StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Alyrium Denryle wrote:They dont lynch us yet, but that may very well happen soon.

That may very well be the funniest thing I've read all week.

Howedar wrote:

Alyrium Denryle wrote:They dont lynch us yet, but that may very well happen soon.

That may very well be the funniest thing I've read all week.

I agree with Howedar. Atheists may not be as well-accepted in America as they ought to be but I very much doubt they will be lynching us any time soon.

RedImperator wrote:Allyrium, you're a member of until a short time ago were TWO reviled minorities. Would you say it's more important for the happiness and well being of gays as individuals to have legal protection or public acceptance?

It is more important to have public acceptance. But until we have it, we need to be protected by the law. It isnt either or. You need one before you can have the other

Alyrium Denryle wrote:

RedImperator wrote:Allyrium, you're a member of until a short time ago were TWO reviled minorities. Would you say it's more important for the happiness and well being of gays as individuals to have legal protection or public acceptance?

It is more important to have public acceptance. But until we have it, we need to be protected by the law. It isnt either or. You need one before you can have the other

My point exactly. In my last long response to Durandal, I posted something like a dozen separate cases that enforce the establishment clause. We need to protect our legal gains and push for greater social acceptance, not antagonize everyone trying to strip "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance.

Durran Korr wrote:

Howedar wrote:

Alyrium Denryle wrote:They dont lynch us yet, but that may very well happen soon.

That may very well be the funniest thing I've read all week.

I agree with Howedar. Atheists may not be as well-accepted in America as they ought to be but I very much doubt they will be lynching us any time soon.

How do you know? We have already been imprisoned for our lack of beliefs. Hell in the 1880s an atheist speaker barely escaped with his life when a mob attacked his tent

Alyrium Denryle wrote:

Durran Korr wrote:

Howedar wrote:That may very well be the funniest thing I've read all week.

I agree with Howedar. Atheists may not be as well-accepted in America as they ought to be but I very much doubt they will be lynching us any time soon.

How do you know? We have already been imprisoned for our lack of beliefs. Hell in the 1880s an atheist speaker barely escaped with his life when a mob attacked his tent

You do realize that 1880 was over a hundred years ago, correct?

RedImperator wrote:

Alyrium Denryle wrote:

RedImperator wrote:Allyrium, you're a member of until a short time ago were TWO reviled minorities. Would you say it's more important for the happiness and well being of gays as individuals to have legal protection or public acceptance?

It is more important to have public acceptance. But until we have it, we need to be protected by the law. It isnt either or. You need one before you can have the other

My point exactly. In my last long response to Durandal, I posted something like a dozen separate cases that enforce the establishment clause. We need to protect our legal gains and push for greater social acceptance, not antagonize everyone trying to strip "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance.

I do agree that the timing for that was bad. But it doesnt mean it shouldnt have been done.

Howedar wrote:How asinine, for both sides. Does it really matter? Is this really worth spending, in all likelihood, hundreds of thousands of dollars on?

Would you say that if your child was being asked to say "One Nation Under Satan" every morning?

RedImperator wrote:My point exactly. In my last long response to Durandal, I posted something like a dozen separate cases that enforce the establishment clause. We need to protect our legal gains and push for greater social acceptance, not antagonize everyone trying to strip "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance.

We antagonize those people by simply existing.

Darth Wong wrote:

Howedar wrote:How asinine, for both sides. Does it really matter? Is this really worth spending, in all likelihood, hundreds of thousands of dollars on?

Would you say that if your child was being asked to say "One Nation Under Satan" every morning?

Absolutely.

Howedar wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:

Howedar wrote:How asinine, for both sides. Does it really matter? Is this really worth spending, in all likelihood, hundreds of thousands of dollars on?

Would you say that if your child was being asked to say "One Nation Under Satan" every morning?

Absolutely.

Then you're either bullshitting or in a very small minority. Millions of Americans would go absolutely apeshit in that case. How about making your kid swear allegiance to Hitler every morning? Would you still regard that as no big deal? After all, Hitler is not quite as evil as the Biblical God but he's getting there.

Darth Wong wrote:

RedImperator wrote:My point exactly. In my last long response to Durandal, I posted something like a dozen separate cases that enforce the establishment clause. We need to protect our legal gains and push for greater social acceptance, not antagonize everyone trying to strip "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance.

We antagonize those people by simply existing.

Lord Wong brings up a good point. Public opinion is already extremely low. They may not be murdering us yet, but do you remember the old saying about the frog ina pot of water. Sure they arent stringing us up the the nearest tree, but we shouldnt be second class citizens.

Also, it is up to us to make sure that this nation does not become a theocracy, because no one else cares. We are the only ones who wil EVER keep the wall between church and state standing in the current political climate. It is our duty to give no quarter no matter how much we piss people off, because as bad as it is now, it can get much much worse, and we cannot afford to let that happen

In other words, we can hardly sit on our laurels. The country is going BACKWARDS with regards to atheism, not forwards. The last 10 years have seen the passage of NEW laws restricting things like sexual freedom (eg- criminalization of sex toys in three US states), as well as multiple setbacks for science education (specifically with regard to curtailment and forcible alteration of evolution topics on the curricula).

Sitting down, shutting up, and trusting the Powers That Be to do the right thing is fucking stupid. If it's not a good time to resist, then what time are we waiting for? If not now, when? If not here, where?

Darth Wong wrote:

Howedar wrote:

Darth Wong wrote: Would you say that if your child was being asked to say "One Nation Under Satan" every morning?

Absolutely.

Then you're either bullshitting or in a very small minority. Millions of Americans would go absolutely apeshit in that case. How about making your kid swear allegiance to Hitler every morning? Would you still regard that as no big deal? After all, Hitler is not quite as evil as the Biblical God but he's getting there.

So your argument is that God is evil enough that alliegence should not be sworn to him? If the perception of the majority is that God is good, then what does it matter what the literal interpretation of the Bible says?

Seriously, what the fuck does it matter if the words "under God" are in the Pledge of Alliegence? Does it hurt your feelings? Do you feel oppressed? Do you feel like lashing out and kicking some fundie in the balls?


Could you guys be a little more reactionary? You're far too understanding for my taste.

Bush did just say recently that atheism does not equal immorality, so that's good. Not spectacular, but small moves are better than none at all.

Unfortunetly, in America, the conservatives are all socially conservative as well, and the liberals don't actually give a shit about the important social issues.

What do you mean by "socially conservative"?

Howedar wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:

Howedar wrote: Absolutely.

Then you're either bullshitting or in a very small minority. Millions of Americans would go absolutely apeshit in that case. How about making your kid swear allegiance to Hitler every morning? Would you still regard that as no big deal? After all, Hitler is not quite as evil as the Biblical God but he's getting there.

So your argument is that God is evil enough that alliegence should not be sworn to him? If the perception of the majority is that God is good, then what does it matter what the literal interpretation of the Bible says?

Seriously, what the fuck does it matter if the words "under God" are in the Pledge of Alliegence? Does it hurt your feelings? Do you feel oppressed? Do you feel like lashing out and kicking some fundie in the balls?


Could you guys be a little more reactionary? You're far too understanding for my taste.

I personally dont want to live in a theocracy. I do feel oppressed, If they can pull that kind of shit, it isnt going to be long before they start forcing me to pray to their god, before they teach my possibly future adopted kids creationism, and burn down bookstores that sell books about REAL science. Give me a fucking break

What do you mean by "socially conservative"?

Resisting change in social structure.

And I refer to the conservatives in power, not all the conservatives.

Then you're either bullshitting or in a very small minority. Millions of Americans would go absolutely apeshit in that case. How about making your kid swear allegiance to Hitler every morning? Would you still regard that as no big deal? After all, Hitler is not quite as evil as the Biblical God but he's getting there.

Still, in the mind of most Americans (and probably just about every Christian in the world), God is associated with goodness and forgiveness and all that bullshit, and Satan is associated with evil and wickedness. In reality, this is not the case (Satan is a swell dude compared to OT God), but pledging to God is quite different from pledging to Satan in that people believe they're pledging to a good, kind deity, not some evil asshole.

Alyrium Denryle wrote: I personally dont want to live in a theocracy. I do feel oppressed, If they can pull that kind of shit, it isnt going to be long before they start forcing me to pray to their god, before they teach my possibly future adopted kids creationism, and burn down bookstores that sell books about REAL science. Give me a fucking break

Damn, if I could make material that slippery, the Valvoline guys would be out of business.

Darth Wong wrote:We antagonize those people by simply existing.

So the best solution is to play right into every stereotype the fundies have dreamed up for us, go after something that's ultimately meaningless to us (an oath to a fictional character) but obviously strikes a very deep chord in moderate Christians and make a giant media production out of it, and drive the moderates into the arms of the fundamentalists?

Please, somebody tell me what the hell we gain if Nedrow wins. Fine, nobody says "under God" anymore. It's a victory for the separationist view of the establishment clause, which I'm all for. It kicks another support out from under the "this is a Christian nation" argument. SO WHAT. "This is a Christian nation" is a flawed argument anyway. The Supreme Court has affirmed the separationst view in practically every ruling on the matter since the 1940s. And "under God" is three lousy syllables about an imaginary man in the sky.

In the meantime, Nedrow's supporters are practically making my argument for me. "Athiesm is slipping backwards in this country". "It's not inconcievable that athiests could be killed for their beliefs". "The fundies are passing this law, the fundies are passing that law." Goddammit, all the fucking court rulings in the world won't address ANY of that in any meaningful way. There's never going to be a Supreme Court case that makes it illegal to hate athiests or forces everyone to realize the fundies are anti-democratic turds. You want this bullshit to stop, you have to convince the moderate theists that we're right (on our legal issues, not our beliefs) and the fundy stereotypes of athiesm, immoral, unpatriotic, unAmerican, are wrong, and Michael Nedrow leading the fucking charge against the fucking Pledge of Allegiance after September fucking eleventh is not the way to do that!

And you all had better hope that the Supreme Court rules in favor of Nedrow, or at worst overturns it on a technicality, because if the 9th gets overrulled, the separationist interpretation of the establishment clause is going to get fucking gutted, and that's going to be the biggest fucking disaster for secularists in the United States in the last 100 years.

Howedar wrote:

Alyrium Denryle wrote: I personally dont want to live in a theocracy. I do feel oppressed, If they can pull that kind of shit, it isnt going to be long before they start forcing me to pray to their god, before they teach my possibly future adopted kids creationism, and burn down bookstores that sell books about REAL science. Give me a fucking break

Damn, if I could make material that slippery, the Valvoline guys would be out of business.

I exadurated(sp) intentionally. Though, if they can get away with something that small, they MAY try to get away with bigger things. And you never know where that will land us. The problem with the pledge is that, if left unchallenged, or if we lose the case, it sets legal precident. That precident will open the door for all sorts of things.

And you all had better hope that the Supreme Court rules in favor of Nedrow, or at worst overturns it on a technicality, because if the 9th gets overrulled, the separationist interpretation of the establishment clause is going to get fucking gutted, and that's going to be the biggest fucking disaster for secularists in the United States in the last 100 years.

I agree with you on that point. The timing for this was terrible. It should have come at a later date wen we had more support. But it is to late now. Our "friend" has opened up the flood gates.

RedImperator wrote:So the best solution is to play right into every stereotype the fundies have dreamed up for us, go after something that's ultimately meaningless to us (an oath to a fictional character) but obviously strikes a very deep chord in moderate Christians and make a giant media production out of it, and drive the moderates into the arms of the fundamentalists?

Oh yes, because things were going SOOOO well before this happened, and we didn't want to rock that boat

Please, somebody tell me what the hell we gain if Nedrow wins.

The Wall of Separation is made very clear. An important precedent is set. If it holds with what most people regard as a frivolous case, then we can move on to issues of substance. Duh.

You say it will be a disaster for secularists if Newdow loses. It will be a disaster for religionists if Newdow wins. That's the nature of a conflict; somebody must lose. I don't see what advantage was to be gained by waiting, although I wish we could have chosen a better poster boy than Newdow. Hell, I'd probably be a better frontman for this thing than Newdow, and I'm not even an American