obviously debunked concept.

 

[Schlosser85]

Atheists need to pick their fights carefully to avoid looking petty and/or bigoted, especially considering how much stigma there is about atheism in so much of the country.

There's nothing wrong with Obama acknowledging his religious beliefs. Unlike Bush, he doesn't preach about them in an overt fashion, he is just openly Christian, the same as another person should be allowed to be openly atheist.

Just because separation of church and state means a public elected official shouldn't base his interpretation and application of law on religious scripture, it's not realistic or fair to expect him to deny his religious beliefs or pretend they're not any part of his character.

 

[8wid]

^Many non-theists can be bigoted but they're the only ones that actual argue fact of phenomena in the universe. Religion's bigotry is natural they all assume man is by some supreme beings in an accident or in a special way that sound a lot like omnipotent humans and have never no matter which one it is ever proven any supernatural event or being's existence at all. Religion has never had proof of any claims and never will in a rational realm.

 

[SuperFerret]

So you thinking that you're right gives you reason to be a jerk?

Edit: "Jerk" is an ugly word, and an insult, so I take that back. My question should read like so:

So you thinking that you're right gives you reason to get upset and be belligerently arrogant towards the people you think are wrong during what is essentially a nation-wide funeral service?

 

[8wid]

How is calling me a jerk causing anyone else to act any more positively? My intention is not to hurt anyone's feelings and I'm sorry those thoughts have to be perceived painfully, but that's how I think. I'm just honestly expressing how I think. Don't call me names because you don't like my opinion. Just ignore me posts and bypass them if you don't want to see them.

 

[Schlosser85]

You can expect elected officials not to legislate based on their religious beliefs, but you can't expect them not to have any religious opinion whatsoever. And realistically, their religious beliefs unavoidably influence their political views.

 

[Franklin Richards]

So you thinking that you're right gives you reason to be a jerk?

Yes.


Just like religious people act like jerks because they KNOW they are right.


It's quid pro jerk.

 

[redhawk23]

Atheists need to pick their fights carefully to avoid looking petty and/or bigoted, especially considering how much stigma there is about atheism in so much of the country.

There's nothing wrong with Obama acknowledging his religious beliefs. Unlike Bush, he doesn't preach about them in an overt fashion, he is just openly Christian, the same as another person should be allowed to be openly atheist.

Just because separation of church and state means a public elected official shouldn't base his interpretation and application of law on religious scripture, it's not realistic or fair to expect him to deny his religious beliefs or pretend they're not any part of his character.

I fully agree with everything in this post. I'm okay with our leaders having their own sets of beliefs and even acting upon them, they are the principles upon which they choose to build they're lives and are most likely a part of the reason why they were elected.

For this reason though I hope for a viable candidate more in line with my personal belief-set, which is non-theist.


Question though, if a President did want to keep a strictly secular tone, what would they end their speeches with? It seems all our Presidents in the past few decades have always ended with "God bless and God bless America"

 

[8wid]

Everyone needs to pick their fights carefully so not to look bigoted it doesn't pertain to non-theists only, but all belief systems. I do think keeping political officials from expressing religious beliefs in public is possible still. But that is my final word on the matter.

 

[redhawk23]

While it certainly didn't annoy me and its not anything I'd ever complain about, I did think it was odd how Christian centered the religious portions of the ceremony were. There were inevitably going to be prayer services and convocations and the like (and rightly so, a fair number of those family's never held funerals or retrieved they're loved ones remains) but I was surprised not to see a more full spectrum approach.

 

[SuperFerret]

Yes.


Just like religious people act like jerks because they KNOW they are right.


It's quid pro jerk.

And this tells us what? That the religion factor is moot, because there are always going to be schmucks out there being schmucks for their own schmucky reasons.

 

[Schlosser85]

Yes.


Just like religious people act like jerks because they KNOW they are right.


It's quid pro jerk.

Someone else being a jerk doesn't absolve you from being a jerk.

It just means you're both jerks, and I think it's really funny that the most ardent theists and atheists who hate each other have no idea that they act exactly alike.

 

[Schlosser85]

And saying all religious people are jerks is just ignorant.