Work Discussions

by Nyla

Back to The Real World.

Saran2005-10-28 18:27:16
i feel that belief isn't something you should be scared/forced into but something you choose because it feels right for you (snugglyness is a must)

I don't think it's what you believe or if you believe that matters it's who you are, i'm not about to vote for someone who believes in (whatever) over an atheist for that point alone.

Also having belief could be a negative, visit http://www.paganawareness.net.au/articles.html quite a few of the archived articles refer to discrimination and the like, an atheist or agnostic is more likely to be impartial (a christian would favour their own just as anyone with beliefs)

EDIT: Oh there is a pamphlet on going Skyclad on the mainpage for all you moondancers who think it's fun (:'( i wanna go to the witches ball but i need a costume could someone lend me some credits... i mean this money stuff i buy credits with tongue.gif)
tsaephai2005-10-28 18:37:47
QUOTE(Cwin @ Oct 28 2005, 02:18 PM)
No evoking Godwin's Law, Tsaephai. 
Besides, I WAS saying that religion =! great leadership.  All I'm saying is that if you want a leader SPECIFICLY because you want someone of a particular religion (i.e "I want a christian because they believe in Christ" and not "I want a christian because they are more honest") then it makes sense to vote on religion.  Doesn't mean you'll vote the best, but there you go.
213665


someone tried to explain that to me before, made utterly no sense...

and i don't know what =! means so i'm not shure.
but i'd thought you ment that not having religion means a lack of moral beliefs, and i was trying to show that ghengis khan and stalin had very good moral beliefs without having religion(or atleast a belief in anything spiritual).

and hitler didn't and he did have religion tongue.gif
Aiakon2005-10-28 19:09:44
QUOTE(tsaephai @ Oct 28 2005, 07:37 PM)
and hitler didn't and he did have religion tongue.gif
213678



It's so not as simple as that. Hitler's religious beliefs were kinda seriously dodgy for one, and the ethical value of his morals depend entirely on your standpoint. I don't happen to believe in racial supremacy, or half the rubbish he thought was true, but if I did I'd disagree with you. No one can look back into the mind of someone who's dead, but suppose Hitler GENUINELY felt that everything he was doing was the right thing to do. Suppose he felt he was GENUINELY helping Germany. Can he be ethically condemned for his intentions or his moral beliefs if he thought he was working towards a greater common good? He can certainly be condemned for being stark raving mad, and for want of a better word, wrong... but...

.. anyway enough of this. I'm procrastinating again. Someone ban me from these forums.
Cwin2005-10-28 21:01:00
QUOTE(tsaephai @ Oct 28 2005, 02:37 PM)
someone tried to explain that to me before, made utterly no sense...

and i don't know what =! means so i'm not shure.
but i'd thought you ment that not having religion means a lack of moral beliefs, and i was trying to show that ghengis khan and stalin had very good moral beliefs without having religion(or atleast a belief in anything spiritual).

and hitler didn't and he did have religion tongue.gif
213678



Godwin's law is an odd one. Essentualy any heated discussion will, eventualy, lead to someone mentioning Hitler and the Nazis as part of their argument. The problem, though, is that it's HARD to argue from there since you tend to be stuck either agreeing or defending Hitler (in fact, I tried to argue your point and almost ended up having to do just that. unsure.gif ).

Thus, the Law says that if anyone mentions the Nazies in any argument that doesn't naturaly involve them (i.e. WW2) then Godwin's Law is evoked, and the argument ends.

meanwhile =! means Not Equal To.. A coding thing

Oh, specific comment involving Christians: It makes sence that many of us aren't moral. It's actualy a requirement to BE a christian in the first place. The basic ideal is; we have no censor.gif clue what we're doing and ruin anything we try, so we need God to do it for us.

It's not a very easy-going religion when you get deep into it, and what I just said probably explains ALOT to those looking at many who are christians (nevermind the ones that mearly claim it) and go "WTF!"
Corr2005-10-28 22:46:43
QUOTE(Aiakon @ Oct 28 2005, 05:00 PM)
you know.. the spanish inquisition was really rather enlightened.. just been smeared by protestant propaganda and the passage of time. They hardly executed anyone.. they had an extremely sceptical view of witch-claims and the like.. and I could go on and talk about this for quite a while but I can't be arsed.
213642




Thats outright Ignorant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition

Read that... Spanish Inquisition had little to nothing to do with Witches.


Also, I think if you really look closely at history, you will find that States used Religion more than a Religion using a State. Meaning that often rulers would dress thier desires for power into the language of a religious idea and use that as a means in which to gain public appeal.

I've yet to see a public Aethiest who isn't more focused on changing the religions and ideas of other people than on actual issues.

I think Nyla has a point that if someone is an Athiest they probabbly care too much about religion to be good for public office in any land where there are different opinions about religion.
Aiakon2005-10-29 00:25:33
QUOTE(Corr @ Oct 28 2005, 11:46 PM)
Thats outright Ignorant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition

Read that... Spanish Inquisition had little to nothing to do with Witches.
213795



My. Wikipedia didn't mention it, therefore I am not only wrong, but 'outright Ignorant'. That Wikipedia article isn't particularly long, nor is it particularly detailed. It renders approximately 400 years worth of history into a very small, bite-sized portion..

Oddly enough, I don't make spurious claims without a certain amount of historical background. As it happens, I studied this period of Spanish history in quite some depth, and I now specialise in Medieval literature, giving me, I think, a fair grasp of the medieval mindset.

The Spanish Inquisition was founded in the late fifteenth century on the back of precedents set during the Catharist heresies of southern France centered around the town of Albi (hence Albigensian). Contrary to older historical thought, the Spanish Inquisition has been proved to be a far less bloody and a far more sophisticated outfit than previously recorded. It's main purpose was a secular one (and indeed the inquisition reported directly to the Spanish King rather than to the Pope): the forced conversion of Moors and Jews (behaviour which the Catholic Church in fact objected to). Naturally enough, the Court's remit spread as time went on.. all cases of heresy and serious religious indiscipline were brought to it. Including allegations of witchcraft, which, do NOT belong solely to Massachusetts (why! who would have thought it). My point was, that amongst a country clinging to Medieval superstition, the inquisition practised a code of scepticisim that was far ahead of its time.
Narsrim2005-10-29 00:39:51
QUOTE(Aiakon @ Oct 28 2005, 01:00 PM)
you know.. the spanish inquisition was really rather enlightened.. just been smeared by protestant propaganda and the passage of time. They hardly executed anyone.. they had an extremely sceptical view of witch-claims and the like.. and I could go on and talk about this for quite a while but I can't be arsed.
213642



ohmy.gif

I advise you read anything related to the Spanish Inquisition and the treatment of Jews. While the witch-claims tend to steal the spot light, the treatment of Jews was horrid. The Spanish Inquisition also lead to a ban at that time between the marriage of a Jew and a "Christian" on that basis that it was destroy limpieza de sangre - the ideal purity of the Christian blood.

Corr2005-10-29 01:02:02
QUOTE(Aiakon @ Oct 29 2005, 12:25 AM)
Contrary to older historical thought, the Spanish Inquisition has been proved to be a far less bloody and a far more sophisticated outfit than previously recorded.
213825




I'm not sure what that means.

So they use to think that 2 million people got killed but in reality it was only 1.4 million? (exagerated numbers)

Or do you mean that burning people alive is not really a very bloody process?


edit: I once saw this overly dramatic BBC program where they suggested that Christopher set sail to avoid the inquisition and brought many moronos with him.


edit2: Anti Drug laws are made to prevent drug smuggling, however sometimes people get arreseted for smuggling illegal fruit with those laws. Would you then claim that the anti drug laws or to prevent the spread of fruit flies?

P.S. I think the fact that the Spanish Inquisition was mostly done for Secular purposes proves a point that some people were trying to make. In today's political climate however, I think an announced Athiest is more likely to make laws based on a person's religious believes than an announced Christain.
Murphy2005-10-29 02:10:13
how the hell is someone who is an aethist more likely to make laws based on someones religion than a chistian?

An aethiest seems more of a logical, need proof kind of person than a religion man who works more on a system of beliefs without that need of proof.

If anything an atheist is less likely to make laws based on religion as he doesn't believe in it.
Unknown2005-10-29 02:23:06
Laws based on religion are usually the ones I don't agree with, because they don't have a logical foundation - for example, laws concerning a particularly controversial subject made by a person of religion will in many cases appeal to a certain religious group - Jews, Evangelical Christians, Muslims, etc. On the other hand, laws made by an atheist are either completely grounded in logic, and don't appeal to very many people because they want things their way, as their religion wants it.

*shrug*

And the Spanish Inquisition was brutal towards Jews. I've only really learnt about that part of it in my Hebrew School on Sundays, but yeah. It wasn't really really damn "bloody", but it was certainly cruel and morally incorrect no matter how you look at it.
Saran2005-10-29 05:31:28
QUOTE(Etanru @ Oct 29 2005, 12:23 PM)
On the other hand, laws made by an atheist are either completely grounded in logic, and don't appeal to very many people because they want things their way, as their religion wants it.
213857



but the problem is that if those laws are made to cater to a specific religion then they... well are made to cater only to that religion. if a law was passed banning pre-marital *cough* the Christians and the various similar versions would be happy as it would support their beliefs but other groups who don't believe you should wait so long as it's an "act of love" would dislike the law and most likely break it.
Corr2005-10-29 07:21:50
There are three cases I know about where an Athiest has been the label given to the person who caused the change.

1. They had to remove all crosses from the seal on the Los Angeles city seal. (But not remove the goddess Athena) I've never seen the seal so I have no idea how prominent it was. However, this cost the city some 8 million dollars or so to change all the letter heads and buildings.

2. A war memorial/cemetary in San Diego has a large cross on the top of its mountain. The city of San Diego was preasssured into giving the memorial away to the fedral government because someone felt that such a large cross was an establishment of religion and the city had too many finaicial issues to take the case to court.

3. Something going on with the pledge of allegance or the words "in god we trust" on official U.S documents.

None of those things sound very logical or reasonable to me. It sounds to me more like a Jew asking to remove crosses and christmas trees and replacing them with menorahs.

Any important law or issue that is important would not really matter what religion the person was or if they were an athiest or not. So from what I have seen of proffessed athiests in politics is that they wish to remove any hint to other people's religions, even if they do not serve a specific religious function.
Aiakon2005-10-29 07:33:53
QUOTE(Narsrim @ Oct 29 2005, 01:39 AM)
ohmy.gif

I advise you read anything related to the Spanish Inquisition and the treatment of Jews. While the witch-claims tend to steal the spot light, the treatment of Jews was horrid. The Spanish Inquisition also lead to a ban at that time between the marriage of a Jew and a "Christian" on that basis that it was destroy limpieza de sangre - the ideal purity of the Christian blood.
213830




When you get round to it, there isn't a lot which isn't Horrid about the Medieval Era. Clearly I'm talking in relative terms here. My arguments about the inquisition do not hold water in comparison with a modern court, but they do in comparison with the other justice systems of the time. I don't say more than: "the inquisition practised a code of scepticisim that was far ahead of its time." I don't and couldn't justify it by modern standards.
Aiakon2005-10-29 07:41:43
QUOTE(Corr @ Oct 29 2005, 08:21 AM)
There are three cases I know about where an Athiest has been the label given to the person who caused the change.

1. They had to remove all crosses from the seal on the Los Angeles city seal.  (But not remove the goddess Athena)  I've never seen the seal so I have no idea how prominent it was. However, this cost the city some 8 million dollars or so to change all the letter heads and buildings.

2. A war memorial/cemetary  in San Diego has a large cross on the top of its mountain.  The city of San Diego was preasssured into giving the memorial away to the fedral government because someone felt that such a large cross was an establishment of religion and the city had too many finaicial issues to take the case to court.

3. Something going on with the pledge of allegance or the words "in god we trust" on official U.S documents.

None of those things sound very logical or reasonable to me. It sounds to me more like a Jew asking to remove crosses and christmas trees and replacing them with menorahs.

Any important law or issue that is important would not really matter what religion the person was or if they were an athiest or not.  So from what I have seen of proffessed athiests in politics is that they wish to remove any hint to other people's religions, even if they do not serve a specific religious function.
213987



Surely this is just standard political correctness rather than the acts of atheists attempting to erode the states' religious culture. We get much the same behaviour in England, and often it's people worried by the threat of litigation or government jobsworths (religion irrelevant) who make this sort of decision. It's not really an atheist/not-atheist point, it's more about people worrying that the other major faiths are going to be hypersensitive about the vestiges of Christianity which our once-Christian country still clings on to. It's the baggage brought in with the utterly applaudable work on race equality and integration.
Corr2005-10-29 07:57:22
I Just did a quick search to look into who brought the lawsuit about the cross in San Diego.

Its a man by the name of Philip Paulson who is part of the Athiest Coalition.

Apparently they have been against that cross and the war memorial for over 30 years. http://www.atheistcoalition.org/

The Issue of Los Angeles apprently is based off an issue with the city of Redlands(sp?) with the ACLU ... anyway this site proved interesting... Info is closer to the bottom and should be highlighted by google. http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:8X4ELs-...l+athiest&hl=en


So in the end, I'd say that 2/3 of the cases are because the person is an Athiest and one case is a matter of political correctness gone wrong.
Narsrim2005-10-29 08:50:52
I found this article to be quite interesting regarding the controversy of the "In God We Trust" motto and such:

QUOTE
wikipedia:

Today, the motto is a source of some heated contention. One side argues that a need for a "separation of church and state" requires that the motto be removed from all public use, including on coins and paper money. They argue that religious freedom includes the right to believe in the non-existence of God and that the gratuitous use of the motto infringes upon the religious rights of the unreligious. They argue that any endorsement of God by the government is unconstitutional. Many also argue that the motto, along with the addition of "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance, was made official simply because of US opposition to the atheistic Soviet Union, the main adversary of the United States at the time.

The other side of the argument states that the separation of church and state means that Congress shall not impose a state religion on the populace, and that the separation of church and state is a legislative invention not intended by the founding fathers (though there is reference to a "wall of separation between church and state" in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson). They argue that religious language is used in the founding documents, such as "Nature and Nature's God" in the Declaration of Independence; although opponents point out that the Declaration is simply a historical, rather than official, document of the US Government—moreover the emphasis on "Nature" indicates a naturalistic Deist, rather than Christian, philosophy. The Constitution lacks such references.

Likewise, the Treaty of Tripoli, ratified by the Senate and signed by John Adams, has become the subject of controversy because of this section:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion - as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquillity of Musselmen - and as the said states never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Interestingly, Theodore Roosevelt argued against the requirement of the motto on coinage, not because of a lack of faith in God, but because he thought it sacrilegious to put the name of the Deity on something so common as money. This argument is rarely used by either side today.

Whichever side of the argument is ultimately victorious will be determined at some point in the future, either by judicial decision, legislation or constitutional amendment; but at this point use of the motto on circulating coinage is required by law. Some activists have been known to cross out the motto on paper money as a form of protest. While several laws come into play, the act of May 18, 1908 is most often cited as requiring the motto (even though the cent and nickel were excluded from that law, and the nickel did not have the motto added until 1938). Since 1938, all coins have borne the motto. The use of the motto was permitted, but not required, by an 1873 law. The motto was added to paper money over a period from 1957 to 1966


Narsrim2005-10-29 09:01:35
With that said, I disagree with the notion that atheists are all out to act against religious people:

I think it easy to make this generalization because atheists are a minority and the racial few do stand out. The few who do stand out tend to do so with legal action or just being loud/proud.

However, the subtle network of christian influence in the government is nothing to shrug off. Afterall, who was a major influence is Bush's re-election? Evangelical Christians - and these people have mad political agendas.
Narsrim2005-10-29 09:01:35
glare.gif Double post.
Saran2005-10-29 15:12:10
http://www.paganawareness.net.au/casey.html

that has all these articles related to a single press release where some guy claimed that a network of satanists were attacking the council so they could get a piece of land for a place of worship.

alot of it is because of some law in victoria that lets people take legal action against people of other religeons (i'm too lazy to read all of it) so PAN wanted to know if they could take legal action because of this guy asking the victorian churches to pray against the forces of evil or somesuch stuff.

So some councilor who appears quite christian insults people by calling them devil-worshippers, they retailiate, big problem
Corr2005-10-29 16:59:03
I would make a clear distinction between someone who just happens to be an Athiest, and someone who announces that he is Athiest as part of his campaign.

I'm not sure if other people would or not.