|
|
|
I Doubt It
New Member
USA
12 Posts |
 Posted - 09/16/2001 : 16:33:10 [Permalink]
|
A woman at my workplace long ago mentioned she could tolerateCatholics and Jews and even Muslims (as if it were a gift to them to be included) but she couldn't tolerate Atheists. She had no idea of my non-beliefs. Today, I wish I could shout to her face "NO ATHEIST EVER KILLED IN THE NAME OF GOD". But I also take the approach to avoid this issue because people get unreasonable about it.
When I told my boss on a long road trip that I didn't believe in the God of the Bible, he asked if I believed in anything. I said I believe it's possible that there could be an overall intelligent being in the universe but I would never know that. That totally went over his head and he said "Well, I'm glad you believe in something". Almost in the tone of "Gee, I'm glad you have morphine like me when the pain gets too bad..."
|
 |
|
|
Zandermann
Skeptic Friend
USA
431 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2001 : 19:40:18 [Permalink]
|
(a modest attempt to respond to a plethora of previous posts)
Look, friends, it's like this: our president proclaimed a day of mourning, a day of remembrance. Because he is an active participant in religion, and because the majority of Americans also are believers, he emphasized the 'prayer' aspect. But the official title was Day of Prayer *and Remembrance*, which I can only assume was meant to include those who would not feel part of a "day of prayer".
Now I make no apologies for my beliefs, nor have I the right or responsibility to pass judgement on anyone else's beliefs...nor can I comment on why the prayer service was televised (when numerous other nonreligious services were not)...all I can say is that I attended 3 memorial services that day, and none of them had a religious component. Nor did I feel anything was missing from them.
My confusion still stands: "I can certainly understand that you would feel excluded from the prayer service, but I haven't been able to figure out why you've extended that to the entire day."
To specifics:
"Those of us who are gathered here..." makes no sense when applied to a television audience.
I'm not certain what funny looks has to do with anything, or even with feeling threatened with physical harm...but I do know that all of us, when we express different opinions or beliefs to a nonhomogeneous group, can expect *someone* in the group to be taken aback by it. Perhaps our very appearance is the cause of this...ask any person of color. So we try to deal with it...we try to educate and discuss...or we give up because it's too big a problem or maybe not worth it.
"...but the Day of Prayer was an exclusion to a few of us who don't pray."
So focus on the "Day of Remembrance" aspect. I don't see the problem...please educate me.
I agree with I Doubt It that talking of retribution in church seemed creepy...reminded me of the "God Wills It" school of war.
ljbrs: One small comment on your statement "There is no *inclusion* of the non-religious people in this country by religious leaders."
...and that's to add that perhaps this is not true when the leaders are speaking of nonreligious matters. Of course, when they're in the pulpit, speaking directly to their congregation, they will be exclusive. But when speaking to the general public, most I've heard recently have been ecumenical and inclusive, as we are here.
whew...that's a long one...thanks for your patience (if anyone's still reading) |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2001 : 19:59:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
... It made me very angry when the first speaker (a lady Bishop in D.C., I believe), basically implied that only people of religious faith want "love to conqueor hate".
TD, I searched all over to find the comment you refer to here. The closest I could come to it comes from the AP's story:quote:
"Those of us who are gathered here - Muslim, Jew, Christian, Sikh, Buddhist, Hindu - all people of faith want to say to this nation and to the world that love is stronger than hate," said Bishop Jane Holmes Dixon, opening the service on what Bush had decreed a national day of prayer and remembrance.
I don't see the implication that you referred to in her statement, as she was of course making reference to those who were attending the service.
 I remembered her intro wrong. Sorry. It still left me with a feeling of exclusion. President Bush urged everyone to go to a church, synagogue, or mosque. Period.
quote:
quote:
I wonder if any Secular Humanists were invited?
Is SH now a religion?
Secular Humanism is, of course, not a religion. But to have a representative there for the 11% of the population that aren't "people of faith" would have been appropriate, I believe.
quote:
But when speaking to the general public, most I've heard recently have been ecumenical and inclusive, as we are here.
As has been pointed out, Bush Sr. has said that atheists are not (or shouldn't be considered) American citizens. And surprisingly, no one here has mentioned Senator Lieberman's very insulting remarks during the 2000 campaign. They were just as bad as Bush Sr's.
------------
Hope springs eternal but there's no conviction
Actions mistaken for lip service paid
All this concern is the true contradiction
The world is insane... |
|
|
|
lpetrich
Skeptic Friend
USA
74 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2001 : 20:47:11 [Permalink]
|
As to how effective prayer really is, Sir Francis Galton tried to make some statistical tests of that nearly a century ago.
He compared the longevity of the British royal family, which gets prayed for a lot, with the longevity of most other people in Britain at that time, including upper-class but less-known Britons. He found no significant difference.
Also, he found that clergymen do not live much longer than (IIRC) lawyers or doctors.
It's worth noting that large numbers of people had prayed for Carl Sagan when he was very ill in 1995-96, but he never jumped out of his hospital bed in full health. Instead, he died in late 1996. |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2001 : 20:48:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Look, friends, it's like this: our president proclaimed a day of mourning, a day of remembrance. Because he is an active participant in religion, and because the majority of Americans also are believers, he emphasized the 'prayer' aspect. But the official title was Day of Prayer *and Remembrance*, which I can only assume was meant to include those who would not feel part of a "day of prayer".
What do you think public opinion would have resembled had the Prez termed it "Day of Prayer OR Remembrance"? We can argue semantic subtleties all day, but I have to wonder, why did Bush feel the need to explicitly declare a "Day of Prayer..."? Would believers not have known to pray without having been told to do so? Is "Day of Rememberance" not sufficiently emotionally punchy?
quote:
Now I make no apologies for my beliefs, nor have I the right or responsibility to pass judgement on anyone else's beliefs...nor can I comment on why the prayer service was televised (when numerous other nonreligious services were not)...all I can say is that I attended 3 memorial services that day, and none of them had a religious component. Nor did I feel anything was missing from them.
How many times this week did you hear the various jingles that begin with "God bless the..."?
quote:
My confusion still stands: "I can certainly understand that you would feel excluded from the prayer service, but I haven't been able to figure out why you've extended that to the entire day."
Why would you expect to? Do you think you have a bead on atheist thought processes? Do the reasoned opinions of those on this board not indicate a feeling or emotion to which you are not party?
quote:
To specifics:
"Those of us who are gathered here..." makes no sense when applied to a television audience.
The speaker(s) could have locally adressed only the crew of the Starship Enterprise; the point is it was this particular memorial service that they chose to mass broadcast.
quote:
I'm not certain what funny looks has to do with anything, or even with feeling threatened with physical harm...but I do know that all of us, when we express different opinions or beliefs to a nonhomogeneous group, can expect *someone* in the group to be taken aback by it. Perhaps our very appearance is the cause of this...ask any person of color. So we try to deal with it...we try to educate and discuss...or we give up because it's too big a problem or maybe not worth it.
What has been lost on you is that the posters here are describing certain ways in which believers have gone out of their way to make atheists feel uncomfortable/unwelcome. This is just another example of such. The point is there is no particular reason 9-14-01 had to be made so explicitly sectarian, yet it was.
quote:
"...but the Day of Prayer was an exclusion to a few of us who don't pray."
So focus on the "Day of Remembrance" aspect. I don't see the problem...please educate me.
I suppose I will have to be a pedant momentarily. My translation: "National Day of Prayer and Remebrance" = "We should all pray AND remember as a nation." My knowledge of boolean operations suggests that we are encouraged to do both these things. Perhaps it was not meant in this sense but I can see no reason why your translation has more validity than mine.
This signature does not exist. |
|
|
|
comradebillyboy
Skeptic Friend
USA
188 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2001 : 21:03:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
My confusion still stands: "I can certainly understand that you would feel excluded from the prayer service, but I haven't been able to figure out why you've extended that to the entire day."
zanderman, i actually don't begrudge the religous their day of prayer, nor do i mind at all being left out of a religious ceremony, since i am not religious.
it's simple really, i just don't like the shrub. fortunatly for me, i have no desire to convert others to my point of view.
comrade billyboy |
|
|
|
NubiWan
Skeptic Friend
USA
424 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2001 : 00:20:08 [Permalink]
|
*LOL* So much for unity. Geez peoples, fundamentism is the breeding ground of the animals, that committed the attacks on the WTC. Am starting to believe, that am witnessing the birth of an Athestic Fundamentism here. You seem to have a bit of a chip on your shoulders, really. Why does "prayer" bring such offense to you, if you don't believe in a god? Can't you just share a moment of silence out of respect for the victims without getting your shorts in a bind. How 'bout just respecting the believer's intention of honoring our fallen. It isn't alway about YOU and your beliefs or lack of them, you know. It just seems to me, that you are choosing to be offended, as well as deciding to feel excluded. As is your right, of course.
Look, our duly selected pres, may be a second stringer, but he is our president at this moment. If we are to have a chance at putting some whup-ass on these fundamental terrorist bastards, we have to close ranks as a people, as a nation, and most importantly, as a civilization. Needless to say, that means all of us, with all our different belief systems. And lord help us, that also means rallying around president Dubya.
Did anyone else catch his "crusade" remark, today? Just cringed, these fundamental terrorist may be millions strong, but Islam is hundreds of millions strong. And they are actually a civilized people, even believing as they do in an Islamic god. These terrorist are perverting Islam, and most of Islam will ally with civilization, if we but give them a chance. Am sure Dubya is a good and well meaning American, but wish he'ld just go back to the ranch, and let the boys in the back room put this thing together.
May Something undefined and great, bless and do good things for America..., lordy knows we need all the help we can get. 
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." -Voltaire |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2001 : 00:38:48 [Permalink]
|
I don't think most atheists, agnostics and other non-believers were bothered that much, but many of these same people view religion as one of the core problems behind recent events. Seeing the President call for a day of prayer the way he did was unnecessary and perhaps ultimately wrong thing when asking for a day of remembrance was just as valid and less insensitive.
I didn't make a fuss about it but it's easy to see why someone that believes in all that Christianity stuff might think those without belief are the spoilsports they always were. You know, no nativity scenes at the Post Office and all that. Religious leaders should call for days of prayer. our President is in charge of the real world and it's a lot easier to be confident of what he will do if he sticks to that and leaves the preaching to people that might half way believe it.
I really wan't going to say anything like this against a day of prayer but that you guys should just go along with it and not ruin it for everyone attitude really gets to me.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Nenya
New Member
Canada
10 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2001 : 02:31:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
We can argue semantic subtleties all day, but I have to wonder, why did Bush feel the need to explicitly declare a "Day of Prayer..."? Would believers not have known to pray without having been told to do so? Is "Day of Rememberance" not sufficiently emotionally punchy?
A Canadian chiming in here (also a Christian). The official title of "Day of Prayer" bugged me as well. "Day of Remembrance" would have done just fine, as far as I'm concerned. When Bush, in his capacity as President, declares a national day of remembrance, he is speaking to/for the entire nation. He's speaking in his secular role as the President, not as a religious figure. Or should be! Please let Billy Graham declare a day of prayer. Days of prayer may be fine, but it's not Bush's job to declare them.
As far as other people capitalizing on this to convert people to anti-abortionism or Christianity or right-wing politics or any other agenda--this isn't the time to be trying to proselytize! Trying to use this tragedy to convert people to ANY belief is crass, like the folks who try to sell you the most expensive casket for a funeral, trying to make a buck off your grief. I daresay people would be much more likely to turn to a God if they see followers of his treating them like humans, mourning with them, feeling the pain of this as real humans themselves, than if they are getting told "If you were a Christian this all wouldn't have happened!" or "Repent before you get bombed too!" Suuure I'm going to join your religion if this is how you react to a tragedy!  Grrr.
I pray. But only when I want to have a word with God, not because it's a day of prayer. Prayer's about a person talking to God, not about putting on a show for the rest of the country.
Bush probably feels that his religion is inseparable from the rest of his life. Fine. I wish more people integrated their beliefs into their lives. But I still think "Day of Prayer" was not necessary. |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2001 : 05:34:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
[font=Arial][size=3]
*LOL* So much for unity. Geez peoples, fundamentism is the breeding ground of the animals, that committed the attacks on the WTC. Am starting to believe, that am witnessing the birth of an Athestic Fundamentism here. You seem to have a bit of a chip on your shoulders, really. Why does "prayer" bring such offense to you, if you don't believe in a god? Can't you just share a moment of silence out of respect for the victims without getting your shorts in a bind. How 'bout just respecting the believer's intention of honoring our fallen. It isn't alway about YOU and your beliefs or lack of them, you know. It just seems to me, that you are choosing to be offended, as well as deciding to feel excluded. As is your right, of course.
Gee, thanks. You know, you're right. This whole mourning thing wouldn't have been the same without George W. letting us all know how pious we should be and without our neighbors invoking God for further protection and thanking God for allowing our man Bush into the White House and singing songs that begin with "God" ad nauseam, all the while blissfully and systematically ignoring the alleged behavior (or lack thereof) of loving creator that, by all personal definitions of "love," shouldn't have allowed this to happen. By all means, please insist that it is our responsibility to momentarily pretend that we don't feel excluded, that maybe religion isn't so unreasonable after all. By jove, it's our job to feel included, rather than our government's job to include us.
quote:
Look, our duly selected pres, may be a second stringer, but he is our president at this moment. If we are to have a chance at putting some whup-ass on these fundamental terrorist bastards, we have to close ranks as a people, as a nation, and most importantly, as a civilization. Needless to say, that means all of us, with all our different belief systems. And lord help us, that also means rallying around president Dubya.
I have no problem supporting the President's anti-terrorist agenda, short of any sort of nuclear retaliation. But I resent your asking that I set aside the part of my minority philosophy that ordinarily defines so much of who I am in order to accomodate the callings for unity from those whose philosophies are at this moment a much greater portion of who they are.
This signature does not exist. |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2001 : 08:49:29 [Permalink]
|
Thanks Nenya, I think you've captured quite well the thoughts and feelings of many of us who have no belief system.
Now, I hear where I go everyone talking about the *Day of Prayer* as tho that were the only thing to call it. Why? Without thinking the populace is excluding those of us without belief - because the president titled it as such.
Nubi, your remarks fail to consider the fact that our (atheists) are as much formed by our atheism as xians are formed by their xianity. We could have been united had, as Nenya pointed out, the president maintained his secular role as president. You can never understand how offensive it is to some of us to hear scripture quoted from the president as tho the white house were his pulpit. It's not, it is a representation of the diversity of America. You may find nothing offensive in the proselytization from the seat of our government that is supposed to uphold the Constitution of the United States - but I do.
I swore an oath, the same one that many here have, to uphold the Constitution, not the President, not the Congress, and not the Supreme Court. The Bill of Rights guarantees that the United States Congress shall enact no laws concerning religion. No laws. Yet we have the President and several members of Congress shoving their particular religious views down our throats right now. It's offensive.
To understand look at it from this view, the Congress declares that all religions are anathema to the views of the US, all religious institutions must be shut down and the words god/allah/yahweh/jehova (sp?) or christ/jesus or buddha or mohamed shall never be uttered by another citizen of the US again or they will be ostracized by soceity. It's the same for us, with the exception that we (atheists, secular humanitarians and agnostics) don't have a particular belief system to shove down your throat, to which to convert you. I would be quite happy to let everyone believe as they choose if they would quit trying to force everyone else to their viewpoint, what makes one version of a god better than another? If you believe in the judeo-xian god, why is he better than the god of islam? Why is the god of islam better than that of the jews? Why is the god of the jews better than that of the Norse? Why is the Norse panteon better than those of the Greek? Why is the Greek pantheon better than those of the ancient Romans? Why is one god better than many and why are many gods better than animism and why is animism better than one god?
The only difference, to my mind, between the judeo-xian god and that of the Roman pantheon is the judeo-xian god is still worshiped and the Roman pantheon is not. Yet one is called Truth (as if there is an ultimate truth) and the other is called myth.
To Greg quickly on First Amendment Zones around the Presidential routes - this is more a security issue than anything. I disagree with forcing the voice of dissent into a small area far away - however, I understand the need for security.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
NubiWan
Skeptic Friend
USA
424 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2001 : 12:28:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Nubi, your remarks fail to consider the fact that our (atheists) are as much formed by our atheism as xians are formed by their xianity. We could have been united had, as Nenya pointed out, the president maintained his secular role as president. You can never understand how offensive it is to some of us to hear scripture quoted from the president as tho the white house were his pulpit. It's not, it is a representation of the diversity of America. You may find nothing offensive in the proselytization from the seat of our government that is supposed to uphold the Constitution of the United States - but I do.
I swore an oath, the same one that many here have, to uphold the Constitution, not the President, not the Congress, and not the Supreme Court. The Bill of Rights guarantees that the United States Congress shall enact no laws concerning religion. No laws. Yet we have the President and several members of Congress shoving their particular religious views down our throats right now. It's offensive.
Well, guess i don't completely understand the 'offense,' Trish, but thanks for trying to impart some insight into it. Having a vague and ambiguous belief system of my own, hasn't prevented me from making sincere oaths to defend, to tell the truth, and to be impartial, while knowing the use of the term "God," was different than my own conception, that was included in these oaths.
Perhaps am guilty of insensibility to the subject, if so, do regret it. And for the record, did find Dubya's appeal to his religious right, political power base, uh, inappropriate. Just not enough to exclude myself from joining in a collective moment of mourning for our victims of the attacks. Just don't accept Dubya, Farwell, Robertson and their like, as the true spokesman for Christianity, anymore than accepting ol' Ben Slami as the true spokesman for Islam. And trust you won't elevate them to that status as well.
Is there some kind of organization of atheists, dunno? If so, perhaps that would be a way to collectively join the nation in mourning the victims, just a thought. Unity is the most important aspect of facing this moment in history IMO, and my own self-identity is now more one of being an American. Don't think it is required to compromise one's own belief system, to identify as being an American, actually the opposite is true. Doubt you feel all that much differently as well. United we stand,...
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." -Voltaire |
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2001 : 13:59:31 [Permalink]
|
Has anyone noticed that Bush has called what we have to do a "crusade"? Is he completely stupid?
Greg.
|
|
|
|
lpetrich
Skeptic Friend
USA
74 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2001 : 23:00:11 [Permalink]
|
Crusade? As in ...
Holy War
???
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2001 : 23:49:07 [Permalink]
|
Is that a rhetorical question or do you want us to answer?
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
