The Blasphemy Challenge
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7QVbJnSPQE
[youtube]i7QVbJnSPQE[/youtube]
Do you dare accept the Blasphemy Challenge? Show the world how sure you are that the Christian God doesn't exist! Find out more at http://www.blasphemychallenge.com
http://www.rationalresponders.com
Your thoughts?
bloody brilliant.
i've always thought that if satan/lucifer/the devil etc, was really the enemy of god, then he wouldnt be doing gods dirty work by punishing people. he would be letting people sin and do what ever they want.
so where would you rather do, make a few mistakes and sin on earth and go to a place where you will most likely be able to do what you want. or live a boring life on earth where you can't wipe your arse without asking for forgiveness, only to have an eternity in heaven where most likely, the rules will be a little stricter than down here.
i deny the existance of the holy spirit...and the holocaust.
Mine will be on Mon if I am up to it... "I deny the existence of the Easter Bunny, conservatives in the Republican Party, Santa, Zeus, Allah, Brahman, Kali, Amun-Re, Tiamat, Amateras, Medb, Quetzalcoatl, many more… and, of course, the holy spirit".
It will be my first, in person, YouTube.
I deny the existence of Australia. I believe people claiming to be Australians are just people who picked up a cool accent and decided to be anywhere but this mythical land called Australia.
This entire theory is based on the fact that I've never been to Australia but have met too many Australians for there to be anybody left on that continent.
Q.E.D.
(I met more Australians in the CR than I met Czechs.)
What can be GAINED from the denouncement?
To whom will it prove a point?
We aren't 100% sure one way or another, so why take the risk in the event it is true?
Corps...God... and Country.
You gain a free DVD.
Update for Mon... I think:
"I deny the existence of the Easter Bunny, Conservatives in the Republican Party,
Santa,
Zeus,
Allah,
Brahman,
Kali,
Amun-Re,
Liberals in the Democratic Party,
Tiamat,
Amateras,
Medb,
Kachinas,
Baal,
Wotan,
Ahura Mazdā,
Gaia,
Quetzalcoatl, many more…
&, of course, the father, son & the holy spirit".
What can be GAINED from the denouncement?
To whom will it prove a point?
Here.
We aren't 100% sure one way or another, so why take the risk in the event it is true?
see my post. hell will be fun
so why take the risk in the event it [I]is true?[/i]
I doubt "just in case" belief counts as actual faith.
Wasn't the idea of hell stolen by the Catholics from a play?
The orginal Jews didn't believe in hell (I don't know if they do now).
Exactly, they had a "place of darkness", sheoa(sp?) that was just to be removed from the sight of God... it was not permanent.
Well I like the budhist notion that we're already in hell and it can only get better from here. Of course, I deny the existance of budhists.
Did someone say something?
hell was invented so that satan represented the pagan god (a guy with horns) and the christians said this guy was evil and if you followed him you'd be damned for all eternity.
I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints. Sinners have much more fun.
Only the good die young.
Name the song and artist?
I thought satan was styled after
Pan?
I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints. Sinners have much more fun.
Only the good die young.
Name the song and artist?
Do I have to? Didn't I pay my debt to society by listening to that song 37 million times?
But it's true, Catholic girls rock!
Billy Joel? I heard it yesterday in the car and all my friends were singing it (very badly) so I am scarred.
haha...good work fellas!
It is a great song though. I love it.
I may have to record my rant about how Jehovah is suffering from a self-image problem of supergalactic proportions, what with needing people to praise Him constantly. I mean, here we are, building all those churches, being in fear of being smote by an irrationally angry deity, or worse, tortured like Job or forced to nearly sacrifice your own son just to prove you love Him. Does this seem like a well-adjusted personality to you?
Think about it...an omnipotent, mentally ill deity.
Scary, ain't it?
Why would a god need us to praise him? If he is real, he is better than us and shouldn't need our approval.
What can be GAINED from the denouncement?
To whom will it prove a point?
We aren't 100% sure one way or another, so why take the risk in the event it is true?
Corps...God... and Country.
You really want to know?
There are stories of fifteen year olds of getting kicked-out of their home when announcing their disbelief.
Being locked in their rooms and attempts at programing.
Shunning by the entire family.
Hate, rage, disgust, being told they will suffer and be tortured for eternity at the hands of their "loving god", while seeing replies of the same in the threads and YouTube comments.
These people feel, felt alone for years, many have felt alone and have said nothing until the challenge.
This gives them a voice among many, lets them know they are not alone, not the only one going through what they are dealing with.
It gives them a community, a support structure to deal witht he persecution that they deal with.
It is important and a good thing.
Plus, if you've committed an "unforgiveable" sin, maybe they won't try to convert you anymore!
You really want to know?
There are stories of fifteen year olds of getting kicked-out of their home when announcing their disbelief.
Being locked in their rooms and attempts at programing.
Don't forget being placed in mental hospitals. Selene used to do the same sort of work that Wolf does, namely, intake for a local private psych facility. A significant number of the teenage girls there were there, at least in part, because they had been reading about witchcraft.
Strangely, she never once met a teen who cited rampant Christianity as one of the reasons for their confinement...at least, not on the part of the patient.
Plus, if you've committed an "unforgiveable" sin, maybe they won't try to convert you anymore!
Yeah... good luck.:rolleyes:
Oh, try to find a sobriety program as an atheist. I have had to do this alone and it has NOT been easy.
What can be GAINED from the denouncement?
To whom will it prove a point?
We aren't 100% sure one way or another, so why take the risk in the event it is true?
Corps...God... and Country.
Even if this is the case you're taking the risk that your god isn't the real god. So, why wouldn't you practice all religions in order not to offend any of the possible gods out there?
As Stephen Roberts said:
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
Exaclty, no reason to belive in Yahweh over Zeus other than it is the frat of the moment.
Jesus died for somebody's sins...
But not mine.
Name THAT song&artist!
I guess it's the public part of it that throws me off. I agree one should practice any belief freely. God or no god.
I just don't see where a statement on the www could confirm and complete my spiritual preferences.
Spiritual has always been personal to me. After all, why should I give a fock who knows /agrees/disagrees with my belief. As long as I'm happy with it personally.
IMO there should be no promotion of religion....no evangelists..no missionaries, etc. If folks want to be christians, well, cool. And likewise with the atheist. It has become quite a commercial adventure to say the least.
Just some of my thoughts.
Interesting topic. :thumb:
First, they make no money off of this in any way... I don't see how you could get "commercial" out of it.
Again, the reason it is the way it is, is to form a community, a support system for people who normally feel quite alone. To show that they are not... it feels different on a day to day basis, I can tell you from first-hand experience.
This is simply the most efficient and a free way to do it... the least commercial, actually.
I agree with your scenario, the day religions stop trying to convert others we can have it.
If there were no missionaries or preachers etc, then no one would know about religion/s. Jesus told his followers to share the word of God, so they did. The same with all the other religions. It's a competitive market out there. Preaching began with the origin of religion so therefore forms an integral part of what religion is. If no one ever preached religion, we'd all be going to hell. ;) Or comming back again to get it right next time, or going to the dark place, or having a hot cocoa with the devil, or...or...or...
Jesus died for somebody's sins...
But not mine.
Nooooooooo.....not Billy Idol!!!!!!
(I really don't care but I wanted to make it dramatic)
Without googling I'm gonna say Kanye West.
If there were no missionaries or preachers etc, then no one would know about religion/s. Jesus told his followers to share the word of God, so they did. The same with all the other religions. It's a competitive market out there. Preaching began with the origin of religion so therefore forms an integral part of what religion is. If no one ever preached religion, we'd all be going to hell. ;) Or comming back again to get it right next time, or going to the dark place, or having a hot cocoa with the devil, or...or...or...
I think if there were no missionaries then everyone would have to figure out for themselves what they believe about religion. That'd be a lot better in my opinion than believing something for no other reason than because that's what your family has believed for x number of years.
Well if that were the case, I'd say that unless you had a personal visitation from said God or some miraculous event occured in your life, you'd never believe in any God would you, or me, or anyone? In fact, you wouldn't even have a concept of what a God is.
I'm not sure that's what I meant. If for some reason it's in human nature to need a religion and a set of doctrinal beliefs, they will manifest whether or not there's an organized religion. I think that's how it occurred orignally.
Also, religions such as Buddhism and Taoism are don't even have a god per se. People believe in those religions despite this and in the absence of miraculous events as well.
That's an interesting point ck, although I'd suggest that buddhism isn't really a religion in the strict sense of the word although it does require one to look inwards to find the truth. That being said, there are a lot of wackos in every religion. I've read a series of books by a buddhist monk, one of which he claims was 'written' by his cat.
We needed religion to explain the world, now we have science.
p.s. That in NO WAY implies that science is a religion
Ah you edited before my last post. I still think it'd be for the best. My first example wasn't for religion to not exist at all. It was in accord with the earlier poster's stance on missionaries. There would still be churches, mosques and temples in my community to research, but they wouldn't pressure me into a choice and I'd feel comfortable making that choice.
As far as Buddhism goes, dictionary.com defines:
re·li·gion
–noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
Buddhism fits this bill, in my opinion. Reincarnation, karma and nirvana follow this definition.
Reincarnation is not a dogma of Buddhism, it just exists in many areas where people believed in it before it was there. Karma is Hindu.
Nirvana is not dogma, just an idea. There is no dogma for the afterlife, some sects teach it, but they are, again, basing their beliefs on previous religions (Tibet- Bon).
Read the Suttas before you speak... Dictionaries also call atheism a religion, as do governments.
Buddhism has no set dogma other than the diagnosis of pain and the ending of suffering, everything else is up to the individual.
If you want to call that a religion, fine, so is medicine.
We do not need evangelism, that is what bookstores and Internet searches are for.
Forgive me. I'll go back to watching TV and being mediocre at life.
ck...move over. I'll bring the chips.
denouncing something requires that you believed it at one time. Rejecting something lends it substance. (equal and opposite reaction)
Getting together to renounce Christianity seems like an assbackwards way of teaching it. While i've often taken the stance that christians are all fucked up....this seems like the same shit from the opposite direction. why bother?
It is not that, I agree with you and there is a great video from Sam Harris on that topic.
One day, yes, no need for the word "atheist".
The day when young people are no longer healed hostage in their heads by fanatics who wish to force ideas upon them.
If you do this with some ideas you will be accused of abuse.
The day when they do not need the feeling that they are not alone when they are being persecuted by their friends and family and the net or a book is all they have to keep them from feeling like they are an island in the world that feels this way.
It will go when no teenager gets exorcised, committed, kicked-out of their home, no young person gets divorced for announcing their disbelief and have no idea who to talk to or how to begin to find them.
On the day when nowhere someone does not knock on your door and tell you something is wrong with you because you wish to be rational... that day is the day "atheist" will die and we will rejoice.
Plus, it is not an either-or scenario, no one went, "Gee, I sure like Jesus, but meeting him is a loooong way off... these guys will give me a nifty DVD now!! Aw heck! I'll do it! Maw, where's tha' camera?".
This is by atheists, for atheists, the religious don't enter into it.
[youtube]tiyJzWy3CDQ[/youtube]
[youtube]fPHnXrU5JzU[/youtube]
Those two women are fucking idiots.
"They are atheists, they believe in nothing."
Atheism is not nihilism.
"Christians are strong, Atheists are not strong"
How does religion have anything to do with strength?
& people wonder why some atheists have a chip? I am not one of them, but when I come across them I am never surprised.
A black (the other lady said it once too), female, journalist telling a minority in the US, repeatedly, that we need to "shut-up".
Where would she be if blacks, sufferjets and previous fighters for free speech and press just "shut-up"?
On the back of a bus, not voting being purchased for her next master while no one was writing about it, that's where.
Amazing how people cannot see themselves in others.
The freedom from religion and the freedom of religon is the same.
The closer the state gets to the church the more it will try to influence the church... how it is that the church only sees the influence going one way? Separation protects both.
Either way, it is part of why this nation was founded and should not be breeched under any circumstances.
She also talked how we keep on pushing. It is like someone shoved you against the wall and then started complaining when you push yourself from against the wall. There were so many stereotypes and hypocrisy in that video. I was seriously pissed off for a good 45 minutes after seeing that and I don't consider myself an atheist.
I wondered that when I watched it, "I wonder how agnostics and compassionate Christians are gonna' see this"?
disturbing. i was just checking my emails.
I will admit that I haven't read the posts in this thread but I did watch the video and a few posts after that. I, a non-Christian, feel that the stance of the people in the vid is very wrong. Ok--deny Jesus as a divine person---but DON'T deny God/Goddess, the Essence of the Universe. I, as the worst sinner, KNOW that the Spirit is there---I've felt it, I've tapped into it, I've had love from it---I still do have a continuous love from the Spirit of the Universe. To me, Jesus was the embodiment of the Spirit. He said that we could do what he had done----transcend time, place and situation. He is my role model if not my god. I would NEVER blaspheme Jesus or Buddah or any of the peacemakers. Those who do---hateful creatures who spread hate.
How is something stated for self alone spreading hate?
Illogical.
If it was for self alone it wouldn't be on the internet.
Very logical.
Not at all... a public announcement so one does not feel alone is for self. As stated before, try reading the previous posts.
If you believe and promote the idea that I am going to [COLOR=Red]suffer eternal torment and punishment[/COLOR]
it is not "spreading hate" for me to merely beg the question.
Well, I for one have never had the misfortune to be indoctrinated into Christianity. In fact, I'd say my beliefs are incredibly progressive. I don't believe that Dante's Hell or anything anywhere close to it has ever existed or will exist. I believe that the teachings of Christ (New Testament) advocate the BEST possible way to live life...With the exception of all the added goodies like TV and The Cellar of course.
I strive to look at the Bible and it's teachings from a philosophical perspective that depends not on the Historical-Chronological-Narrative (correct term for the commonly used word "literal". got chewed out for using literal to much one day heh.) idea that so often becomes the center point for heated debate.
Between all of the books of the New Testament Christ references to hell but 14 times. In these references he speaks of a hell on earth, caused by the greed and ambition of man. Though my peers and I still discuss hell from time to time it is a general consensus that it is not a physical hell but a separation from God.
Anyways. I just can't see how this is intended to spur anything but the violence and discrimination that the author condemns Christians of in the beginning of his film.
Don't forget being placed in mental hospitals.
Everybody's experience may vary, of course, but in nearly 15 years I have not had anyone try to admit their teenager for reading about or practicing witchcraft, or even had that mentioned in the course of the discussion about the need for admission. Of course, I'm not in or anywhere near the Bible Belt, so that could certainly account for some of the difference.
I would expect, however, based on my experience outside of the workplace that a lot of disturbed or distressed young folks, particularly the ones who have turned to either cutting or Gothiness as a way of finding an in-group, will also tend towards alternative religion as a means of self-expression and rebellion.
More importantly ... rzen, did you get a submission uploaded in time to qualify for the free video?
The freedom from religion and the freedom of religon is the same.
They are not.
It is one thing to advocate for the free exercise of religion. This, I think, is a fine thing, and one of the founding principles of this country, a basic right. You can choose your means of approach to faith and worship, or make the choice not to follow a faith-path, without a government mandate to do so. That's freedom of religion. That's IT. I, having the freedom of religion, will make choices different from yours.
I do not presume, however, to restrict your, or anyone else's public expression of your religion. I am not in any way harmed by the posting of the Ten Commandments on the courthouse wall, nor am I offended by a nativity in the public square. One person wears a cross, another a pentacle, yet another a crescent. So what?
They are not.
It is one thing to advocate for the free exercise of religion. This, I think, is a fine thing, and one of the founding principles of this country, a basic right. You can choose your means of approach to faith and worship, or make the choice not to follow a faith-path, without a government mandate to do so. That's freedom of religion. That's IT. I, having the freedom of religion, will make choices different from yours.
I do not presume, however, to restrict your, or anyone else's public expression of your religion. I am not in any way harmed by the posting of the Ten Commandments on the courthouse wall, nor am I offended by a nativity in the public square. One person wears a cross, another a pentacle, yet another a crescent. So what?
The separation of church and state is fundamental to this nation, it is a key reason for the founding of it and why we left Europe. Someone being tried who is not a Christian will feel quite oppressed staring at the ten commandments while being tried as it states, clearly, that it is a Christian court that they are in. Not acceptable in this nation and could not be farther from the truth.
I have not made my video yet, my health has been bad for the last few days. As soon as I am able, I will, DVD or not, Wolf.
Someone being tried who is not a Christian will feel quite oppressed staring at the ten commandments while being tried as it states, clearly, that it is a Christian court that they are in.
I disagree. Posting the Magna Carta wouldn't make it a British Court, posting the Ten Commandments does not make it a Christian Court. Both are documents showing the evolution of law, not laws under which the court functions.
It might be an indication they will follow established rules that have been accepted legal system and not making up shit as they go along, to suit their personal prejudices. :cool:
I'm not sure what you mean by that. The ten commandments have nothing to do with the US judicial system.
It seems to me like those videos say a lot.
This Blasphemy Challenge is not a community building or support exercise in particular. It appears to me to be a confrontational display of arrogance and superiority.
Why not apply this effort to a national campaign of tolerance and understanding? I think that many atheists would rather remain a persecuted and misunderstood minority.
My 2c.
--Joe
And by making every Christian value into law and expecting everyone to abide to you is not a display of arrogance and superiority?
Nawwww... and disowning your kids or telling them they are going to burn in hell/not be a good person if they don't BELIEVE isn't either.
Let's not be SILLY!
The ten commandments (or 15 if you believe Mel Brooks) are not Christian. They pre-date Jesus by a considerable span of time and are referenced in varying degrees by Christians, Jews and Muslims alike and so could not possibly offend any member of the big three religions.
I could argue that they couldn't offend any member of any non-big-three religion since the god speaking the commandments would simply be the god they worship.
I could also argue that they couldn't offend a member of a multithiestic religion since even Christianity has multiple versions of its god. And Christianity has obviously conjured up some tortured theological workaround to accommodate the "worship" of the virgin Mary thereby setting a precedent for a multi-deity bonanza.
I could further argue that the commandments couldn't even offend an atheist since only the first commandment deals with god himself. Since atheists do not believe in god they are not technically violating the first edict (the first commandment is actually a statement and two commandments) since they don't worship or idolize something in place of god. In addition, there is no law on the books referencing the first commandment nor does the first commandment instruct anyone, atheists or otherwise, to do anything they aren't already doing (either worshiping the god they think wrote the commandments or not worshiping some other god or idol in its place). So everyone is safe so far.
The second commandment requires upholding the Sabbath. Since no one really knows what the hell that means, I think its safe to say that no one should be intimidated or offended by that edict. Anyway, courthouses are closed on Sunday so the odds that anyone reading it at the courthouse might have occasion to wonder if the mere act of reading it violates it are zero. Offended party count: zero.
The third commandment (not using the Lord's name in vein), like the first and second is personal and whether or not one has violated it is difficult to determine and is well outside the court's jurisdiction. Atheists are incapable of violating the third commandment since the mere act of denouncing god implicitly requires them to acknowledge he exists. So any atheist who denounces god has inadvertently denounced his own atheism and is now a defacto non-atheist. Which faith he now belongs to is a matter of some debate. True atheists understand this and have no problem with commandment three.
Commandment 4, honor your parents, is just plain good advice. Anyone want to step up and claim it offends them? I didn't think so.
Commandments 5-8 prohibit murder, theft, perjury and adultery. Three of those are codified into law and one is a basis for civil action. So there is good reason to have those posted. Unless, of course, someone wants to make the argument that having laws that parallel the commandments, in fact, violates the mandatory separation of church and state and therefore, constitutes prima fascia grounds to have those laws stricken from the books. Anyone want to sign up for that? Anyone? Bueller?
The last two commandments prohibit envy. Anyone offended by that is probably themselves offensive.
I'll conclude by saying that I'm not trying to be condescending or arrogant or anything other than reasoned. I just fail to see what the BFP (big freaking problem) is with posting the commandments in a courthouse and scoff at the idea that they violate either someone's freedom of religion or someone's sense of entitlement to freedom from religion.
And for those who are just dead set against it, logic be damned, I'll leave you with this thought: if the judge even references them you can get the case against you dismissed so, ironically, they might even come to your defense someday. Imagine that: the ten commandments as a Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free card. Now that is offensive.
From what book are the courts getting these commandments, the exact wording, specifically?
Regardless of that, separation of church and state means any church.
From what book are the courts getting these commandments, the exact wording, specifically?
Regardless of that, separation of church and state means any church.
Separation of
church and state. Not separation of
religion and state. The whole idea of this was a rebellion against the Church of England. I think its a bit of a stretch to allege that a copy of the non-church specific ten commandments on public property is as egregious as a state-sponsored church. Unless you are making the "slippery slope" argument in which case I'll point out that two tablets in the courthouse lobby over a 250 year period isn't exactly a greased pig on a waterslide.
Separation of church and state. Not separation of religion and state
Nothing further, your honor.
I could argue that they couldn't offend any member of any non-big-three religion since the god speaking the commandments would simply be the god they worship.
No it wouldn't. The Ten Commandments are explicitly associated with Jehovah. And commandments one, two, and three are explicitly religious, and Abrahamaic, in nature, whether or not you know "what the hell that means."
And for those who are just dead set against it, logic be damned,
You certainly did damn up some logic.
And by making every Christian value into law and expecting everyone to abide to you is not a display of arrogance and superiority?
Nawwww... and disowning your kids or telling them they are going to burn in hell/not be a good person if they don't BELIEVE isn't either.
Let's not be SILLY!
In fact, I'm not being silly.
You would imply with your posts that I said Christians do not display arrogance or superiority, when it is clear that I said nothing of the sort. My focus was clearly on the actions, options, and opportunities of atheists.
My point is this. rkzenrage, you defended this Project Blasphemy as a necessary community building and support exercise. However, the means are directly confrontational and offensive.
My question was, why not support a community building exercise that involves education of the public? Use the effort to cast atheists as thoughtful, considerate, and socially responsible equals instead of provocative ne'er-do-wells who give away prizes for blaspheming that which the majority hold so dear.
I suggest that many atheists do not wish to be treated as equal, because such treatment would remove their license to feel superior over others.
PS: I'm not going to defend words that someone else put in my mouth.
--Joe
There is nothing confrontational by just stating your belief or lack thereof.
Theists choose to take it personally, though it is not about them, at all. We care not about that, don't acknowledge it, and have no reason to.
I put no words in your mouth.
There's denotation, and then there's connotation. If you honestly don't believe that this is confrontational, I won't challenge your assessment.
To me, however, it is clear that Brian Flemming is erring on the side of arrogance. Look at the title, "The Blasphemy Challenge". I think we can agree that blasphemy is a connotatively negative word. Challenge is at once a celebration of skill and an invitation. Why choose an offensive word to revel in, when there are plenty of denotative synonyms? Why not the "Atheist Affirmation Project" or something similar? Why must you specifically flaunt scripture in order to 'rise to the challenge' and 'win a fabulous prize'.
If this is purely about supporting a community, shouldn't you just be able to say, "I've been an atheist since I was 13," or, "I don't feel like I can tell anyone else, but I've never really felt the need to believe in God." Instead you must deny the existence of God, often by relegating him to the class of non-existent entities which defined your childhood.
rkzenrage, you did not put words in my mouth. You responded to words that had been put in my mouth. (;
--Joe
There's a cloyingly sweet little tale that's almost universal... in response to a child asking, if there's Mother's Day and Father's Day, why isn't there a Children's Day? And the parent replies, Every day is Children's Day.
Well I'm here to tell you: Every Day is Christian's Day.
You may not have been aware of this.
Y'see, when Linus goes into the speech about the Real Meaning of Christmas, non-Christians don't say anything.
When someone at a dinner says
first let us bow our heads and say grace, almost all of us politely bow our heads and pretend to pray. We may even say Amen.
For two years, I worked for an employer that put "Reverence for God and all His Works" into their Official Company List of Values. I just shut up, did a good job and collected my paycheck.
So now you find the name of this thing to be a little in-your-face? How DARE people actively proclaim that they don't agree with you!
Well you poor thing! How hard it must be for you! Let me call you the WAAAAAHBULANCE!!!
I guess I should consider myself 'pwned' by your invocation of the 'WAAAAAHBULANCE!!!'
I think you misunderstand my argument.
I am not attempting to suggest an 'equivalent' response to Christianity. I am not attempting to circumscribe the 'rights' of atheists. My argument does not depend upon the actions of Christians, and hence your objections are invalid.
You see arrogance? I do not think that arrogance should be met with arrogance. I think that this is true in general, and I think that it is particularly true in the case of this 'atheist PR crisis.' My personal feelings aside, I'm trying to suggest a prudent, responsible and effective course for atheists.
So now you find the name of this thing to be a little in-your-face? How DARE people actively proclaim that they don't agree with you!
I don't remember establishing that they disagree with me.
--Joe
Edit: Image removed from quote.
Welcome, KGZ. You've come to the right place.
The ten commandments (or 15 if you believe Mel Brooks) are not Christian. They pre-date Jesus by a considerable span of time and are referenced in varying degrees by Christians, Jews and Muslims alike and so could not possibly offend any member of the big three religions.
Loved your analysis. Nice work, buddy.
You would imply with your posts that I said Christians do not display arrogance or superiority, when it is clear that I said nothing of the sort. My focus was clearly on the actions, options, and opportunities of atheists.
And I am showing the other side. Yes, some atheists will show arrogance but every religion does that so don't pick out atheists when everyone is doing it.
I suggest that many atheists do not wish to be treated as equal, because such treatment would remove their license to feel superior over others.
This is horrible logic. Every religion has people that feel superior to others. Every religion would be doing the same thing atheists are doing right now, so that is human nature. Don't accuse atheists of doing something that
everyone does.
I am not attempting to suggest an 'equivalent' response to Christianity. I am not attempting to circumscribe the 'rights' of atheists. My argument does not depend upon the actions of Christians, and hence your objections are invalid.
Are you saying that atheists should be respectful of all religions when all others have free reign. You are making a double standard for Christians and you can't do that. You can't just point out atheist's mistakes and ignore Christians.
How can you deny the holy spirit without being confrontational? They are saying that they do not believe in the holy spirit. You do not have to watch it and you have to respect other people's views.
Are you saying that atheists should be respectful of all religions when all others have free reign. You are making a double standard for Christians and you can't do that. You can't just point out atheist's mistakes and ignore Christians.
How can you deny the holy spirit without being confrontational? They are saying that they do not believe in the holy spirit. You do not have to watch it and you have to respect other people's views.
piercehawkeye,
It's preposterous to suggest that I've created a double standard. Where have a I set a standard for Christians or any other group?
Why am I discussing atheists in general and The Blasphemy Project specifically? That's the topic of this thread. Furthermore, the righteous do not act in kind to their antagonists; they act righteously.
What would be a non-confrontational way to proclaim yourself an atheist? I answered this above:
If this is purely about supporting a community, shouldn't you just be able to say, "I've been an atheist since I was 13," or, "I don't feel like I can tell anyone else, but I've never really felt the need to believe in God."
An intentionally confrontational method to encourage others to deny God would be producing a video which begins by establishing the profound importance of proper Christianity, and then ridiculing that proposition by encouraging people to damn themselves eternally in exchange for a video.
--Joe
Who said it was about building a community? It's all about making a point. The video is irrelevant. There are over 2000 responses now -- withonly the first 1000 getting a video -- so further video-making won't earn anyone a video.
Again, the reason it is the way it is, is to form a community, a support system for people who normally feel quite alone. To show that they are not... it feels different on a day to day basis, I can tell you from first-hand experience.
In Soviet Russia, the posts search for YOU!
Ah thanks. Well, I disagree with rk. It's all about making a point.
There's a cloyingly sweet little tale that's almost universal... in response to a child asking, if there's Mother's Day and Father's Day, why isn't there a Children's Day? And the parent replies, Every day is Children's Day.
Well I'm here to tell you: Every Day is Christian's Day.
You may not have been aware of this.
Y'see, when Linus goes into the speech about the Real Meaning of Christmas, non-Christians don't say anything.
When someone at a dinner says first let us bow our heads and say grace, almost all of us politely bow our heads and pretend to pray. We may even say Amen.
For two years, I worked for an employer that put "Reverence for God and all His Works" into their Official Company List of Values. I just shut up, did a good job and collected my paycheck.
I'm very faith-friendly. Mostly because the people who raised me, and to whom I owe a huge debt of gratitude, still practise their faith.
But this post is outstanding for me in its candour, its clarity and in stating the facts exactly as I live them. And courtesy. Until the ambulance - but that
was funny.
Thanks UT - this message is now filed away.
Undertoad,
If you want to make a point, I won't challenge you. The Blasphemy Challenge is the appropriate medium. (;
just because i hate it when my posts land
at the bottom of a page, and then someone posts right after....and i think no one saw what i posted.....and i am seeing a new guy make more sense than anyone else ( KGZ) ...i want to reiterate:
There is no Blashpemy if you are truly atheistic. It's just pissing on the Christians. The same thing we (as atheists or agnostics) resent them for. So how is this helping? Are you hoping to convert people to your lack of a church? Are you truly being altruisticly motivated to 'rescue them' from brainwashing?
If they want to believe in Christianity, or Hinduism, or Islam, or whatevvvvver....fuck 'em. leave them to it. just require that they pay you the same respect. You don't have to get all up in their face and act out like some kind of rebelious teenager. You're not going to change their minds.
So why do I always argue with mrnoodle? cuz i like to. And if you like making videos that so daringly damn your everliving soul.....for the rush? don't claim to be atheistic, cuz yer not!
It's preposterous to suggest that I've created a double standard. Where have a I set a standard for Christians or any other group?
You have done it by not setting a standard.
Yes, this video can be confrontational and I won't avoid that fact, but it does have some justification. Christians have forced their religion onto everyone and this is just atheists pushing back. I would like to see an atheist go onto national television and briefly explain what atheism is and get rid of the stereotypes but that won't happen because that person would never get aired. It would be like trying to set up a sit in protest when you can't even get into the restaurant.
It sounds like we've found an area of agreement. (;
Since I apparently was not entirely clear, I did not discuss the actions of Christians for the purpose of focus. Atheists should be righteous, Christians should be righteous, everyone should be righteous. And in a world where any group is not, I understand that this rather challenges the options of the opposition.
--Joe
What can be GAINED from the denouncement?
To whom will it prove a point?
We aren't 100% sure one way or another, so why take the risk in the event it is true?
Corps...God... and Country.
1. Others will be emboldened, encouraged, and liberated.
2. Some ARE 100% sure!
3. Freedom baby!
You have done it by not setting a standard.
Yes, this video can be confrontational and I won't avoid that fact, but it does have some justification. Christians have forced their religion onto everyone and this is just atheists pushing back. I would like to see an atheist go onto national television and briefly explain what atheism is and get rid of the stereotypes but that won't happen because that person would never get aired. It would be like trying to set up a sit in protest when you can't even get into the restaurant.
Exactly, just like you will never hear on television that there are nineteen states where it is illegal to hold office as an atheist.
Jim, did you even read the previous posts or is that a tail-post?
I read the whole thread, hammer. did you not understand my point?
No I did not and that is why I asked if you read the thread is because I, and others, stated multiple times that this was not about xians in any way, not for them and has nothing to do with them.
That they do not like the language or anything else to do with the challenge is irrelevant.
It is not for them.
really?
Do you dare accept the Blasphemy Challenge? Show the world how sure you are that the [COLOR=red]Christian God doesn't exist[/COLOR]! Find out more at http://www.blasphemychallenge.com
http://www.rationalresponders.com
anyway, my point was that blasphemy is only blasphemy if you actually do believe.
anyway, my point was that blasphemy is only blasphemy if you actually do believe.
It is accepted as a society that God does exists so it would be blasphemy on sociological sense and not personal which is the point of the video.
so, then it's just being shitty. ok. have fun with it.
Exactly, but the egocentric are going to always see the world filtered through themselves and cannot see it any way else.
"This is about me because I choose for it to be. I choose to be offended, so it is offensive".
I don't understand why people have to say nasty things about religion. What harm has religion ever done? (Can we keep politics out of it, and not mention Iraq, or Isreal, or the whole Middle East for that matter?)
Politics frequently is religion, and vice versa. But I'm sure you know that. :eyebrow:
I don't understand why people have to say nasty things about religion. What harm has religion ever done? (Can we keep politics out of it, and not mention Iraq, or Isreal, or the whole Middle East for that matter?)
Ask homosexuals or any other minority what religion has done.
I don't mind religion at its base, just when people start forcing their religion on other people is when I start getting annoyed of it.
Suppressing science and knowledge, casting the world into a dark age... hmmm, who was that again?
Suppressing science and knowledge, casting the world into a dark age... hmmm, who was that again?
You?
hmmm, who was that again?
Take it easy. I don't think he was expecting an inquisition.
I don't understand why people have to say nasty things about religion. What harm has religion ever done? (Can we keep politics out of it, and not mention Iraq, or Isreal, or the whole Middle East for that matter?)
Oh, and I forgot to mention Bosnia. And Sudan. And Spain. And the British Isles... and North, Central and South America. And the Near East and Far East.
Ok, you've convinced me - I deny the Holy Spirit.
... I deny the Holy Spirit.
[SIZE="4"][FONT="Palatino Linotype"]Smites Thee[/FONT][/SIZE][SIZE="4"][FONT="Palatino Linotype"]Smites Thee[/FONT][/SIZE]
Dammit, you beat me to it.
I call the next one.
Take it easy. I don't think he was expecting an inquisition.
Oh, come ON people. Was it too easy? I set that up beautifully. Spike the ball!
It even answers his question.
yup, too easy.....i thought the joke had been made as it was.
I don't understand why people have to say nasty things about religion. What harm has religion ever done? (Can we keep politics out of it, and not mention Iraq, or Isreal, or the whole Middle East for that matter?)
This is a joke right? I'm a little dense.:redface:
This is a joke right? I'm a little dense.:redface:
Yes. I'm sorry - I meant to say: religion equals +-(:-) and :behead: and :apistola: and :skull: and :reaper: and :dead: and :scream: and :fsm: , except that my finger slipped.
Damn, the time I decide not to ask if it is a joke or not it is a joke....just my luck.
Take it easy. I don't think he was expecting an inquisition.
The Inquisition (Let's begin)
The Inquisition (Look out sin)
We have a mission to convert the Jews (Jew, Jew, Jew, Jew, Jew, Jew, Jew)
We're gonna teach them wrong from right.
We're gonna help them see the light
and make an offer that they can't refuse. (That those Jews just can't refuse)
Confess, don't be boring.
Say yes, don't be dull.
A fact you're ignoring:
It's better to lose your skull cap than your skull (or your govalt!)
The Inquisition (what a show)
The Inquistion (here we go)
We know you're wishin' that we'd go away.
But the Inquisition's here and it's here to stay!
"I was sitting in a temple. I was minding my own business.
I was listening to a lovely Hebrew mass.
Then these Papus persons plungered and they throw me in a dungeon and they shove a red hot poker up my ass.
Is that considerate? Is that polite?
And not a tube of Preperation H in sight!"
"I'm sittin' flickin' chickens and I'm lookin' throught the pickins' and suddenly thes goyim pull down valls.
I didn't even know them and they grabbed my by the stoghum and started playing ping pong with my balls!
Ooh, the agony! Ooh, the shame!
To make my privates public for a game?"
The Inquisition (what a show)
The Inquisition (here we go)
We know you're wishin' that we'd go away.
But the Inquisition's here and it's here to-
"Hey Toquemada, walk this way."
"I just got back from the Auto-de-fe."
"Auto-de-fe? What's an Auto-de-fe?"
"It's what you oughtn't to do but you do anyway."
Will you convert? "No, no, no, no."
Will you confess? "No, no, no, no."
Will you revert? "No, no, no, no."
Will you say yes? "No, no, no, no!"
Now I asked in a nice way, I said, "Pretty please."
I bent their ears, now I'll work on their knees!
"Hey Toquemada, walk this way. We got a little game that you might wanna play, so pull that handle, try you're luck."
"Who knows, Toq, you might win a buck!"
"How we doin', any converts today?"
"Not a one, nay, nay, nay."
"We flattened their fingers, we branded their buns!
Nothing is working! Send in the nuns!"
The Inquisition, what a show.
The Inquisition, here we go.
We know you're wishin' that we'd go away!
So all you Muslims and you Jews
We got big news for all of yous:
You'd better change your point of views TODAY!
'Cause the Inquisition's here and it's here to stay!
[EMAIL="initiative_omega@yahoo.com"][FONT="Arial Black"]initiative_omega@yahoo.com[/FONT][/EMAIL]"The time has come," Jesus said. "The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!"
"Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near."
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. 19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.
"Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near."
We've been having a run on religious nutters at work, too.
I do not presume, however, to restrict your, or anyone else's public expression of your religion. I am not in any way harmed by the posting of the Ten Commandments on the courthouse wall, nor am I offended by a nativity in the public square. One person wears a cross, another a pentacle, yet another a crescent. So what?
I agree in principle. Now, go down to the courthouse and try to erect a big pentacle with the Charge of the Goddess or the Rede on it. Let me know how that works out for you. :D
The question isn't freedom of religion, or even freedom *from* religion. The question is equal access to all religions or absences thereof.
Yes. I'm sorry - I meant to say: religion equals +-(:-) and :behead: and :apistola: and :skull: and :reaper: and :dead: and :scream: and :fsm: , except that my finger slipped.
Did anyone get that this: +-(:-) was supposed to be a pope? I couldn't find a pope smiley. This is the closest that I could find: :biggrindu:
Y'all need to pardon me. I ignore almost 100% of religious combat threads. I checked out this one because of UT's Hall of Fame nomination. I haven't read 90% of the posts.
I do not presume, however, to restrict your, or anyone else's public expression of your religion. I am not in any way harmed by the posting of the Ten Commandments on the courthouse wall, nor am I offended by a nativity in the public square.
Fair enough... does it bother you when such displays are funded with [your] tax dollars?
There's a cloyingly sweet little tale that's almost universal... in response to a child asking, if there's Mother's Day and Father's Day, why isn't there a Children's Day? And the parent replies, Every day is Children's Day.
Well, UT, you should have been in the car when my daughter asked this one. I guess I'm not a good parent, because I didn't say "every day." Instead, I asked her what kind of holiday Children's Day was. She explained to me how all children over the age of 7 would be pampered and showered with every imaginable gift and reward. She also spent a considerable amount of time detailing the torments and suffering that Children's Day would bring to those persons under the age of 4. (They are, presumably, not considered actual "children." I'm sure I don't need to tell you how old the kids were at the time. I'm afraid she still hasn't forgiven the boy for being born and, Copernicus-like, removing her from the center of the universe.)
I agree in principle. Now, go down to the courthouse and try to erect a big pentacle with the Charge of the Goddess or the Rede on it. Let me know how that works out for you. :D
The question isn't freedom of religion, or even freedom *from* religion. The question is equal access to all religions or absences thereof.
I would prefer an alter of Kali & willing sacrifice as is my right under the first amendment as religious conservatives interpret it.
I denounce this goddam thread and the hayseus it rode in on. Just jokin', folks ... roll widdit.
When are you planning on making your video rkzenrage?
As soon as I am well enough to set up my office and equipment. This has not been a good month.
Just got done with another set of tests for a new Dr.
BTW, Google/YT banned their acct and removed all their videos from the channel.
They were smart and the BC is on a separate channel and still on YouTube. I really need to make mine. I have a pride problem and need to get over it.
An issue with people who do not know me seeing me for the first time when I am in a lot of pain and this has been a rough month.
Perhaps tonight or tomorrow. I need my wife or someone to help me set-up. I cannot get to everything alone.
Being like this sucks... especially when reminded that some think that I don't even deserve to live. Been a while since I have heard that one. It never gets old.
rkzenrage,
Though we have differing inclinations, we have come into this world to work together. It's unfortunate that others have forgotten righteousness in dealing with you. I wish you well.
--Joe
Thanks. I have overreacted to a common political statement that I tend to take personally. I'm getting over it.
I do appreciate your sentiment Joe, it was well timed, meant and needed.
I'm not usually this sensitive... this has been a long week.
This was weird for me, in quite a bit of pain and my first upload.
It is a little known fact that most actors are actually quite shy and I have a real issue with being seen while in pain. I have been promising myself that I would do this for some time.
I know I said Ra twice, screw it... one take.
[youtube]tDadFIBN0Ro[/youtube]
I also posted some introduction videos.
Good job.
It had a lot of emotion to it.
Did anyone get that this: +-(:-) was supposed to be a pope? I couldn't find a pope smiley. This is the closest that I could find: :biggrindu:
They look about the same to me. One uses black magic, the other uses white magic. :D
I know I said Ra twice, screw it... one take.
Bravo :notworthy
Jesus died for somebody's sins...
But not mine.
Name THAT song&artist!
OMG, people, it's Patti Smith, "Gloria"!
Honestly, the fact that nobody got that is the most offensive thing in this thread. At least in the top five most important rock albums of all time.
For the record, I do think we need more people out there saying "hey, I don't believe in God." But I'd rather have it be "Hey, I'm a good person, I love my parents and work hard and give to charity... and I just happen to not believe in God" than "Hey, I'm an atheist and I think religion is stupid! Watch my video about it!"
It is wrong and stupid that there is such a stigma against atheism, and it isn't fair that the atheists are the ones who have to do the work to change it, but honestly, nobody else is.
(for the record I'm an agnostic)
I thought I did say that I work to be a good person and I'm an atheist.
In hindsight, I should have said "I try to be the best person I can" instead of what I did say... it is what I meant.
Grrr.....I really am rubbish. I should have fixed my blasted computer long ago. Am still farting about on the Council laptop so cannot use youtube yet.
I just never have enough free time to dedicate any of it to formatting the harddrive and reinstalling windows et al.
I thought I did say that I work to be a good person and I'm an atheist.
In hindsight, I should have said "I try to be the best person I can" instead of what I did say... it is what I meant.
I wasn't addressing you, I was addressing the whole "Blasphemy Challenge" idea. I really can't see it doing a lot of good for atheism in general.
Knowing there are others out there that feel the same way you do is huge.
Again, it is not for the religious.
Knowing there are others out there that feel the same way you do is huge.
Again, it is not for the religious.
True. I seriously don't know many other people that share the same religious views as me.
Knowing there are others out there that feel the same way you do is huge.
Again, it is not for the religious.
I know that -- I just don't like the snarky tone of the whole thing.
I personally am tired of people assuming that those who don't believe in God have no moral compass, and wish that more people who choose to be public about not believing would do so in a way that would create more goodwill.
Lately I'm realizing that for me, a kid who grew up on the internet, the standard online discussion tone of "I'm smarter than you because I don't care about your feelings" just doesn't impress me anymore. I would rather see prizes given for carefully considered arguments rather than for making the most offensive statement possible.
And as I said, I'm more offended by no-one knowing "Gloria" than anything else. :p
Tone?
I agree with Marilyn Manson, "if more people raised their kids with the teaching of Christ, in their homes, with no Church involvement, this would be a better world".
A true statement, but, for me, only a slight improvement and an unnecessary one. Mysticism and the supernatural are not needed and get in the way of science and reality and I feel children and the world would be far better off without it all together. But, it would be a VAST improvement on the insanity visited on us by organized religion, to be sure.
One of my favorite songs... what drives me nuts is that most kids today think it's a U2 song.
Sounds like some here are ultra-defensive about their atheist beliefs. Why do you feel the need to brandish them in such a manner?
Tone?
I agree with Marilyn Manson, "if more people raised their kids with the teaching of Christ, in their homes, with no Church involvement, this would be a better world".
A true statement, but, for me, only a slight improvement and an unnecessary one. Mysticism and the supernatural are not needed and get in the way of science and reality and I feel children and the world would be far better off without it all together. But, it would be a VAST improvement on the insanity visited on us by organized religion, to be sure.
One of my favorite songs... what drives me nuts is that most kids today think it's a U2 song.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one -- apparently my experience is very different from yours.
By "tone" I mean the whole faux-provocateur, piss-folks-off-on-YouTube deal. Not you specifically.
I can't figure out what you are reading in my posts.
It is not for the religous... so no one is to be pissed-off. There is nothing in my video to piss off an atheist.
Sounds like some here are ultra-defensive about their atheist beliefs. Why do you feel the need to brandish them in such a manner?
I am upset about the separation of church and state's degradation in this nation, our children being at risk of being held back on the world stage of science because mental Neanderthals want to teach them pagan superstitions in school instead of actual science, because I must use money with god on it to live, because it is accepted for people to flaunt their religion but when I complain about blue laws and laws making it illegal for people of my beliefs to hold public office I am called names like whiner and extremest, our news stations pander to the metaphysical during the "holidays" with stories about things that have no bearing on the actual realities of this nation and world, our government is now using tax dollars to support religious causes in defiance of the founding notions of this nation and when speaking about it people seem to think it is not an issue worth discussing or doing anything about, the list is long and each is valid.
However... and AGAIN, which so many seem UNABLE to read... this is not for the theists, it is for other atheists alone. For us to feel and connect to our community.
IT IS NOT FOR ANYONE ELSE.
Why are you unable to read this?
I can't figure out what you are reading in my posts.
It is not for the religous... so no one is to be pissed-off. There is nothing in my video to piss off an atheist.
If it is on youtube, it isn't private. Do you think that there aren't religious groups searching for terms like "athiest" on YouTube?
And I keep saying that I'm not talking about you and your video, I'm talking about the contest in general. Maybe I'm missing the point, but to me the word "blasphemy" refers to behavior designed to offend or shock others. Like on DailyKos it would be blasphemy to say that Bush is an excellent president, or on Fark it would be blasphemy to say "I don't like boobies." :D
So what... who cares if the religious don't like what we call it or how we say what we say? Fuck-em.
Good night, get it... it is not for them.
Sounds like some here are ultra-defensive about their atheist beliefs. Why do you feel the need to brandish them in such a manner?
Defensive isn't the right word. Perhaps
ornery or uppity. Or unapologetic.
So what... who cares if the religious don't like what we call it or how we say what we say? Fuck-em.
Good night, get it... it is not for them.
I really don't understand your use of both bold and italics. Do they mean different things?
And I don't understand this preoccupation with who something is "for." When you post something on the internet, it is for the internet. It's like posting something bitchy about a friend and then being surprised when they find it and get mad.
As I said, I'm not religious. But I am annoyed by the constant attempts on the part of non-religious people to perpetuate every annoying stereotype that the mainstream has about us. I'm tired of every political/ideological group I belong to being misrepresented by shrill extremists.
I'm tired of every political/ideological group I belong to being misrepresented by shrill extremists.
sounds like you need to speak up for the moderates in your group. Appoint yourself as a representative.
As I said, I'm not religious.
Oh, okay.
But I am annoyed by the constant attempts on the part of non-religious people to perpetuate every annoying stereotype that the mainstream has about us.
Wait, who is "us"
???I'm curious about your thoughts on groups run by theists like the Americans United that are as extreme about the separation of church and state?
I don't care if it upsets people, actually it confuses me.
These comments are ironic and amusing, in the community I am thought of as a moderate.
I have to say....amongst most people I know rkzenrage would not be considered shrill or extreme. I spent two years working in a field that for some reason attracted quite a few happy-clappers but in truth most people I encounter day to day are pretty irreligious, if not outright atheist. Though, I did meet an ex-mormon yesterday who still believes in God.....don't find many of them in Yorkshire.
When i was in my teens in Bolton, most of my friends were atheist and aggressively so. This stuff here? It's pretty soft cell really.
However... and AGAIN, which so many seem UNABLE to read... this is not for the theists, it is for other atheists alone. For us to feel and connect to our community.
IT IS NOT FOR ANYONE ELSE.
Why are you unable to read this?
Then you have nothing to say to theists?
Yup, and I do and will. That has nothing to do with this.
Defensive isn't the right word. Perhaps ornery or uppity. Or unapologetic.
No reason for atheists to apologize, I see we agree on that. But the rest comes off as insecurity. When you see straight and others don't, use it to your advantage. Don't waste resources trying to convert the masses. Market forces are at work here.
sounds like you need to speak up for the moderates in your group. Appoint yourself as a representative.
I discuss this in some of my videos.
But the rest comes off as insecurity
I am only going off what I read or see on tv....but if I was an atheist in America, I would feel insecure.
I can't imagine what we have to worry about:
An Army of Christian Right Lawyers Is Waging War on the Constitution
By Sarah Posner, The Washington Spectator. Posted April 6, 2007.
A look at the Christian Right's legal muscle leading the fight to end the separation of church and state. Tools
EMAIL
PRINT
63 COMMENTS
Share and save this story:
Also in Rights and Liberties
Leave Your Morals at the Border
Robert Scheer
Will Latinos Continue Moving Democratic?
Roberto Lovato
Pink Pistols: Gay Gun Rights Group Is Ready to Fire
Sarah Klein
For Gay Americans, There's Strength in Numbers
Deb Price
New York City Is Hell for Pot Smokers
Paul Armentano
More stories by Sarah Posner
Rights and Liberties RSS Feed
Main AlterNet RSS Feed
Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!
Advertisement
On a dismal, rainy afternoon, over tea and Pepsi and a plate of fries at the Bob Evans restaurant in Cannonsburg, Kentucky, Bill Scaggs, a retired government and public-relations executive of ARMCO Steel, told me why he thinks that homosexuality is the greatest threat to America. "AIDS kills," was his circa 1984 answer, "and the most common way to pass that on of course is from homosexual contact." His voice cracking with indignation, Scaggs added that he refuses to use the word gay. "It's homosexual, or worse," he says. "Gay is in our Kentucky song! They took it away and trampled on it. We want it back."
Scaggs is a board member of Defenders Voice, a local organization formed two years ago by a group of ministers and their followers who fought the formation of a Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA) at Boyd County High School, just up the road from where we sat. Located on a stretch of state highway dotted with churches, dollar stores, payday lenders, and a drive-through cigarette store, the high school had become a place where anti-gay harassment had become an everyday occurrence.
Most of the time, student organizers of the Boyd County GSA said, the basis for the harassment was religious. One of the organizers, Libby Fugett, said that "most of the people at school, even the younger people, who would call us names at school, they would cuss at us; they would say, You f'ing fag, you're going to hell. . . . They just think it's excusable because their religion backs it up. And that was a really big part of it. It's okay for them to sin against us because we're sinners."
Leading the charge against the GSA were ministers, led by the Rev. Tim York, who said they "believe the Bible to be the word of God; we believe that homosexuality is a sin." (In 2004, York, who is now the pastor of a church in Nashville, ran an unsuccessful campaign for the Kentucky Senate on an anti-gay-marriage platform, with backing from the state and national Republican parties.) York and his followers exerted such intense pressure on school officials that it influenced their decision on the GSA, ultimately forcing the students to sue the school system in order have the GSA recognized.
To settle the case, the school district agreed to conduct mandatory anti-harassment training for all students. Although the training consisted of just a one-hour video once a year, York was intent on preventing students from seeing what he considered "indoctrination [into the] homosexual lifestyle . . . indoctrination to tear down the Christian view that homosexuality is wrong. It is reverse discrimination, is what it is." The minister-led group circulated opt-out forms in an effort to exempt students from watching the video, but the forms were not legally binding. York, his followers, and some parents wanted to exempt Christian students, legally, from watching the court-ordered anti-harassment video. To vindicate what he believed to be their legal rights, York knew exactly where to turn for help: the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF).
THE O'REILLY FACTOR
If Bill O'Reilly had a hero other than himself, it would be ADF and its courtroom crusaders lined up to fight the ACLU, Nickelodeon's homosexual agenda, and heathens who are hell-bent on censoring the words "Merry Christmas." ADF's president, Alan Sears, a former Reagan administration prosecutor who, according to the ADF's website, "God uniquely prepared" for his lead role in the organization, admits to being inspired by the right-wing commentator O'Reilly--hardly known for his jurisprudential acuity--to write portions of his book, The ACLU vs. America.
In the first chapter, Sears maintains that "from the very start, the ACLU wanted to destroy from within the America our founders intended." As proof of the ACLU's supposed anti-American, anti-Christian agenda, Sears fingers ACLU founder Roger Baldwin as an "agnostic and socialist who demonstrated Communist leanings"; Baldwin was moreover a friend of birth control advocate Margaret Sanger, whom Sears calls a "eugenicist who . . . establish[ed] the early link between the ACLU and abortionists." Before the reader has turned even ten pages, Sears has established that only ADF's godly legal services can save the country from the havoc the ACLU has wreaked on its justice system and culture.
While the ACLU gained its reputation by winning cases, ADF's reputation--and fund-raising spigot--preceded its first court case. Created just 13 years ago with the support of such Christian Right powerhouses as James Dobson, D. James Kennedy, and Bill Bright, founder of Campus Crusade for Christ, it is today the nation's leading Christian Right legal organization. Through its National Litigation Academy, ADF has trained more than 900 lawyers, who commit themselves to performing 450 hours of pro bono legal work "on behalf of the body of Christ." It doles out millions of dollars a year to other Christian Right organizations--many of which are already well endowed--to cover attorneys' fees and costs.
Its three principal goals are protecting the "sanctity of human life" (through litigating cases relating to abortion and end-of-life issues); promoting the "traditional family" (via cases concerning gay marriage and adoption); and ensuring the "religious freedom" of Christians (by portraying them as victims of discrimination on the part of those who seek to silence their ability to "speak the Truth" by preaching the Gospel). Using the propaganda machinery of conservative media outlets and churches, ADF has created a zeitgeist of Christian victimhood among people like Rev. York, who believes Christian students are the victims in Boyd County, and who has long admired ADF's "fight with the ACLU to protect Christian freedom and Christian liberty."
Last year, ADF received over $21 million in individual and foundation funding. Some of the major donors include the Covenant Foundation, financed by the "Granddaddy" of the Texas Christian Right, business mogul James Leininger; various members of the Amway-Prince Automotive empire, including the Edgar and Elsa Prince Foundation, whose vice president, Erik Prince (Edgar and Elsa's son, and brother of Betsy DeVos, wife of the Amway magnate, right-wing financier, and unsuccessful Republican gubernatorial candidate Richard DeVos), founded the Blackwater USA military-security firm; and the Bolthouse Foundation, which is underwritten chiefly with profits from Bolthouse Farms, a family-run California company whose products are often seen at organic markets and Whole Foods. Bolthouse requires recipients of its grants to pledge adherence to a statement of faith that includes the declaration that "man was created by a direct act of God in His image, not from previously existing creatures" and a belief in "the everlasting blessedness of the saved and the everlasting punishment of the lost.".
SCHOOLHOUSE "DAYS"
Public high schools--where, as a result of a Vietnam-era case, public school officials can curtail student speech in the interest of preventing disturbances or infringement of the rights of other students--have become one of ADF's principal battlegrounds. Right now, it is gearing up for its annual Day of Truth, scheduled for April 19, which ADF has sponsored since 2005 in response to the nationwide Day of Silence, intended to promote tolerance of LGBT students at public high schools. Last year, ADF claimed that students at 700 high schools participated in its organized effort "to counter the promotion of the homosexual agenda and express an opposing viewpoint from a Christian perspective." Each year, only a handful of ADF's longed-for federal cases emerge. But when they do, ADF makes a public relations spectacle out of them.
ADF recognizes that sometimes strange bedfellows--even the ACLU--can help its divine cause on behalf of the free-speech rights of America's public high schoolers. It recently sided with its arch-enemy (and against the Bush administration) in a Supreme Court case in which an Alaska high school student charged that his First Amendment rights were violated when school officials forced him to take down a sign reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus." The student, Joseph Frederick, admitted that he designed the sign "to be meaningless and funny, in order to get on television" as the Olympic torch passed through his home town of Juneau in 2002. And even though Frederick's cause had nothing to do with Jesus (and even implicated the Savior in the defiled culture that ADF disdains), ADF has an interest in continuing to shape Supreme Court precedent, an effort it began with its first landmark case 12 years ago and that has been aided by a judiciary increasingly friendly to its views. ADF's legacy in these cases has been to elevate the First Amendment's free speech clause over its Establishment Clause, which separates church and state, and thereby to promote religious speech--even proselytizing speechin the nation's public schools.
In that first landmark case, Rosenberger vs. The Regents of the University of Virginia, ADF represented a student challenging the university's policy of not funding religious student groups through the same student activity fees that funded secular clubs. The Supreme Court deviated from its precedents and based its decision not on the Establishment Clause--which prohibits a state institution like the University of Virginia from endorsing or appearing to endorse a particular religion--but on ADF's theory of "viewpoint discrimination."
In other words, ADF convinced the Court that instead of determining whether the school's funding of religious clubs would be, or would appear to be, an endorsement of a particular religion, it should decide whether or not funding religious groups "discriminated" against them based on their religion. And discrimination is present, the Court reasoned, if the school funded secular clubs but not religious ones.
Rosenberger, then, not only began to bring down the Christian Right's dreaded "wall of separation" between government and religious activities, but elevated ADF's mythology of the victimized Christian to a legal precedent. The case, says Marci Hamilton, professor of constitutional law at Cardozo Law School and author of the book God Versus the Gavel, represented a "fork in the road" in Establishment Clause jurisprudence. "When framed as a viewpoint discrimination issue," Hamilton adds, "it was going to be very hard for the university to win. . . . the word discrimination is so freighted in our culture with negatives that the minute that viewpoint discrimination was on the table, it was really the end."
The Court reiterated its reasoning and applied it to the nation's public elementary schools in a 2001 decision in an ADF-funded case, in which it forced the Milford Central School District in upstate New York to change its policy of prohibiting religious clubs from using its facilities for after-school meetings. Although the Good News Club, one of thousands sponsored nationwide by the Child Evangelism Fellowship, proselytizes to children, under Rosenberger, the school's denial of its use of school facilities to the religious clubs, when it allowed secular clubs to use them, again constituted "viewpoint discrimination." The Court rejected the school's claim that it had to exclude the religious club in order to comply with the Establishment Clause.
According to Hamilton, in "viewpoint discrimination" cases, the plaintiffs need only claim discrimination, without any actual proof, to prevail on their assertion that they were illegally prevented from using school resources for religious activities. Compared with other civil rights law, said Hamilton, "it's like living with Alice in Wonderland."
These cases have become not only the chief legal weapon in ADF's arsenal but also the organizing principle for all its fund-raising, public relations, and propaganda. ADF attorney Mike Johnson summed up his organization's position when he said, "What we're seeing in more and more cases is a discrimination against particular viewpoints, even outright hostility sometimes, against . . . kids who hold a Christian kind of world view who want to share Christian viewpoints or speech on campus, and they're being discriminated against because some people see that as intolerant, or however they characterize it."
"BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN IS IN"
Over the past several years, ADF has seized on "viewpoint discrimination" to put the gay rights movement in its cross hairs. Gay rights, in ADF's view, cannot coexist with its version of Christianity. Anti-harassment codes at schools and universities, gay rights events, and other expressions of freedom or equal rights for LGBT people, necessarily silence Christians, who, ADF insists, are biblically compelled to condemn homosexuality. The "homosexual agenda," then, is ipso facto anti-Christian. Alan Sears, ADF's president, told the Family Research Council's Values Voters Summit last fall that "the homosexual agenda and religious freedom are on a collision course." He scoffed at what he called "propaganda about so-called oppression" of gays, countering that the "homosexual agenda" not only seeks to silence religious speech but it "probably includes the abolition of marriage."
Shortly before the Supreme Court heard arguments in the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case, it had agreed to hear ADF's appeal of another case, one in which a San Diego student, Chase Harper, who participated in the first Day of Truth, claimed that his school prevented him from wearing a T-shirt that read "Be ashamed, our school has embraced what god has condemned" on the front, and "Homosexuality is shameful, Romans 1:27" on the back. After a federal appeals court for the Ninth Circuit (the Christian Right's bogeyman of the judiciary) ruled last year that the school could constitutionally restrain Harper from wearing the shirt in the interest of protecting the rights of other students, ADF issued a press release complaining that the opinion "implied that Brokeback Mountain is in, and the Bible is out."
Back in Boyd County, Kentucky, ADF lost its attempt to exempt its clients from the mandatory training, and is now appealing. Kevin Theriot, ADF's senior legal counsel, says the training video--which he hasn't seen--is trying "change the belief systems of religious students." In fact, the video, which is publicly available, acknowledges that "your religious beliefs are sacred and we're not trying to influence those," and "you have the right to express your beliefs" that "homosexuality is wrong" without harassing another student.
Despite ADF's ongoing litigation, the percentage of students viewing the video has steadily increased since 2004, when barely half the students watched it, to over 87 percent. But there is no longer a GSA at Boyd County High School, which to Bill Scaggs proves that it was just a "flash in the pan," failing to see that his organization intimidated the club out of existence. As William Carter, a Boyd County High School graduate whose efforts to start the GSA resulted in years of personal upheaval and entanglement in lawsuits, said, "Who wants to join a club where you would have to explain to your parents, you know, I'm going to be involved in a federal lawsuit because I'm going to be in a club or someone hit me in the head with a can of pop, or someone's going to kill me? No one's going to do that. It's high school."
The Nation Institute Investigative Fund provided research support for this article.
Tagged as: separation church and sta, aclu, religious right, adf
Sarah Posner has covered the religious right for The American Prospect, The Spectator, The Nation and AlterNet. She is at work on a book about televangelists in politics.
Theists and Atheists/Agnostics keep asking why we are upset or worried. What news do they watch or read? What world do they live in?
These "people" want to teach our kids to be bigots and metaphysics in school... insane!
No reason for atheists to apologize, I see we agree on that. But the rest comes off as insecurity.
Was it insecurity when "under God" was put in the Pledge? Is it insecurity to start Congressional sessions with a prayer? Is it insecurity to end a political speech with "God bless the USA!"? Maybe, but I suspect that to the extent that it is not heartfelt (and it may occasionally be, even for politicians), or pandering (most common), it is an assertion of the dominance of religion. If someone ended a political speech with "Everyone be the best you can be, 'cause there's no God to bail us out!", that would be viewed with shock and horror, and possibly be the end of their career.
When you see straight and others don't, use it to your advantage. Don't waste resources trying to convert the masses. Market forces are at work here.
Theists own the market. There is only one (admitted) nonbeliever in Congress, and he only admitted it recently, after years in office. And he's an ornery guy.
Coincidence? No. George H. W. Bush felt perfectly safe saying that he didn't think atheists should be considered citizens or patriots. Who would be willing to say the same about, say, Quakers? Even though, for the type of person anxious to denigrate another's patriotism, Quaker pacifism would seem to be a more logical target. In this sort of environment, the type of person willing to break through that attitude is either going to be an ornery bastard or a saint. And there aren't many saints in Congress.
The semi-anonymity of the web has made it easier for atheists to "publicly" discuss the role of religion in society, so such discussion can be a lot more fair. The non-abrasive tone can be heard. But where has that penetrated into the national discourse? Can someone without what you term "insecurity" get equal time, much less a favorable forum in the national media?
These "people" want to teach our kids to be bigots and metaphysics in school... insane!
Some "people" do and some don't. In public schools this is highly variable by school district/region. Some school districts are quite liberal and feature highly progressive "curriculums."
Who's teaching your kids? You or someone you don't trust? Whose choice is that?
Wow, that was ignorant. I am fortunate enough to be able to choose to place my child in a place that does not teach bigotry or creationism here in the bible-belt. Many are not so fortunate.
You sound like an elitist.
Wow, that was ignorant. I am fortunate enough to be able to choose to place my child in a place that does not teach bigotry or creationism here in the bible-belt. Many are not so fortunate.
You sound like an elitist.
You sound like a Christian, at least in one regard. You want to see that everyone is exposed to "The Truth."
The difference, truth for me changes based on evidence and perception/understanding of that evidence with changes in technology and ideas as we evolve and grow.
The difference, truth for me changes based on evidence and perception/understanding of that evidence with changes in technology and ideas as we evolve and grow.
How does religion survive in the face of such overwhelming evidence demonstrated by brilliant scientific minds using amazing technologies? Does religion evolve faster than humanity?
Best wishes on your quest, rkzenrage. Toy watches with great interest.
Theists own the market.
And they have tremendous overhead. Think Big Three.
How does religion survive in the face of such overwhelming evidence demonstrated by brilliant scientific minds using amazing technologies?
First deny the evidence, then deny the importance of evidence.
First deny the evidence, then deny the importance of evidence.
Some do, no doubt. Most, however, don't even need to bother.
Religions constantly change (or, one might say, evolve) to better reflect the cultures they exist in. We can't see this kind of change because it is long-term. Inflexible religions that don't permit interpretation tend to die off.
One can only hope...though hearing a senator saying that Neptune was reclaiming New Orleans would have been sweet!
This video got pulled, but here is a description from another board.
I think the kid pulled it because I noticed that he allowed comments until somebody said it was messed up that he posted it and it should be a private matter between him and his mom. After that, he stopped allowing comments, and about the time that imrational complained, he pulled it (in fact, I was actually able to get one last look).
It basically went something like this:
mom: so you stopped believing in God? What the fuck is that about?
kid: yeah
mom: that's it, we're gonna start going to church every week
kid: I don't believe in god
mom: no, you got confirmed. You told the pastor you believed in God
kid: well people can change
mom (really pissed and yelling): Oh so you stopped fucking believing in God just like that? (now I'm using sib's recollection) All of the sudden there is no god?!?!?"
(she gets in his face now)
kid: yeah
mom: Then you get nothing .. NOTHING for christmas .. because THAT is what it is all about! Jesus...
kid: all right!!!
mom: no it's NOT all right!!!
video ends.
That's not perfect, but it pretty much sums it up. What's funny is I looked at his youtube profile and it says he's 27. In the description of the video, it says "I" and "me" so unless he's lying about his age, I find it weird that his mom still tries to control him at that age. It was also funny to see the dad sitting there not saying anything during the discussion.
I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here, rkz. I see (described) a shitty parent with poor communication skills and an immature child who thought it would be a good idea to videotape a provoked argument with his mother and put it on the internet. Who cares what they were arguing about?
It seems to me that if one were to tune through the radio stations in my area, to watch cable TV, or drive down the streets around here, they would find dozens if not hundreds of Christian broadcasts (ranging from the compassionate to the demanding and damning), and yard signs (containing the Ten Commandments or JESUS). We are inundated with Christain advertising everywhere. Look in your yellow pages and see how many companies advertise with the fish symbol to proclaim their belief (and solicite other Christians to patronize them). Why, in the face of this continual barage of Christian belief is anyone offended because a couple thousand non-believers want to proclaim what they believe on Youtube?
Non-theists are second class where I live, in fact, after reading the post about the President saying we were not good citizens or patriots I guess we are second class in America. Funny, I don't remember anyone saying I was not patriotic when I served in the Army during Viet Nam. Whoever posted that Atheists were arrogant because they proclaimed themselves (when major networks regularly feature thousands of Christains doing the same on Billy Graham telecasts) should be ashamed. And the "Challenge" is to individuals to step up for what THEY believe, not an "in your face" challenge to Christian believe.
In America all people should be treated equally, regardless of what they believe or do not believe about religion. I am an honest, tax paying, hard working guy who has raised bright, well educated children who are the same and I don't have to take a back seat to anyone because I do not believe as they do about unseen, unproven, and unbelievable ghosts. Yet, I stay in the closet because I would lose my job if the truth about me were known in the school district where I work. People around here equate good with Christian and they make no allowances for anything else.
Religions constantly change (or, one might say, evolve) to better reflect the cultures they exist in. We can't see this kind of change because it is long-term. Inflexible religions that don't permit interpretation tend to die off.
I'm not sure I agree. I'm no scholar on it but I don't see much in the way of change in Islam in the last 2000 years.
It isn't 2000 years old yet.
Wow, at his age... she has issues.
Oh my his mom was really mad! She was even cursing at him. Is that the christian way of doing things?
pourbill, you make a lot of sense. Oh, and welcome to the Cellar (don't know if you've alreayd been welcomed by the others yet:P)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28pNxgD-ldc
Yup... "There is no such thing as a Christian child."
Oh my his mom was really mad! She was even cursing at him. Is that the christian way of doing things?
Don't you just love irony.
I was unaware that the workplace had become so lustful.
[YOUTUBE]p570nGshue0[/YOUTUBE]
Been discussing religion with my Mother-in-law for over seventeen years. Gradually helping her with research and historical perspective.
She has been a, going to church, free-will-baptist for her entire life.
Two days ago she told me she was an atheist and "does not believe in anything she cannot get evidence for".
rkzenrage, that's pretty incredible. You must be a persuasive debater.
Thing is, I rarely debated with her, just gave her my side/opinion and then gave her real information regarding christianity.
Yeah, but note that it took seventeen years.
Do it again in seventeen months, or better yet seventeen days, and I will bow before your mightiness.
I was not trying to do anything.
![Image]("http://members.cox.net/xycof/floridaTag.jpg")