American Atheists put up billboards in NY/NJ Muslim and Jewish neighbourhoods

[hatzel]

“You know it’s a myth… and you have a choice.”

That’s the message the American Atheists group is sending on two new billboards erected in the heart of two religious communities in our area.

One of the billboards unveiled today is in Brooklyn near the Williamsburg Bridge, with the message written in Hebrew. Another, written in Arabic, is erected in Paterson, N.J. Both billboards depict the term for God in their respective languages to the left of the message.Full story (http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/05/billboards-promoting-atheism-unveiled-in-new-york-and-new-jersey/)

I was just wondering what our resident atheists (and others, of course) thought about this particular approach...

[Kitty_Paine]

This is a huge facepalm moment for me...

http://fail.brm.sk/facepalm/extremefacepalm.png

As an atheist I do not believe in even the possibility of any God like being or "higher power". Also, I don't give a shit if anyone else does or does not. I always used to think that most atheists didn't either, I thought it came along with being atheist almost. As if being an atheist and lacking a desire or care for religion would also mean not caring about other's religious (or lack thereof) believes. I've been proven wrong, time and time again, though. It upsets me because it seems as if Atheism is becoming more and more a "religion" in its practices. Really? Atheists are actively trying to convert people now... oh the irony! And with the billboard technique! Ahhhhh!

This should be a sad day for Atheists everywhere, at least for me it is. No wonder why people hate atheists so much. We're becoming like the jehovah's witnesses of the non-believers... Ugh

[bots]

I don't see anything wrong with it but I'm sure somebody can screech some enlightenment at me.

People put religious billboards up all the time. And put religious pamphlets in my mailbox. And accost me on the street about Jesus Christ and his Latter Day Saints. And hand out bibles outside schools.

[Rooster]

I don't see anything wrong with it but I'm sure somebody can screech some enlightenment at me.

People put religious billboards up all the time. And put religious pamphlets in my mailbox. And accost me on the street about Jesus Christ and his Latter Day Saints. And hand out bibles outside schools.

Yeah but, you're likely to be broken down by that and find religion, are you? And my point? Putting up atheist posters like this won't change anyone's mind either.

[roy]

That's some seriously obnoxious shit.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think this approach completely misunderstands why people become attracted to religion and religious ideas. These billboards seem to assume that people are religious because they just have never considered the alternative and are just dupes basically. Sure, some people are just raised with these beliefs and taught not to question them, but that really only goes so far an any independent adult will at least just drop off from religious practices (if not beliefs) if they don't really feel like they get anything out of it. This is why polls show a lot more people believing in God and even Jesus, than actually go to church or act on those beliefs on a daily basis. They just passively believe in this stuff because they are used to it. But the people who actually are believers and act on it are not just dupes, they get a sense of identity and community from their religious institutions and groups, they get a sense of meaning in a world (and economic system) that often doesn't make sense for normal people, they get material support from church communities if they have health or economic trouble, and so on. It's networking and community in a country of atomized apartments and suburbs, it's social services in a countries without adequate government programs.

So maybe a higher profile and general acceptance of atheism would help draw some of the passive "I guess I believe in God" type people, but advertising atheism to believers will not make much of a difference. On the larger scale, a more rational and just society where you could find community and brother/sisterhood without having to believe in the same spiritual origin stories would go much further in convincing people that we don't need to rely on magical answers, we can actually make meaning and make the world better ourselves.

[hatzel]

Aside from the very obvious concern that somebody had $1,000's to blow and didn't once think to give it to me rather than wasting it on a couple of billboards, I feel there are a few issues worth raising and questioning. The first is the explicit targetting of (religious) minority communities, explained as follows:


“We’re not targeting people who are Muslim or Jewish. We are targeting the atheists in those communities,” [American Atheists spokesperson Blair] Scott told WCBS 880.”Because the Islamic and Judaic communities are very isolationist. If you break out of the mold, you are ostracized from your family and friends.”I find this statement simultaneously problematic and hilarious. Problematic is its attempts to draw solid lines between these communities and those of the (post-)Christian mainstream; as I understand it, the suggestion here is that these minority communities are entirely made up of heartless cultish bastards who would happily throw their own sons and daughters in front of oncoming traffic, whilst other (untargetted) communities are more moderate, accepting and - to put it simply - loving. Equally problematic is the accusation of isolationism; they certainly maintain their distance, though Scott appears totally oblivious to the fact that this is more often than not a reaction against the perception of the mainstream as somehow threatening, holding radically different values. The posting of these billboards - far from "rais[ing] the awareness of the atheists in their population and rais[ing] tolerance of atheists on a national level" - is more likely to lead to increased isolationism than it is to overcome it, and could well stigmatise atheists in those communities, as well as those non-atheists who seek greater integration in mainstream secular society, due to a perceived capitulation to the pressures of those who challenge the community's integrity.

Linked to that is the hilarious assumption that everybody wants to hang out with this Blair Scott character and his buddies, that those in these communities crave the mainstream and secularism and modern society - as if this is some inherent desire in all humanity, - and they are being held back only by societal pressure - the fear of ostracism - and a lack of knowledge of the existence of this particular organisation. This overlooks the very real possibility that Blair Scott and his buddies are massive bellends, or that the mainstream isn't particularly desirable to anybody who hasn't been conditioned to find it so...

Perhaps a more important issue - though it ties in with the suggestion that these billboards could be seen as threatening to the community and its values - is the use of the Name on the poster. Now, I don't know about the exact Islamic rulings on all this, so I can speak only of the Jewish position. I can tell you now that if you were to take my prayer book, the siddur, you would notice that the Name is never written out in full - it's written only as yod-yod, i-i, an abbreviated form, similar to the use of 'G-d' in English. Not because the Name itself cannot be written - it can be, and I know that other publishers do write it in full - but because disposal then becomes problematic; one can write the Name, but one cannot erase it, and printing the name in full facilitates its mistreatment, either callously or unintentionally. With the Name written on the billboard as it is, there are two possibilities: either it will be vandalised whilst its up there - somebody may paint over it, for example - or it will survive the length of the campaign unscathed, after which it will be taken down or covered up, that is to say it will be erased improperly. Both of these eventualities could (and probably will) be met with a certain outrage from the Jewish community, as it would be considered an affront, not only to Hashem but to the community itself. (This, incidentally, is why I feel it could be seen as particularly threatening to local Jews and lead to increased isolationism and suspicion of the mainstream and atheists alike, for their flagrant disregard for Jewish values.)

Perhaps I always see the worst in people, but part of me feels that this is intentional, and that the group hopes to kick up a certain scandal, so that they can then point and laugh and say "look at these fools, getting so worked up over something so unimportant. It's just a piece of paper! What's so special about it? How irrational of you..." or such. In much the same way that people burning the Qur'an - as we were discussing elsewhere - seem to like to play the "what? It's just a book!"-card, even though they are fully aware that their actions are to be understood as an insult, a threat and an affront, to the faith as much as the people, as one is so intimately tied up with the other.

(Oh and is it worth pointing out that the Williamsburg Jews don't even speak Hebrew, but Yiddish...?)

[Bronco]

Seems to be needlessly antagonistic

[Revolutionair]

Well considering atheism is on the rise, I don't see this necessarily as a bad thing. Many Christians who had doubts about their faith already stopped believing. While I have no problems at all with personal religion, I do support the diminishment of the church as a power structure.

Let's hope the American Atheists judged the situation appropriately and there won't be any backlash.


(Oh and is it worth pointing out that the Williamsburg Jews don't even speak Hebrew, but Yiddish...?)
Surely they must be able to read at least some Hebrew.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Both the Williamsburg Hasidic Jews and Patterson, NJ, Muslims see themselves as beleaguered communities.Religion isn't something they freely choose, its the core and basis of their community and their identity. They will just see the billboards as an attack from the outside world.

The threat to American secularism (which is under severe attack) isn't from a tiny group of Ultra-Orthodox Jews or Muslim immigrants. It is from the large, politically powerful Christian fundamentalist movement. The atheist organisations could better spend their money in expanding public discussion outside the "faith based" narrative we hear so much of today in public schools and the media.

High school kids should be reassured that its okay not to have a "faith community" and to think for oneself.Fundamentalist attacks on science, their homophobia and bigotry, their misogyny and attacks on women's rights, should be fully exposed and discussed.The tax exempt status of "faith based" groups with a reactionary political agenda should be fully examined. The atheist and free thinking traditions in US history should be honored.

Attacks on small ethnic communities won't accomplish this.

[hatzel]

Surely they must be able to read at least some Hebrew.

Indeed, as a religious and studious Turkish Muslim may understand Arabic. At the same time, however, most of these Yiddish-speaking groups tend to get offended at the mundane use of Hebrew for non-spiritual matters, as in modern Israeli society. It is for them a language reserved for exclusively religious purposes.

[Franz Fanonipants]

yes score another resounding triumph for Reason!

[Guy Incognito]

I don't see anything wrong with it but I'm sure somebody can screech some enlightenment at me.

People put religious billboards up all the time. And put religious pamphlets in my mailbox. And accost me on the street about Jesus Christ and his Latter Day Saints. And hand out bibles outside schools.

And doing the same thing makes it not annoying at all...:rolleyes:

[Ostrinski]

This is disgusting.

[Guy Incognito]

"As an atheist I do not believe in even the possibility of any God like being or "higher power". Also, I don't give a shit if anyone else does or does not. I always used to think that most atheists didn't either, I thought it came along with being atheist almost. As if being an atheist and lacking a desire or care for religion would also mean not caring about other's religious (or lack thereof) believes. I've been proven wrong, time and time again, though. It upsets me because it seems as if Atheism is becoming more and more a "religion" in its practices. Really? Atheists are actively trying to convert people now... oh the irony! And with the billboard technique! Ahhhhh!

This should be a sad day for Atheists everywhere, at least for me it is. No wonder why people hate atheists so much. We're becoming like the jehovah's witnesses of the non-believers... Ugh "

You.

"I think this approach completely misunderstands why people become attracted to religion and religious ideas. These billboards seem to assume that people are religious because they just have never considered the alternative and are just dupes basically. Sure, some people are just raised with these beliefs and taught not to question them, but that really only goes so far an any independent adult will at least just drop off from religious practices (if not beliefs) if they don't really feel like they get anything out of it. This is why polls show a lot more people believing in God and even Jesus, than actually go to church or act on those beliefs on a daily basis. They just passively believe in this stuff because they are used to it. But the people who actually are believers and act on it are not just dupes, they get a sense of identity and community from their religious institutions and groups, they get a sense of meaning in a world (and economic system) that often doesn't make sense for normal people, they get material support from church communities if they have health or economic trouble, and so on. It's networking and community in a country of atomized apartments and suburbs, it's social services in a countries without adequate government programs.

So maybe a higher profile and general acceptance of atheism would help draw some of the passive "I guess I believe in God" type people, but advertising atheism to believers will not make much of a difference. On the larger scale, a more rational and just society where you could find community and brother/sisterhood without having to believe in the same spiritual origin stories would go much further in convincing people that we don't need to rely on magical answers, we can actually make meaning and make the world better ourselves."

And you. You two I could hug. :) I couldn't have said it any better.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Not likely to accomplish much; I can't see religious people reading a billboard and then saying, "Of course! It is all so obvious!" As Lenina has said the money could be better spent elsewhere.

[9]

Attacks on small ethnic communities won't accomplish this.

I don't think this is an attack on small ethnic communities, give me a break. Its a billboard for christ's sake, it isn't as if someone is going into these neighborhoods and burning holy books. I agree that its pretty petty and pointless and isn't going to change anyone's mind, but all the handwringing people on this site do over anything with the slightest possibility of offending someones religious sensibilities is sort of pathetic IMHO.

[hatzel]

And doing the same thing makes it not annoying at all...:rolleyes:

It's actually doing something ever so slightly different, because Muslims very rarely hand out Bibles outside schools and Hasidic Jews generally don't try to convert people to Mormonism. A little-known fact all too often overlooked...

[9]

At the same time, however, most of these Yiddish-speaking groups tend to get offended at the mundane use of Hebrew for non-spiritual matters.

Oh god forbid. :rolleyes:

[Guy Incognito]

It's actually doing something ever so slightly different, because Muslims very rarely hand out Bibles outside schools and Hasidic Jews generally don't try to convert people to Mormonism. A little-known fact all too often overlooked...

I know that. I was only making the point that it's rediculous to think it's ok to wander around prostetlytizing (and yes, that's what these people are doing here) towards those of a religious bent, simply because some annoying hyper-christians do it.

Or, more simply; "It's cool for me to be obnoxious because (insert group here) was obnoxious".

[Ocean Seal]

I'm not really offended by these billboards or by their choice of placement. Atheist progress groups like other useless organizations like joining like minded people together in order to accomplish nothing. Putting up billboards is pretty much the only thing that they'll ever really get to do. I say let them vent and go quietly back to their middle class homes believing that they did something.

[Franz Fanonipants]

liberal "awareness" politics

[Lenina Rosenweg]

So people seeing those signs will say, "You know, those upper middle class atheists are right, I'll give up my network of friends, my family, my personal identity, whatever gives me meaning in this alienated world for atheism. Yep, I'm gonna go to my nearest Barnes & Nobles Bookstore and buy Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins. Even though they are wealthy white super successful guys, they truly speak to my overall life".

Oh wait, B & N closed most of their stores...

This comes dangerously close to Christopher Hitchens style atheism.Marxism teaches that there is no such thing as "religion", no aspect of society can exist as a separate entity.

Jews in Europe have had a long history of being forcibly preached to though out the Middle Ages. Church officials could openly walk into a synagogue and preach Christianity, whether the people inside were interested or not.

Islam (taken as a variety of immigrant communities, not a religion)is very unpopular in the US at present.So preaching atheism, if only is a billboard, is further reinforcing "progressive racism".The issue isn't the teachings of the Bal Shem Tov or whatever school of sharia law the Muslim group follows but the overall social dynamics.

If that atheist group wanted to get out of their small, white middle class comfort zone, why don't they put atheist billboards up in South Carolina or Tennessee? I wouldn't recommend this either of course, for the same reason.

There is a huge need for, if not atheist propaganda, then secularist propaganda. As either the science fiction writers David Brin or Charles Stross recently said, "The Handmaiden's Tale" is supposed to be a warning, not a blueprint for the future.The question is how best to do this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Handmaid%27s_Tale

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/03/06/still-burning-witches-in-kansas/

[Drosophila]

"You know it's a myth....but you have a choice" - maybe they don't know it's a myth. Give them reasons to believe it's a myth.

[Os Cangaceiros]

If that atheist group wanted to get out of their small, white middle class comfort zone, why don't they put atheist billboards up in South Carolina or Tennessee? I wouldn't recommend this either of course, for the same reason.


Atheist groups have put up billboards in the South and/or "Christian areas" like Texas.

[l'Enfermé]

Would anyone here object if such billboards were put up in Christian communities? No. They are being put up in Christian communities and have been for a long time, and no one ever objects. All I see is double-standards here. Why is Islam special? Because Muslim countries are backwards economically? Organized religion is a tool of oppression, Judaism and Islam even more so today than Christianity.

The billboards say: "Emancipate yourself from superstition"
You say "The emotions of angry religious fundamentalists are more important than emancipation!"

There is something wrong with that.

[9]

Would anyone here object if such billboards were put up in Christian communities? No.

probably a lot of people on here would, to be fair.

[l'Enfermé]

So people seeing those signs will say, "You know, those upper middle class atheists are right, I'll give up my network of friends, my family, my personal identity, whatever gives me meaning in this alienated world for atheism. Yep, I'm gonna go to my nearest Barnes & Nobles Bookstore and buy Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins. Even though they are wealthy white super successful guys, they truly speak to my overall life".

Oh wait, B & N closed most of their stores...

This comes dangerously close to Christopher Hitchens style atheism.Marxism teaches that there is no such thing as "religion", no aspect of society can exist as a separate entity.

Jews in Europe have had a long history of being forcibly preached to though out the Middle Ages. Church officials could openly walk into a synagogue and preach Christianity, whether the people inside were interested or not.

Islam (taken as a variety of immigrant communities, not a religion)is very unpopular in the US at present.So preaching atheism, if only is a billboard, is further reinforcing "progressive racism".The issue isn't the teachings of the Bal Shem Tov or whatever school of sharia law the Muslim group follows but the overall social dynamics.

If that atheist group wanted to get out of their small, white middle class comfort zone, why don't they put atheist billboards up in South Carolina or Tennessee? I wouldn't recommend this either of course, for the same reason.

There is a huge need for, if not atheist propaganda, then secularist propaganda. As either the science fiction writers David Brin or Charles Stross recently said, "The Handmaiden's Tale" is supposed to be a warning, not a blueprint for the future.The question is how best to do this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Handmaid%27s_Tale

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/03/06/still-burning-witches-in-kansas/
"Wealthy white guys" this, "wealthy white guys" that. "Mexicans steal our jobs" is racist, """Wealthy white guys" this, "wealthy white guys" that." is not racist? "White" people don't exist. It's originally an English concept, that refers to English people as the supreme race. Ethnic groups like the Irish are excluded(who in terms of skin complexion, are whiter than the English), even Germans are excluded.

"Islam is not popular". Yes, it's not popular, and no, it shouldn't be popular. Islam is a brutal, disgusting thing, take this from someone who comes from an Islamic society. It shouldn't be popular. Especially because of it's strong(and strengthening) hold on society where Muslims make a majority.

Enough with the liberal bullshit.

[9]

"Wealthy white guys" this, "wealthy white guys" that. "Mexicans steal our jobs" is racist, """Wealthy white guys" this, "wealthy white guys" that." is not racist?

No.

[l'Enfermé]

probably a lot of people on here would, to be fair.
Right. How many people here object to likes of Feurbach, who propagated atheism when he wrote Essence of Christianity, in the 19th century? What about Periyar Ramasamy who was attacking organized religion in India? Does anyone here object to Marx's and Engel's attacks on religion?

Double standards. Attacking Christianity is fine because the Spanish started torturing some heretics in the 15th(hmm, the Spanish don't look very "white" to me), while attacking Islam isn't fine because Westerners don't like brown people.

Consistency, please. All organized religion causes evil, especially those religions that have more power, which is why Islam does more harm today than Christianity, Christianity's hold on power was broken.

[9]

Where do you live?

[l'Enfermé]

I'm a Chechen immigrant in Europe.

[9]

I mean, I think it goes without saying that Islam is completely reactionary. However I also think it is pretty reasonable that people living in Christian majority countries, where Muslims are a common target of xenophobia, would devote more energy to criticizing Christianity than Islam.

IMO the issue with people in this thread making a big deal about the billboard isnt that theyre applying double standards, but that a lot of them are just sort of apologists for religion in general.

[bots]

So people seeing those signs will say, "You know, those upper middle class atheists are right, I'll give up my network of friends, my family, my personal identity, whatever gives me meaning in this alienated world for atheism. Yep, I'm gonna go to my nearest Barnes & Nobles Bookstore and buy Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins. Even though they are wealthy white super successful guys, they truly speak to my overall life".

Of course not. Religion is a symptom of alienation and will only be completely redundant when capitalism is gotten rid of. What putting billboards up may do is allow atheists in these communities to breathe a little, because I'm willing to bet they're not looked upon very favourably by the religious majorities in these communities.

Also, what's with the "all atheists are wealthy white guys" thing?


There is a huge need for, if not atheist propaganda, then secularist propaganda. As either the science fiction writers David Brin or Charles Stross recently said, "The Handmaiden's Tale" is supposed to be a warning, not a blueprint for the future.The question is how best to do this.

I agree. While it is important to understand religion from a materialist perspective, it's stupid to think that means religion can't be criticized.

[l'Enfermé]

I mean, I think it goes without saying that Islam is completely reactionary. However I also think it is pretty reasonable that people living in Christian majority countries, where Muslims are a common target of xenophobia, would devote more energy to criticizing Christianity than Islam.

IMO the issue with people in this thread making a big deal about the billboard isnt that theyre applying double standards, but that a lot of them are just sort of apologists for religion in general.
It is not only the people in this thread, it's in general with some leftists that have a tendency to be apologists for reactionary Islamists because Western Imperialists aren't particularly friendly with Iran, the Taliban, Hamas(Hamas was actually founded by Israeli intelligence to counter the secular PLO with Islamism, but that's another matter), etc.

This perception among so many leftists that if Western Imperialism is against it, then it should be supported, it's not very healthy. It's also related to ignoring Chinese neo-colonialism because China is stepping on America's toes with their economic progress, and other things like that. It seems that the defining characteristic of many leftists today is vulgar anti-Americanism/anti-Westernism.

[Zealot]

I don't think this billboard will do much but I'm not pissed off about it either. Atheists should propagate their ideas more frequently.

[9]

It is not only the people in this thread, it's in general with some leftists that have a tendency to be apologists for reactionary Islamists because Western Imperialists aren't particularly friendly with Iran, the Taliban, Hamas(Hamas was actually founded by Israeli intelligence to counter the secular PLO with Islamism, but that's another matter), etc.

This perception among so many leftists that if Western Imperialism is against it, then it should be supported, it's not very healthy. It's also related to ignoring Chinese neo-colonialism because China is stepping on America's toes with their economic progress, and other things like that. It seems that the defining characteristic of many leftists today is vulgar anti-Americanism/anti-Westernism.
I really dont think any of that has much of anything to do with this thread, to be honest.

[NewLeft]

Also, what's with the "all atheists are wealthy white guys" thing?

That's what atheism represents..

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Organized reliion is reactionary. The communities mentioned, Hasidic Jews in Brooklyn and Muslim immigrants in New Jersey, are literally under seize. There are incidents of harassing Muslim sin the New York area, including an incident at Coney Island amusement park last summer which almost turned into a riot.

I am not defending these communities as members of a religion, I am looking at them as members of a historic ethnic/cultural community. I fully understand that internally they may themselves have reactionary elements. The answer of course is a class based movement, some sort of "revolutionary integrationism".

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

Obviously not all atheists are "white guys". I have no idea who put up the billboards in question but they do reflect a type of liberalism which, minus any class basis, become elitist.

I certainly don't recommend atheist billboards be put up in the US biblebelt.There is a strong need though for a reinvioratin "secular humanist" movement.

[Drosophila]

That's what atheism represents..

This is an incredibly stupid assumption.

[LOLseph Stalin]

That is just stupid and makes them just as bad as fundies who try to convert people.

[gorillafuck]

wasted their money.

[manic expression]

The billboards say: "Emancipate yourself from superstition"
You say "The emotions of angry religious fundamentalists are more important than emancipation!"

There is something wrong with that.
I grew up not too far from the region in question, and I hardly think there are any significant numbers of "angry religious fundamentalists" to be found...unless you define "fundamentalist" as someone who follows religion. Anyway, targeting Islamic communities right after the racist lunacy over the Manhattan Islamic center is joining the reactionary mob against Muslims...dressing it up in paper-thin "religion is always bad" rhetoric doesn't change that. It's un-communist to think that this form of selective berating represents anything vaguely emancipatory.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Would anyone here object if such billboards were put up in Christian communities?Yes, several of the posters here have stated that they think this is a wrong approach to promoting secular ideas irregardless of the issue of the specific communities the billboards went up in.


No. They are being put up in Christian communities and have been for a long time, and no one ever objects. All I see is double-standards here. Why is Islam special? Because Muslim countries are backwards economically? Organized religion is a tool of oppression, Judaism and Islam even more so today than Christianity.While I think this kind of billboard is useless at best in challenging protestant christian ideas, in the context of Muslims in the US in particular (but with small minority religious groups in general) it these kinds of things reinforce the kind of Islamophobia being used to take rights away from all workers in the US not to mention sell the wars and attempts to derail or co-opt uprisings in the middle east and north africa.

They claim that all Muslims in the US are religious extremists who don't assimilate and are therefore terrorists in waiting. They try and pass laws to ensure that fundamentalist Islamic law isn't instituted in the US and protest community centers by Muslim organizations in NYC. The message is that this religion is alien and you can't trust it's followers. It's very similar to anti-Catholic sentiment and antisemitism in the past.


The billboards say: "Emancipate yourself from superstition"
You say "The emotions of angry religious fundamentalists are more important than emancipation!"

There is something wrong with that.No this is false. The billboards make an idealist and individualist appeal: "These ideas are better than yours, so drop yours". Many of the posters here that I agree with are arguing that this approach doesn't work and is potentially justifying arguments used in the oppression of some groups in the US.

[9]

While I think this kind of billboard is useless at best in challenging protestant christian ideas, in the context of Muslims in the US in particular (but with small minority religious groups in general) it these kinds of things reinforce the kind of Islamophobia being used to take rights away from all workers in the US not to mention sell the wars and attempts to derail or co-opt uprisings in the middle east and north africa.

Like I said earlier in this thread, I really dont think this is a valid point in this instance. I mean, whatever your opinion of the whole billboard campaign, it isnt singling out Muslims. These signs have been put up in Jewish neighborhoods and have been put up in Christian neighborhoods as well. Maybe its in poor taste, but I dont think it has anything to do with xenophobia.

[RGacky3]

I have a problem with it, anymore than I have a problem with political ads, obviously I think communities should have control about what goes up in their neighborhoods (rather than the market), but this idea of atheists being "white" or "upper class" is rediculous, it should'nt even come into the question its totally irrelevant to the issue.

[Princess Luna]

I grew up not too far from the region in question, and I hardly think there are any significant numbers of "angry religious fundamentalists" to be found...unless you define "fundamentalist" as someone who follows religion. Anyway, targeting Islamic communities right after the racist lunacy over the Manhattan Islamic center is joining the reactionary mob against Muslims...dressing it up in paper-thin "religion is always bad" rhetoric doesn't change that. It's un-communist to think that this form of selective berating represents anything vaguely emancipatory.
But it isn't a form of selective berating, because they treat other religions the same. This is the difference, people are the right try to exclude muslims and claim they need to be treated differently then everybody else. With this in mind the billboards are progressive, because they are not treating minority religions as something to be feared and loathed or as a helpless group who needs to be coddled, but like rational human beings who can take critisim and are no different then the people who go to Christian churches in the US

[hatzel]

In case anybody cared, the landlord in Williamsburg has refused to let the billboard be put up. The American Atheists' president has responded by calling him an "anti-atheist bigot." Nice.

[manic expression]

But it isn't a form of selective berating, because they treat other religions the same. This is the difference, people are the right try to exclude muslims and claim they need to be treated differently then everybody else. With this in mind the billboards are progressive, because they are not treating minority religions as something to be feared and loathed or as a helpless group who needs to be coddled, but like rational human beings who can take critisim and are no different then the people who go to Christian churches in the US
Except Muslims aren't people who go to Christian churches in the US and because of that they are treated differently. If law enforcement makes the distinction and acts upon it then the distinction socially exists whether you endorse it or not.

In other words, if one person is wearing heavy boots while another person is barefooted with a broken toe, you can't stomp on both of their feet and then say that you're treating them equally.

[eyeheartlenin]

In case anybody cared, the landlord in Williamsburg has refused to let the billboard be put up. The American Atheists' president has responded by calling him an "anti-atheist bigot." Nice.

To second hatzel's post, there is a story in the Forward at http://tinyurl.com/82y9k64

The atheist interviewed in the Forward uses the expression, "the Jews [have stopped the billboard]," which makes me, as someone whose education included studying the history of anti-semitism, a little uncomfortable. The atheist spokesman went on to blame "powerful rabbis." Are there really such people in the predominantly secular US today?

It is kind of funny that the community thwarted the billboard by a landlord's saying, in effect, no way am I getting mixed up in that. I agree with Lenina; the reports about the billboard and the reaction in Williamsburg sound like someone's targeting of people who already have more than enough to deal with, targeting communities under siege. Kind of a bad move with which to try to propagate a point of view, I would have thought.

[RGacky3]

Btw, the fact that the put up YHWH in hebrew up is an obvious juts slap in the face, they know that orthodox Jews forbid the use of the holy name and consider it highly sacred.

If they're goal was to increase discussion, or to increase critical thinking, that move is a total failure, all it will do is piss people off, rightfully, since its a blatent disrespect done for no other reason than disrespect.

[ckaihatsu]

American Atheists reportedly paid $15,000 to post the billboard at the busy Paterson intersection.




Not likely to accomplish much; I can't see religious people reading a billboard and then saying, "Of course! It is all so obvious!" As Lenina has said the money could be better spent elsewhere.


Interesting that *no one* has touched on the related topic of media access, and why *non*-commercial messages to mass audiences in public spaces (billboards) have such a difficult time competing with the norm of well-funded *commercial* messages (advertisements).

All of the following excerpts from posts deal with the *tactic* employed by American Atheists, and I duly note their respective critiques of the tactic, as reported.

The organization -- which incidentally was my initial "politicization" into societal issues back in my mid-teen years, indirectly from a free-newspaper ad -- has the word 'American' in its name, which should be a tip-off that it has a typical U.S.-nationalist political orientation. American Atheists focuses on legal battles around secularism, which is certainly valuable for what it is, but it is not proletarian revolutionary consciousness, obviously.

We shouldn't be too surprised if its tactics reflect a certain mainstream-nationalist-religion-paradigm bias in perspective -- meaning going after *off*-mainstream religions instead of picking on "the big guys" -- to find a path of lesser resistance in action. I wouldn't impute any intentions of persecution-mindedness here.





While I think this kind of billboard is useless at best in challenging protestant christian ideas, in the context of Muslims in the US in particular (but with small minority religious groups in general) it these kinds of things reinforce the kind of Islamophobia being used to take rights away from all workers in the US not to mention sell the wars and attempts to derail or co-opt uprisings in the middle east and north africa.





I grew up not too far from the region in question, and I hardly think there are any significant numbers of "angry religious fundamentalists" to be found...unless you define "fundamentalist" as someone who follows religion. Anyway, targeting Islamic communities right after the racist lunacy over the Manhattan Islamic center is joining the reactionary mob against Muslims...dressing it up in paper-thin "religion is always bad" rhetoric doesn't change that. It's un-communist to think that this form of selective berating represents anything vaguely emancipatory.





I have a problem with it, anymore than I have a problem with political ads, obviously I think communities should have control about what goes up in their neighborhoods (rather than the market), but this idea of atheists being "white" or "upper class" is rediculous, it should'nt even come into the question its totally irrelevant to the issue.





But it isn't a form of selective berating, because they treat other religions the same. This is the difference, people are the right try to exclude muslims and claim they need to be treated differently then everybody else. With this in mind the billboards are progressive, because they are not treating minority religions as something to be feared and loathed or as a helpless group who needs to be coddled, but like rational human beings who can take critisim and are no different then the people who go to Christian churches in the US





Except Muslims aren't people who go to Christian churches in the US and because of that they are treated differently. If law enforcement makes the distinction and acts upon it then the distinction socially exists whether you endorse it or not.





The atheist interviewed in the Forward uses the expression, "the Jews [have stopped the billboard]," which makes me, as someone whose education included studying the history of anti-semitism, a little uncomfortable. The atheist spokesman went on to blame "powerful rabbis." Are there really such people in the predominantly secular US today?

[Optiow]

I like the fact atheists around the world are organizing and talking to each other more, as I think everyone needs a community where they can just be themselves. But whether it's Satanist, Christian or Hindu billboards trying to provoke conflict, that's when it becomes not cool.

[9]

Who gives a shit about this, honestly? Who seriously gives a shit outside of some religious nuts and weirdos on this website? Its a fucking billboard. Get over it, jesus.

[dodger]

Who gives a shit about this, honestly? Who seriously gives a shit outside of some religious nuts and weirdos on this website? Its a fucking billboard. Get over it, jesus.

I do so agree dear 9, religious nuts, cults, always jealously guard their 'right' not to be criticised, how else might they continue their long history of abusing power. One law for everyone seems a good place to start.

[RGacky3]

Who gives a shit about this, honestly? Who seriously gives a shit outside of some religious nuts and weirdos on this website? Its a fucking billboard. Get over it, jesus.


Who gives a shit if someone does something really insulting and blatently dissrespectful to other people, because shit, they are OTHER people right?

I'm not black so why should I care if people do things blatently insulting and disrespectful to black people?


I do so agree dear 9, religious nuts, cults, always jealously guard their 'right' not to be criticised, how else might they continue their long history of abusing power. One law for everyone seems a good place to start.

No one is saying they have a right to not be criticised, what we are saying is that its not criticism, its just being a dick.

[dodger]

RGackyI , 'dick' criticism goes with the territory. I have no special insight into American manners, I do know that every 2.3person is a victim or potential one. Hence the popularity of Lone Ranger(+Tonto!), Batman. Spiderman, Wonderwomam and the California Highway Patrol...not forgetting our own Agent Ducky. To the rescue!!! Already the advert has caused a sensation, not being ignored. So no doubt the people paying feel they are getting their money's worth. Not my cup of tea. The add on the bus in tone and where it was hit the spot for me. Storm in a teacup sensible people will just smile others must grin and bear it.

[Guy Incognito]

RGackyI , 'dick' criticism goes with the territory. I have no special insight into American manners, I do know that every 2.3person is a victim or potential one. Hence the popularity of Lone Ranger(+Tonto!), Batman. Spiderman, Wonderwomam and the California Highway Patrol...not forgetting our own Agent Ducky. To the rescue!!! Already the advert has caused a sensation, not being ignored. So no doubt the people paying feel they are getting their money's worth. Not my cup of tea. The add on the bus in tone and where it was hit the spot for me. Storm in a teacup sensible people will just smile others must grin and bear it.

Frankly I didn't originally think the non-belief in a deity led to being a dick to everyone who does. Guess the new religion of atheism (you know, that whole organizing and criticizing any other way thing) is just more of the same.

[ckaihatsu]

The simplest and most effective argument that *people invented deities*, and not the other way around, is to just make a list of a few dozen of them from cultures around the world.

I'd been brainstorming the other day, that, just as the communist cause would benefit immensely from a Hollywood-blockbuster-type rendition of The Communist Manifesto, the atheist cause could likewise make headway from a fictional movie treatment that showed a universe populated by scores of these multicultural deities all interacting in some kind of storyline.

[Franz Fanonipants]

I'd been brainstorming the other day, that, just as the communist cause would benefit immensely from a Hollywood-blockbuster-type rendition of The Communist Manifesto[. . .]

i just watched atlas shrugged please don't

[9]

The Communist Manifesto The Movie. Because people would go see that in droves... :unsure:

[Franz Fanonipants]

The Communist Manifesto The Movie. Because people would go see that in droves... :unsure:

there is a specter right and his name his name is communism

[ckaihatsu]

i just watched atlas shrugged please don't


I've never even read the book....





The Communist Manifesto The Movie. Because people would go see that in droves... :unsure:


How about in the mode of 'V for Vendetta' -- ? -- !

[Franz Fanonipants]

How about in the mode of 'V for Vendetta' -- ? -- !

have you ever seen V for Vendetta? because welp

[ckaihatsu]

have you ever seen V for Vendetta? because welp


You were going to say something here...?

[dodger]

Frankly I didn't originally think the non-belief in a deity led to being a dick to everyone who does. Guess the new religion of atheism (you know, that whole organizing and criticizing any other way thing) is just more of the same.

PROBABLY.....but Dawkins is sweetness itself + his job literally is popularizing of science. He is sorely needed. I did 1 year of science subjects at school. Since then I have had to play catch up, and have devoured books documentaries and Wiki especially with each new invention or discovery. Quite clearly religion is on the back foot. Religion is like chewing tobacco, largely ceased here. Tracing its demise might open your eyes to why/how being a dick to a dick came about , Guy. The instruments at hand included chain-shot-fireboats-uncertain tides around our shores-greed for Papal gold-translation of bible to English-red hot irons-satirical pamphlets-burning priest and nun at stake-perception of religion as foreign-boredom-resentment-hiding around the back when the vicar called-denying them funds-not attending their ceremonies- getting married in registry office-lampooning-sneering-stealing the lead of their roofs- waving a fond farewell as they buggered off to dark continents and left us in peace-You must think by now THERE SURELY IS NO MORE, but there is Guy-Arch-bishop of York the No. 2 man, an African, cultivated, articulate got a parcel of human excreta on the day of his enthronement. He commented"i don't know which of my parishioners posted the parcel!" I suppose short of DNA testing, everyone in York is a suspect, we may never know.

Being a Dick, even a prize Dick is hardly worthy of comment. Some enjoy being Dicks, by and large I say live and let live. Dicks and Christians. Just wish christians would not Dick with our lives so much. Since they do, Dick-dick-dick is what they deserve and what they get. It may not be divine but it is retribution. Muslims too. Of course we could just watch them kill each other like crips and bloods, angels and outlaws, mafia and yardies. Maybe that is the answer. Watch in silence or ill disguised glee?

[Franz Fanonipants]

PROBABLY.....but Dawkins is sweetness itself + his job literally is popularizing of science. He is sorely needed. I did 1 year of science subjects at school.

sorry bro but nope

[dodger]

sorry bro but nope

I can live with Dawkins for the time being, that is. Franz. If others wish to take him to task , dick him or even burn him at the stake. Good . It is all good. Back home I very much spend my time ignoring religion as do most sensible people. On every level it seems the right thing to do. Culture(our), religion deemed to be a waste of energy. a potential for conflict. Never talk of religion or politics in a pub ...was the advice to a young man. Maybe on blogs too?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

The Communist Manifesto The Movie. Because people would go see that in droves... :unsure:

Actually I think they would. The liberal Micheal Moore's "Capitalism, A Love Story" was a big hit. Every time a reactionary bozo like Santorum mentions the word "working class" he goes up in the polls.A reactionary slimebucket like Newt Gingrich got a lot of mileage in the primary elections by implicitly criticizing capitalism, until the ruling class shut him up.

There would be a huge market for "The Communist Manifesto, The Movie" Besides, "Everything that's solid melts into air" could be a great pretext for some epic CGI.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The Communist Manifesto The Movie. Because people would go see that in droves... :unsure:
Yeah, probably not. I always thought there cold be some great leftist historical dramas though. "Paris Commune" the movie?

[bricolage]

Yeah, probably not. I always thought there cold be some great leftist historical dramas though. "Paris Commune" the movie?
the peter watkins one is interesting... but it's nearly 6 hours long so I didn't even get halfway through.

[pluckedflowers]

Besides, "Everything that's solid melts into air" could be a great pretext for some epic CGI.

Right now I'm envisioning something along the lines of "Tree of Life" with the dinosaurs and leaves replaced by fragments and images of class war throughout the ages.

[Jimmie Higgins]

the peter watkins one is interesting... but it's nearly 6 hours long so I didn't even get halfway through.Yeah right, no I mean one that people would want to see.:lol:

[bricolage]

Yeah right, no I mean one that people would want to see.:lol:
you mean people don't want to see six hour films anymore? moral decline an all that.

[hatzel]

Actually if a film isn't at least six hours long I flatly refuse to watch it. I mean I even had to watch Ghost World three times in a row and pretend it was built around some kind of Nietzschean endless reoccurrence of the same shizzle. Most films are better if watched in such a fashion, I find...

[Luís Henrique]

Would anyone here object if such billboards were put up in Christian communities? No.

Of course yes. It is a monumentally stupid tactic.

Luís Henrique

[pluckedflowers]

Of course yes. It is a monumentally stupid tactic.

Luís Henrique

No way, I'm pretty sure Marx wrote somewhere that billboards determine social being.

[Luís Henrique]

I'm a Chechen immigrant in Europe.

This puts some perspective into your opinions. Evidently in Chechnya Islam is the single greatest threat to secularism.

Let me try to give you some perspective about ours.

I suppose there are religious minorities in Chechnya. Christians, Jews, perhaps Zoroastrians or Buddhists?

Let's stick with Christians and Jews. Suppose that a Chechen atheist organisation started targeting Jewish and Christian "communities" with propaganda. Would you support this? Or would you realise that it would be instrumental to the Muslism establishment in persecuting Christians and Jews? Wouldn't you think that once the Muslism establishment changed its target, from Christians and Jews to atheists, Chechen atheists would come to regret their bigotry against the minorities, for evidently it would quite reduce the possibility that Jews and Christians stand for the atheists against religious discrimination?

Now retranslate this back to the reality of a country where Islam is a small, persecuted minority, and the greatest threat to secularism is born-again Christianism. Add to this the fact that the persecution of Jews is not kosher in the United States, so that protestant bigots cannot actually directly harass Jews - see how useful it would be for the Christian establishment to have atheist lapdogs taking the chestnuts from the fire for them?

Luís Henrique

[ckaihatsu]

In the current decaying-bourgeois social context, secularism -- and the struggle for it -- makes sense, in the direction of keeping state and church separate. But there are also larger, and more-determining, issues and battles that demand political attention.

[Guy Incognito]

In the current decaying-bourgeois social context, secularism -- and the struggle for it -- makes sense, in the direction of keeping state and church separate. But there are also larger, and more-determining, issues and battles that demand political attention.

The existance of other issues does not eliminate lesser ones. Particularly when the larger ones are currently out of reach.

[ckaihatsu]

The existance of other issues does not eliminate lesser ones.


I'll generally agree, but since our attention in realtime is finite we often have to make decisions over *priority* since handling *everything* is prohibitive.





Particularly when the larger ones are currently out of reach.


You may want to elaborate here.

[brigadista]

do these atheists live in those neighbourhoods?

[NGNM85]

They should have done it in Kansas.

[Elysian]

Although religious fundamentalism in general is a problem, currently it's only Christian and Islamic fundamentalism that's a real menace to socialism, to developing class consciousness. Other religions may be absurd but they aren't a direct threat the way C and I are.

[Guy Incognito]

I'll generally agree, but since our attention in realtime is finite we often have to make decisions over *priority* since handling *everything* is prohibitive.





You may want to elaborate here.

To elaborate: we do not currently have remotely near the numbers needed for a mass revolution of the working class. It is currently out of reach. What we need to be focusing on is drawing more numbers to the cause, and to work on not alienating those who are even remotely sympathetic, but wary. Propaganda needs to be increased on ALL fronts.

Acceptance, cooperation, community.

[Revolution starts with U]

To elaborate: we do not currently have remotely near the numbers needed for a mass revolution of the working class. It is currently out of reach. What we need to be focusing on is drawing more numbers to the cause, and to work on not alienating those who are even remotely sympathetic, but wary. Propaganda needs to be increased on ALL fronts.

Acceptance, cooperation, community.

Wouldn't "drawing them in" be impossible if peoples actions are in no way influenced by ideas? (Spry, carryover from another thread).

[Guy Incognito]

Wouldn't "drawing them in" be impossible if peoples actions are in no way influenced by ideas? (Spry, carryover from another thread).

Of course actions are influenced by ideas...to say otherwise is insane (unless you're referring specifically to religion and ignoring all other ideas that influence actions). Did I fuck up somewhere and say differently? If so, I misspoke or was out of my mind at the time.

[Revolution starts with U]

Of course actions are influenced by ideas...to say otherwise is insane (unless you're referring specifically to religion and ignoring all other ideas that influence actions). Did I fuck up somewhere and say differently? If so, I misspoke or was out of my mind at the time.

Not you. I'm in agreement with you.

[l'Enfermé]

This puts some perspective into your opinions. Evidently in Chechnya Islam is the single greatest threat to secularism.

Let me try to give you some perspective about ours.

I suppose there are religious minorities in Chechnya. Christians, Jews, perhaps Zoroastrians or Buddhists?

Let's stick with Christians and Jews. Suppose that a Chechen atheist organisation started targeting Jewish and Christian "communities" with propaganda. Would you support this? Or would you realise that it would be instrumental to the Muslism establishment in persecuting Christians and Jews? Wouldn't you think that once the Muslism establishment changed its target, from Christians and Jews to atheists, Chechen atheists would come to regret their bigotry against the minorities, for evidently it would quite reduce the possibility that Jews and Christians stand for the atheists against religious discrimination?

Now retranslate this back to the reality of a country where Islam is a small, persecuted minority, and the greatest threat to secularism is born-again Christianism. Add to this the fact that the persecution of Jews is not kosher in the United States, so that protestant bigots cannot actually directly harass Jews - see how useful it would be for the Christian establishment to have atheist lapdogs taking the chestnuts from the fire for them?

Luís Henrique
Muslims are not a persecuted minority in the United States. An average Muslim in the United States is more affluent and more educated than an average American. Brown and black people are in some ways a persecuted minority, it just happens that some brown people are Muslims also.

If someone starts an atheist organization in Chechnya he would be murdered by either his family or if they don't get to him first, the government. The penalty for apostasy is death in Islam, without exceptions. Chechnya is a country where after a series of murders aimed at young women were committed, the President went on TV and said the murders were justified because the women wore skirts and not the Arabic Hijab. Atheist organizations do not exist in Islamic societies, as I said, the penalty for apostasy is death and it's generally enforced. That is Islam.

Now, let's assume that Muslims are a persecuted minority in the United States. And Jews also(A preposterous idea, Jews in the US are a privileged class and Zionist organizations like AIPAC have nearly unlimited power). I still find it acceptable to aim propoganda at them. Atheists in the United States don't aim their propaganda only at Jews or Muslims, or primarily on Jews and Muslims. They aim their propaganda primarily on Christians, which is what you're ignoring. You also mention bigotry. Are you implying American atheists are bigoted against Jews and Muslims? That's ridiculous. If anything, Muslims are bigoted against atheists(They kill them, and Christians don't do to well in Islamic societies either, ask the Christians in Nigeria and Copts in Egypt).

You whine about how Atheists create innocent billboards in Muslim communities, yet you don't whine about how Muslims brainwash their children and poison and permanently enslave their minds. If the State promotes religion, it's evil! If parents, who have more authority over their children than the State, brainwash their children into worshiping a pedophile warlord that beheaded and sold into slavery those who refused to accept his sect, it's fine and no one whines about it. That's not acceptable to me.

It's child abuse in my definition. If children are are forced into their parents' religion, it's child abuse. I said Muslims are not a persecuted minority, but if they were, I wouldn't mine. I believe that child abusers should be persecuted until they cease child abuse.

[ckaihatsu]

To elaborate: we do not currently have remotely near the numbers needed for a mass revolution of the working class. It is currently out of reach. What we need to be focusing on is drawing more numbers to the cause, and to work on not alienating those who are even remotely sympathetic, but wary. Propaganda needs to be increased on ALL fronts.

Acceptance, cooperation, community.


It's a *dialectical* thing since we obviously want to reach people "where they're at" but there's no reason to *cater* to them or to compromise our own political principles and positions.

Conceptually it may be helpful to visualize just how broad a "platform" may be supported by our fixed political principles on the far left (most progressive) end of the political spectrum.

(A broader platform is more accommodating but less principled, and a narrower platform is more principled but less inclusive.)


[3] Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals

http://postimage.org/image/34modgv1g/

[Guy Incognito]

It's a *dialectical* thing since we obviously want to reach people "where they're at" but there's no reason to *cater* to them or to compromise our own political principles and positions.

Conceptually it may be helpful to visualize just how broad a "platform" may be supported by our fixed political principles on the far left (most progressive) end of the political spectrum.

(A broader platform is more accommodating but less principled, and a narrower platform is more principled but less inclusive.)


[3] Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals

http://postimage.org/image/34modgv1g/

If we're going just by that (rather well made) graphic, we have a lot of work to do, because we won't be reaching even close to half the world's population by being this narrow with our message. Propaganda is all about catering to your audience. Look at the "Tea Party". They're lapping up right wing rhetoric, and gleefully assaulting their own class interests, and it's all due to some pitifully made, but well placed propaganda. We need to reach these same people (and how better to do so than their religions?), and make them furious for what's being done to them. I truly think that if we can draw in the religious (and remove the head of the beast, to prevent countering messages), we would have all the numbers we would ever need. Now that's obviously not easy to do, nor is it likely to ever get to that point, but it does draw some as it is now. I feel it's as valuable a target for seemingly innocuous propaganda as any, and we should be using ALL targets as best we can.

[ckaihatsu]

If we're going just by that (rather well made) graphic, we have a lot of work to do, because we won't be reaching even close to half the world's population by being this narrow with our message.


Yes, thanks -- my political efforts have been focused more "internally", here at RevLeft, lately.

More political educational diagrams and illustrations: tinyurl.com/ckaihatsu-diagrams-revleft

A detailed description of my position: tinyurl.com/ckaihatsu-concise-communism





Propaganda is all about catering to your audience.


Well, yes and no -- again, it's about "speaking their language" but not catering to their *message*, or position.





Look at the "Tea Party". They're lapping up right wing rhetoric, and gleefully assaulting their own class interests, and it's all due to some pitifully made, but well placed propaganda.


This isn't the best example, because they've obviously received the tacit approval of the powers-that-be or else they wouldn't be getting such exposure over the mainstream corporate media channels. (So it's not merely about content and style, but also about *access*, or strength of outreach.)





We need to reach these same people (and how better to do so than their religions?), and make them furious for what's being done to them. I truly think that if we can draw in the religious (and remove the head of the beast, to prevent countering messages), we would have all the numbers we would ever need. Now that's obviously not easy to do, nor is it likely to ever get to that point, but it does draw some as it is now. I feel it's as valuable a target for seemingly innocuous propaganda as any, and we should be using ALL targets as best we can.


I'd be glad to shift my efforts and collaborate with you in this direction, if you like. Feel free to PM me to get a conversation going on this. (This goes for any other RevLefters as well.)

[Ocean Seal]

Can we all just come to the conclusion that it was a dumb thing that was done by self-righteous people in order to feel self-righteous.

[Luís Henrique]

If someone starts an atheist organization in Chechnya he would be murdered by either his family or if they don't get to him first, the government. The penalty for apostasy is death in Islam, without exceptions.

Well, that's false.

In Egypt, writer, Salaheddin Mohsen is sentenced to three years in prison for atheism and blasphemy against Islam (http://www.thefileroom.org/documents/dyn/DisplayCase.cfm/id/1066)

Awful as it is, "three years in prison" is not "death".


Now, let's assume that Muslims are a persecuted minority in the United States. And Jews also(A preposterous idea, Jews in the US are a privileged class and Zionist organizations like AIPAC have nearly unlimited power).

This borders on anti-semitism.

Listen, persecution of non-Muslisms in predominantly Muslism countries has been actively fostered by predominantly non-Muslism countries: the most fanatically Islamic dictatorships in the Middle East are also the US best allies in the region. They have smashed secular, or Christian, or Zoroastrian Baha'i opposition with the blessings of the "Western Civilisation", because you know, the actual enemy is atheist Communism.


You whine about how Atheists create innocent billboards in Muslim communities, yet you don't whine about how Muslims brainwash their children and poison and permanently enslave their minds.

No, I don't whine about that. I oppose that, which is different. And opposing that means opposing the supposed "secular" "Western" imperialist powers that have actively promoted the suppression of secularism in the Middel East.


It's child abuse in my definition. If children are are forced into their parents' religion, it's child abuse.

All religions do this, isn't it?


I said Muslims are not a persecuted minority, but if they were, I wouldn't mine.

I suppose you mean you wouldn't mind. Can't you see that religion persecution is a tool of the rulling classes in dividing the workers?


I believe that child abusers should be persecuted until they cease child abuse.

All religious people indoctrinate their children with their religion. Muslisms do this, Catholics do this, even Bahai's do it. And obviously atheist people do this too: my parents, who are both atheists, told me God doesn't exist when I was a small boy; how is this "child abuse"? Or is it only "child abuse" when we disagree with the content of the ideology parents pass on to their children?

And how are you going to stop this "child abuse", unless you actually deny people the right to raise their children on their own?

Luís Henrique

[NGNM85]

All religious people indoctrinate their children with their religion. Muslisms do this, Catholics do this, even Bahai's do it.

Tragically; yes. This is why we must take action to stem the tide, as it were.



And obviously atheist people do this too: my parents, who are both atheists, told me God doesn't exist when I was a small boy;

Atheism is not a religion, nor is it comperable to religion. You don’t need to accept anything on insufficient evidence in order to be an Atheist. Your parents should have said; ‘There is insufficient data to presume god exists.’, and; ‘Many of the truth claims made by the major religions range from highly suspect, to obviously wrong.’


how is this "child abuse"? Or is it only "child abuse" when we disagree with the content of the ideology parents pass on to their children?

One of the many things wrong with this is that you suggest that it’s entirely relative. That’s absurd. For example; we would be quite correct in saying that it is, objectively, better that children not be raised to believe in Neo-Nazism. This is because Neo-Nazism is a verifiably bankrupt ideology. It is bankrupt because it makes false truth claims, and because the more people subscribe to it’s tenets, society becomes increasingly less ideal, for human beings. We can say the same, to varying degrees, about Christianity, or Islam. These belief systems fill children’s heads with similarly irrational ideas, and the pathological attitudes of these doctrines, regarding sexuality, or a woman’s place in society, etc., have all sorts of negative consequences, not in the least of which being frequently leading to unhappiness that seriously affects people’s quality of life.


And how are you going to stop this "child abuse", unless you actually deny people the right to raise their children on their own?

Luís Henrique

I don’t think there is one magic answer. Only fools believe in simple answers to complex questions. I think it would require a number of different tactics. One of the most important is education. We definitely need to get ‘Intelligent Design’, which is just a Trojan horse for creationism, out of the classroom. It might be helpful to build secular associations of mutual support, to replace the church, as the center of the community. I think we need to challenge religious truth claims The United States is a total anarchronism, in the Western world, where religiosity is fairly rapidly declining. It’s likely there are lessons we can learn, from these countries, which would be applicable to the United States. Etc., etc. Like I said; there is no one magic answer, but, clearly, there are a number of things we can do. It’s simply a matter of figuring out the most effective strategies.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

I have been looking at this thread for the past few weeks and all I can say is that there is nothing wrong with atheist propaganda. Atheist propaganda can help some young (or even old) people skeptical of the religions they were taught to follow to want to find out more about the liberating ideal of atheism.

[Luís Henrique]

Atheism is not a religion, nor is it comperable to religion. You don’t need to accept anything on insufficient evidence in order to be an Atheist. Your parents should have said; ‘There is insufficient data to presume god exists.’, and; ‘Many of the truth claims made by the major religions range from highly suspect, to obviously wrong.’

How do you get a five-year-old to understand what "insufficient data" or "truth claims" mean?

Besides, indoctrinating children into agnosticism doesn't seem to me any better than indoctrinating them into atheism. Particularly when the parents in question aren't agnostics, but actual atheists.


One of the many things wrong with this is that you suggest that it’s entirely relative. That’s absurd. For example; we would be quite correct in saying that it is, objectively, better that children not be raised to believe in Neo-Nazism.

Oh yes, but this is a quite different issue than child abuse.


I don’t think there is one magic answer. Only fools believe in simple answers to complex questions. I think it would require a number of different tactics. One of the most important is education.

Education, though, within a capitalist society, is directed by the bourgeois State. I don't see how it is going to be aimed at the suppression of bourgeois ideologies.

One thing that people usually disregard: the educational system of Germany in the 20's and 30's of the past century was quite better when compared to those of France, United States, or Britain.

The Japanese educational system was even better than the German. Always was; indeed the educational system of late feudal Japan was better than the educational system of early capitalist England!


We definitely need to get ‘Intelligent Design’, which is just a Trojan horse for creationism, out of the classroom.

Indeed, though it seems outlandish to me, living in a country where evolution is indisputedly taught in school.


It might be helpful to build secular associations of mutual support, to replace the church, as the center of the community.

That too; trade unions used to fulfill that role in the 19th century, but unhappily have lost that function.


I think we need to challenge religious truth claims

Well, yes, but it is hard to see how we do that, except by a reform movement concerning education and an actual revival of the working class movement.


The United States is a total anarchronism, in the Western world, where religiosity is fairly rapidly declining. It’s likely there are lessons we can learn, from these countries, which would be applicable to the United States.

Maybe; cultural imports from one country to another often fail because they do not take into account the actual role of cultural traits in different societies. For instance, the American debate about whether the Ten Commandments have a place in courts would seem completely absurd in Brazil, where not even the fundies want to raise the question, and where not even the atheists would be "offended", as long as the actual functioning of the courts continues to be bound to secular, instead of Biblic, law.

Luís Henrique

[Althusser]

If people want to believe in the rotating teapot, that is fine with me. But when you have everyone believing in god, whichever religion, it gets dangerous. We have fundamentalists and less extreme mental slaves that believe in the bullshit dictated by men as the word of god. When the fallacy of god influences legislation in places like the US, or runs the country like muslim theocracies in Iran and other middle eastern countries, it becomes necassary for people to really put it all in question at a personal level.

I think that athiests should be very open about their atheism. Put up a humanist sign in my NY subway with Langston Hughes on it, put up a billboard, exclaim it from the rooftops (maybe not), but it all helps show blind followers that there is a community that rejects religion and wants what is best for us now, not what was best for the Roman legion to control the masses two thousand years ago, or what was best for jewish slaves to cope with hardships, or what was best for the prophet Mohammad, grace and peace be apon him, to get away with fucking six year old girls while being over 50 years old himself.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Although religious fundamentalism in general is a problem, currently it's only Christian and Islamic fundamentalism that's a real menace to socialism, to developing class consciousness. Other religions may be absurd but they aren't a direct threat the way C and I are.I think Hindu nationalism and a thousand and one ways other religions are and have been used to promote reactionary actions and policies suggest otherwise. Any religion can be used by the ruling class as a way to divide people or try and get them to support politics that aren't in their class interests. During slavery in the US, people with the same exact religion would be on polar opposite sides on the question of slavery - politics are the fundamental denominator, the particular religion is just the surface features of how those politics get expressed.


Muslims are not a persecuted minority in the United States. An average Muslim in the United States is more affluent and more educated than an average American. Brown and black people are in some ways a persecuted minority, it just happens that some brown people are Muslims also.:ohmy:

When you are racially profiled, religiously profiled (many who have been caught in FBI set-ups have been non-Arab converts to Islam, so it's both religious and ethnic persecution). When it's a "legitimate" debate in the US to have a reasonable suspicion that any Muslim organization that wants to open a community center a quarter of a mile from where the Twin towers used to be, that's a strong indication of wide-spread bigotry. When media and political figures openly say that people of this religion are not as trustworthy as others and "can't be reasoned with" then they are being persecuted and scapegoated.

This is really a strange argument to claim that average Muslims in the US are petty bourgeois, so essentially fuck em they aren't subject to oppression. Does this mean if neo-nazis were protesting a CEO and poltician of Jewish background, we should ignore their anti-semetic attack?

With the anti-terrorism and spying laws passed during a period of drummed up Islamophobia increasingly being used against all dissenters, shouldn't the class nature of oppression and scapegoating be clear? Even if every muslim in the US was a capitalist, such profiling and scapegoating would still be ultimately harmful to workers.

For years homophobes have appealed to a sort of right-wing anti-elite populism. They create this straw-man of all homosexuals being basically rich white urban males in petty-bourgeois positions. So are homosexuals not oppessed if this straw-man were real?


Now, let's assume that Muslims are a persecuted minority in the United States. And Jews also(A preposterous idea, Jews in the US are a privileged class and Zionist organizations like AIPAC have nearly unlimited power).Holy crap. I grew up in an area where the main gangs were all white-power thugs... when I was in middle school there were some firebombings of Jewish temples! Antisemitism may no longer get a free-pass from the US ruling class both from a popular rejection of antisemitism after WWII, but also as a way to justify support for Israel as supposedly preventing more antisemitism, but that doesn't mean it couldn't re-emerge or doesn't exist altogether. If there is another severe phase of the recession and US institutions loose more credibility among the whole of society or if Israel is involved with a war that the US (undoubtedly would be involved with if not pulling the strings) is attached to and it becomes domestically unpopular, I have no doubt that we could see a return of "jew-banker/jews run the world" populist antisemitism.


You also mention bigotry. Are you implying American atheists are bigoted against Jews and Muslims? Some - particularly there is a secular Islamophobia - moreso in France and other places where the idea of a secular society is much more of a given. Liberal Women's rights organizations supported Bush in Afghanistan on the basis of "saving women from fundamentalism".


That's ridiculous. If anything, Muslims are bigoted against atheists(They kill them, and Christians don't do to well in Islamic societies either, ask the Christians in Nigeria and Copts in Egypt).Muslim Egyptian protesters defended praying Copts in Tarhir and the Copts returned the favor. It has also become very clear that the military regime is allowing and fanning the flames of sectarian attacks on Copts in order to justify continued crack downs on public gatherings and to justify the self-serving "oh Egyptians aren't ready for democracy" myths.


You whine about how Atheists create innocent billboards in Muslim communities, yet you don't whine about how Muslims brainwash their children and poison and permanently enslave their minds. If the State promotes religion, it's evil! If parents, who have more authority over their children than the State, brainwash their children into worshiping a pedophile warlord that beheaded and sold into slavery those who refused to accept his sect, it's fine and no one whines about it. That's not acceptable to me.Evil? Not acceptable to you? You mean like pre-marital sex and recreational drug use and hip hop!? Don't force your morality onto others.

Each day US children have to salute their allegiance to a flag based on conquest, genocide, slavery, and ongoing oppression and exploitation? Do you support drone attacks on US public schools?


It's child abuse in my definition. If children are are forced into their parents' religion, it's child abuse. I said Muslims are not a persecuted minority, but if they were, I wouldn't mine. I believe that child abusers should be persecuted until they cease child abuse.Not only supporting reactionary views, but just distasteful to actual abuse physical and mental abuse victims. I wouldn't wish they lifestyle of a Hassidic fundamentalist or extremely austere Mormon or an Amish person on my worst enemy, but "forcing" people to believe one thing or another is useless and potentially harmful to the working class struggle.

Ideas don't create the world, religious ideas are a reflection of things in this society. If you want to see a different society, then things need to be changed on a fundamental level, then the surface reflections of that society will be able to change as well and if they don't then they become socially useless and die off.

[freepalestine]

Muslims are not a persecuted minority in the United States. An average Muslim in the United States is more affluent and more educated than an average American. Brown and black people are in some ways a persecuted minority, it just happens that some brown people are Muslims also.

If someone starts an atheist organization in Chechnya he would be murdered by either his family or if they don't get to him first, the government. The penalty for apostasy is death in Islam, without exceptions. Chechnya is a country where after a series of murders aimed at young women were committed, the President went on TV and said the murders were justified because the women wore skirts and not the Arabic Hijab. Atheist organizations do not exist in Islamic societies, as I said, the penalty for apostasy is death and it's generally enforced. That is Islam.

Now, let's assume that Muslims are a persecuted minority in the United States. And Jews also(A preposterous idea, Jews in the US are a privileged class and Zionist organizations like AIPAC have nearly unlimited power). I still find it acceptable to aim propoganda at them. Atheists in the United States don't aim their propaganda only at Jews or Muslims, or primarily on Jews and Muslims. They aim their propaganda primarily on Christians, which is what you're ignoring. You also mention bigotry. Are you implying American atheists are bigoted against Jews and Muslims? That's ridiculous. If anything, Muslims are bigoted against atheists(They kill them, and Christians don't do to well in Islamic societies either, ask the Christians in Nigeria and Copts in Egypt).

You whine about how Atheists create innocent billboards in Muslim communities, yet you don't whine about how Muslims brainwash their children and poison and permanently enslave their minds. If the State promotes religion, it's evil! If parents, who have more authority over their children than the State, brainwash their children into worshiping a pedophile warlord that beheaded and sold into slavery those who refused to accept his sect, it's fine and no one whines about it. That's not acceptable to me.

It's child abuse in my definition. If children are are forced into their parents' religion, it's child abuse. I said Muslims are not a persecuted minority, but if they were, I wouldn't mine. I believe that child abusers should be persecuted until they cease child abuse.

how can you call yourself leftist?
i would expect words like that from right wing bigots.

[Elysian]

Atheism is the default position, so the accusation that atheists indoctrinate children is absurd. Religious people, otoh ... hmm, the less said the better.

Edit:

In answering Jimmie Higgins, Hindu or Buddhist or other religious nationalism may be a nuisance but certainly not as great a threat as Christian and Islamic fundamentalism.

[Elysian]

how can you call yourself leftist?
i would expect words like that from right wing bigots.

All religions are enemies of communism, and Islam is no exception. It doesnt deserve any special treatment. Besides, Muslims in the west are mostly rich and privileged, they are hardly the persecuted community.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Atheism is the default position.

nope

[Franz Fanonipants]

why is it you crazies (vocal atheists, specifically) keep trying to define atheism as simple non-belief rather than the ideology it is.

look bro. atheism is not simply theistic negation, it comes with a history and a power/cultural context.

babies are not atheists. they aren't catholics or jews or hindus either.

[bcbm]

In answering Jimmie Higgins, Hindu or Buddhist or other religious nationalism may be a nuisance but certainly not as great a threat as Christian and Islamic fundamentalism.

a nuisance? hindu nationalists are responsible for some pretty violent pogroms and have a lot of power in india.

[Franz Fanonipants]

a nuisance? hindu nationalists are responsible for some pretty violent pogroms and have a lot of power in india.

yeah they certainly don't you know do violent things to muslims, the universal religious aggressors

[black magick hustla]

why is it you crazies (vocal atheists, specifically) keep trying to define atheism as simple non-belief rather than the ideology it is.

look bro. atheism is not simply theistic negation, it comes with a history and a power/cultural context.

babies are not atheists. they aren't catholics or jews or hindus either.

what does this "atheist ideology" consist of

[Franz Fanonipants]

what does this "atheist ideology" consist of

not you stupid.

e: most of the main current of atheist thought in the west/the internet is basically dawkins etc.

[black magick hustla]

not you stupid.

you said atheism is an ideology, that is a pretty strong assertion

[black magick hustla]

i of course worship satan and mictlantecuthli

[Franz Fanonipants]

i of course worship satan and mictlantecuthli

boring

e: i worship syncretic jesus

[black magick hustla]

e: most of the main current of atheist thought in the west/the internet is basically dawkins etc.

that is not really just "atheism" though, atheism simply means disbelief in god/s. i mean i find internet atheists annoying and like i used to hate them a lot but tbh, from what i gathered a lot of the internet vocal atheists i met grew up in pretty repressive xtian communties, the type of backwater white wingnut small towns, so i can see where that shit comes from

[Franz Fanonipants]

you said atheism is an ideology, that is a pretty strong assertion

on the internet it is sorry bro.

[Franz Fanonipants]

that is not really just "atheism" though, atheism simply means disbelief in god/s. i mean i find internet atheists annoying and like i used to hate them a lot but tbh, from what i gathered a lot of the internet vocal atheists i met grew up in pretty repressive xtian communties, the type of backwater white wingnut small towns, so i can see where that shit comes from

tbh i don't buy it bro. i think a lot of internet vocal atheists are unconscious racists, fuckheads, and full of white privilege.

[Guy Incognito]

why is it you crazies (vocal atheists, specifically) keep trying to define atheism as simple non-belief rather than the ideology it is.

look bro. atheism is not simply theistic negation, it comes with a history and a power/cultural context.

babies are not atheists. they aren't catholics or jews or hindus either.

By the actual definition, an atheist is simply a non-belief, which is a default state. Nobody should be bothered by anyone for this.
But in practice, many "atheists" are just more of the same. Anti-theist worshippers of scientism are just as rabidly zealous and evangelical as their fundementalist theist counterparts. Neither should get a pass. Both are groups of arrogant fools who want to oppress you so that you believe as they do.

We should be fighting for the rights and lives of non-belief and non-practition of non-believers in theocracies and the lives of believers of other faiths in the same places. Not because they are oppressed for non-belief or the "wrong" belief, but because they are oppressed at all. Basically a brutal dictator is a brutal dictator, regardless of their zeal of choice.

[black magick hustla]

e: i worship syncretic jesus

of course a grad student exploring his indigenous roots and going about how atheism is white it seems like i haven't seen that one before in critical theory seminars

[Franz Fanonipants]

of course a grad student exploring his indigenous roots and going about how atheism is white it seems like i haven't seen that one before in critical theory seminars

actually its afrosyncretic

and i don't even really have indigenous roots bro my family were the alemanes of the small town in the sierra

anyways atheism is still white its cool bro, i know you feel like you don't belong

[black magick hustla]

lol are u a menonite lmao

[Franz Fanonipants]

lol are u a menonite lmao

thats the other sierra

e: though actually now that you bring it up i wonder...

[black magick hustla]

those where the only white people i ever saw selling trinkets on the streets

[Guy Incognito]

that is not really just "atheism" though, atheism simply means disbelief in god/s. i mean i find internet atheists annoying and like i used to hate them a lot but tbh, from what i gathered a lot of the internet vocal atheists i met grew up in pretty repressive xtian communties, the type of backwater white wingnut small towns, so i can see where that shit comes from

They may be oppressed in their small towns for breaking with the cultural norms of that town. That should be fought. But we should not endorse swinging the oppression the other way, as the Anti-theists want.

And another thing, Can we get these obnoxious fuckers to stop calling themselves athiests? They're basically just lying to make their "tent" seem bigger. It's as if I woke up tommorrow, and said the group I represent is "Americans" while I truly am just a socialist, but happen to be an American.

[Franz Fanonipants]

those where the only white people i ever saw selling trinkets on the streets

i guess like how i heard it was my grandfather was a german businessman's bastard. but idk how much of a bastard he was because when i went up to parral and met my family on his side they were all blonde and shit.

[black magick hustla]

actually its afrosyncretic


anyways atheism is still white its cool bro, i know you feel like you don't belong

physics is white and asian theres like two hispanic physics grad students in the whole dept (out of 80)

[Franz Fanonipants]

physics is white and asian theres like two hispanic physics grad students in the whole dept (out of 80)

well also canada. tbh my department is really white and it makes me sad but what can i do.

[black magick hustla]

have a phd in critical race theory and guiltrip people and call that an argument

[black magick hustla]

also u basically revealed u are a white mexican from now on ill lump u with white ppl

[Franz Fanonipants]

also u basically revealed u are a white mexican from now on ill lump u with white ppl

its fair bro. at least i'm not from the bay area or whatever.

e: i used to get the shit kicked out of me while being called a white mexican. chicanos do shit that is good for you in the long term but bad in the short.

[Guy Incognito]

have a phd in critical race theory and guiltrip people and call that an argument

My poor ass anscestors from Germany (WWI orphan) and Ireland (fucking dirt farmers) didn't have shit, and we still don't have shit. Guilt for white privledge (regardless of it's existance) doesn't really fly with us. We accept that shit and move on, since there's not a fucking thing we can do about it. Poor workers are poor workers. Driving the old hatreds just helps the capitalists and turns us on each other.

[Franz Fanonipants]

My poor ass anscestors from Germany (WWI orphan) and Ireland (fucking dirt farmers) didn't have shit, and we still don't have shit. Guilt for white privledge (regardless of it's existance) doesn't really fly with us. We accept that shit and move on, since there's not a fucking thing we can do about it. Poor workers are poor workers. Driving the old hatreds just helps the capitalists and turns us on each other.

maldoror is just mad because his STEM tattoo makes him the target of frequent MFA beatings

[gorillafuck]

looks like we've got a good ol' fashioned mexican standoff going on in here

[Guy Incognito]

looks like we've got a good ol' fashioned mexican standoff going on in here

*Rimshot*

[Franz Fanonipants]

looks like we've got a good ol' fashioned mexican standoff going on in here

i think according to bmh's high standards i don't live up to mestizaje or we enough

[Luís Henrique]

that is not really just "atheism" though, atheism simply means disbelief in god/s.

It means just that, but no one can really simply disbelieve in God without some other reasoning, justification, assumptions about reality, etc.

There are no "default options"; human beings are always socialised, ie, in Borz's terms, "child-abused". The onlies that are not are feral children (http://listverse.com/2008/03/07/10-modern-cases-of-feral-children/), and it is not a fate to be envied or emulated.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

looks like we've got a good ol' fashioned mexican standoff going on in here

Mexicans, pft.

Too far away from God, too close to the United States. And eat too much pepper, anyway. :D

Luís Henrique

[Guy Incognito]

eat too much pepper, anyway. :D

Heresy! Peppers are delicious!:tongue_smilie:

[Guy Incognito]

It means just that, but no one can really simply disbelieve in God without some other reasoning, justification, assumptions about reality, etc.

There are no "default options"; human beings are always socialised, ie, in Borz's terms, "child-abused". The onlies that are not are feral children (http://listverse.com/2008/03/07/10-modern-cases-of-feral-children/), and it is not a fate to be envied or emulated.

Luís Henrique

The abrahamic god is a learned concept. Just as a specific disbelief as opposed to ignorance of a subject is a choice and not a default. Atheism as the word itself is defined as truly just a lack of belief in "god", which IS the default condition, we are born only with instinctual knowledge, the rest is learned.

"Atheism" (Anti-theism. The social identity, and not the actual definition) is NOT the default condition, as it requires the social construct of "God" to be opposed to, to exist. The same goes for Theism.

[bcbm]

this thread went wildly off topic but i like it so carry on

[Luís Henrique]

The abrahamic god is a learned concept. Just as a specific disbelief as opposed to ignorance of a subject is a choice and not a default. Atheism as the word itself is defined as truly just a lack of belief in "god", which IS the default condition, we are born only with instinctual knowledge, the rest is learned.

"Atheism" (Anti-theism. The social identity, and not the actual definition) is NOT the default condition, as it requires the social construct of "God" to be opposed to, to exist. The same goes for Theism.

Any actual atheist has learned to be an atheist; it isn't a reminiscence of a previous state of not believing because not even having the language to formulate the concept.

Ignorance is not disbelief.

There is no default human condition, as lack of socialisation implies lack of development of an actual human character.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Heresy! Peppers are delicious!:tongue_smilie:

That's a metaphysical proposition, you cannot prove it. ;)

Luís Henrique

[Revolution starts with U]

I prefer chillis.

[Guy Incognito]

I prefer chillis.

But...chilis are peppers..oh you. :rolleyes:

[Revolution starts with U]

In fact, they're not :D Columbus called them a pepper because they were similar, but they are of a different genus scientifically.

[Althusser]

how can you call yourself leftist?
i would expect words like that from right wing bigots.

Why do leftists bang the liberal drum for Islam? :confused: Why would anyone stick up for any religion all together. People deserve to be treated like equals no matter their race or gender...... or sexual preference, but why do leftists tend to care about the tenants of Islam while having complete disrespect for Christian law and morals. I say we dispose of all religious dogmatism.

Was Lenin a right wing bigot for shutting churches in Russia after the revolution? Or was he an orthodox marxist like most of the revleft community.

[bcbm]

idk why would leftist stand up for minorities persecuted largely on racist grounds disguised as religious critique

[ckaihatsu]

They may be oppressed in their small towns for breaking with the cultural norms of that town. That should be fought. But we should not endorse swinging the oppression the other way, as the Anti-theists want.


While I *am* an atheist, I'm not acquainted with this "*anti*-theist" movement being mentioned. I don't know how militant they are politically, but there *is* a social benefit to vehemently pointing out that 'the earth is not flat'. As rational adults we should not be allowing Santa-Claus-like myths to permeate our society and culture on any kind of a serious basis -- it's downright embarrassing, really, and I support any appropriate efforts that make this fact plain.





And another thing, Can we get these obnoxious fuckers to stop calling themselves athiests? They're basically just lying to make their "tent" seem bigger. It's as if I woke up tommorrow, and said the group I represent is "Americans" while I truly am just a socialist, but happen to be an American.


So you're making the argument that the organization of American Atheists should ditch the "American" in their title because they're just conflating atheism with Americanism in order to appear larger in numbers -- ? (Just as you're / we're a political minority as socialists, but we don't go around using nationalistic titles to inflate our image -- ?)

I can't and won't speak for the organization since I'm not affiliated, but their political ground, as I mentioned earlier, does take place within a nationalist political (legal) context / arena.





My poor ass anscestors from Germany (WWI orphan) and Ireland (fucking dirt farmers) didn't have shit, and we still don't have shit. Guilt for white privledge (regardless of it's existance) doesn't really fly with us. We accept that shit and move on, since there's not a fucking thing we can do about it. Poor workers are poor workers. Driving the old hatreds just helps the capitalists and turns us on each other.


On a daily, interpersonal level I don't think *anyone* should be "playing politics", as with guilt-tripping, power plays, etc., since *real* power is derived either from official policy or from mass movements.

That said, though, there *is* the reality of 'cultural imperialism' that manifests in daily life due to social life being affected by official policy. While many types of whites may be historically *economically* disadvantaged, they may (arguably) still retain a certain degree of *cultural* influence, due to persistent racism -- ditto for gender, etc.

[Guy Incognito]

While I *am* an atheist, I'm not acquainted with this "*anti*-theist" movement being mentioned. I don't know how militant they are politically, but there *is* a social benefit to vehemently pointing out that 'the earth is not flat'. As rational adults we should not be allowing Santa-Claus-like myths to permeate our society and culture on any kind of a serious basis -- it's downright embarrassing, really, and I support any appropriate efforts that make this fact plain.

Frankly, who the fuck are you to declare what should be allowed to be believed? When material conditions improve under Socialism, most people will naturally leave organized religion behind, but even then there is nothing wrong with spiritualism. People will always look for answers and the unknowable, and currently there are many things science can't answer (yet). Easily demonstrable things, such as "the earth is not flat" are different, and are not up for debate. However, declaring "clearly there is no such thing as a creator, conscious or unconscious, because you can't prove there is one" is bullshit reasoning to push scientism (which can't currently explain the origin of the universe, or nature of life/death either...) on people.

Or, for an exaggerated example:

Theist: Man, life on earth sure does suck eggs, sure glad I'm a good person, I might get to go to heaven when I die!

Anti-Theist: NO. THERE IS NO GOD, THERE IS NO HEAVEN. AFTER YOU DIE YOU'RE GOING TO ROT IN THE GROUND. THERE IS NO MEANING IN LIFE. YOUR LIFE IS USELESS, AND YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED FOR HAVING BELIEVED IN SOMETHING THAT I DON'T. FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER. MUHAMMED WUZ RAPIST, JESUS DIDN'T EXIST, ETC.



So you're making the argument that the organization of American Atheists should ditch the "American" in their title because they're just conflating atheism with Americanism in order to appear larger in numbers -- ? (Just as you're / we're a political minority as socialists, but we don't go around using nationalistic titles to inflate our image -- ?)

Actually, my arguement is that they should ditch the "Athiest" title, and just call themselves anti-theists, since that's all they are (they won't, it would hurt their "numbers"). The fact that they also happen to be atheists is just an addendum to their primary motivation (attacking and "disproving" the beliefs of others). As has been said elsewhere, atheism is just the non-belief in a god figure. That's a really broad group of people, and is in all likelihood the majority of the world, silent or not. This non-belief does not require political action, or a political identity. It certainly doesn't normally lead to evangelizing against "god" (a silly notion for one who has no belief in such things. why should one protest children's belief in santa claus? Unless they're an asshole that is.) and for scientism.



On a daily, interpersonal level I don't think *anyone* should be "playing politics", as with guilt-tripping, power plays, etc., since *real* power is derived either from official policy or from mass movements.

That said, though, there *is* the reality of 'cultural imperialism' that manifests in daily life due to social life being affected by official policy. While many types of whites may be historically *economically* disadvantaged, they may (arguably) still retain a certain degree of *cultural* influence, due to persistent racism -- ditto for gender, etc.

This is why I agree that "white privledge" exists. But there isn't fuck-all I, or any other prole, can do about it. Blaming poor white men, for the actions of rich white men, is bullshit. The entire thing is still perpetuated by the Capitalists to keep us at each others throats, instead of theirs. Antwon the bus driver and Cleatus the ditch digger have a fuck of a lot more in common then they do with Robert Johnson or Donald Trump.

[dodger]

Billboards does anyone look at them twice?....Now they do! Certain ones at least. No white privilege, does not exist. Academics do. Wall to wall victims.....everywhere victims. Even permanent victims, caused by skin pigments? Crazy. Too late now but my late wife was black as a coal scuttle, everyone said she was a victim, married to me, maybe. She never used the word once in her life. Not 'er style. As you so graphically illustrate, Guy, she was only too acquainted with who her friends were and who did not serve our interests.

[Guy Incognito]

Billboards does anyone look at them twice?....Now they do! Certain ones at least. No white privilege, does not exist. Academics do. Wall to wall victims.....everywhere victims. Even permanent victims, caused by skin pigments? Crazy. Too late now but my late wife was black as a coal scuttle, everyone said she was a victim, married to me, maybe. She never used the word once in her life. Not 'er style. As you so graphically illustrate, Guy, she was only too acquainted with who her friends were and who did not serve our interests.

I thought you were from the UK? I thought it was a bit different there. In the US at least, a lot of rich white men still don't like to hire poor black/asian/hispanic men or women. See them as less than human in some cases. That and the police generally will give me a pass at 3am wandering the neighborhood in an admittedly drunken wander with just a "You Ok buddy?", while automatically assuming my friends are up to something even when sober and not causing a ruckus. And we're not talking thugged out guys with corn rows and pants around their knees with their hands under their shirts, just average guys taking a walk on a nice night. This is what I mean by white privledge. It's alive and well in the US, but it IS getting better slowly (at least there aren't KKK marches in town anymore).

[ckaihatsu]

This is why I agree that "white privledge" exists. But there isn't fuck-all I, or any other prole, can do about it. Blaming poor white men, for the actions of rich white men, is bullshit. The entire thing is still perpetuated by the Capitalists to keep us at each others throats, instead of theirs. Antwon the bus driver and Cleatus the ditch digger have a fuck of a lot more in common then they do with Robert Johnson or Donald Trump.


Yes, absolutely.





Frankly, who the fuck are you to declare what should be allowed to be believed? When material conditions improve under Socialism, most people will naturally leave organized religion behind, but even then there is nothing wrong with spiritualism. People will always look for answers and the unknowable, and currently there are many things science can't answer (yet). Easily demonstrable things, such as "the earth is not flat" are different, and are not up for debate. However, declaring "clearly there is no such thing as a creator, conscious or unconscious, because you can't prove there is one" is bullshit reasoning to push scientism (which can't currently explain the origin of the universe, or nature of life/death either...) on people.

Or, for an exaggerated example:

Theist: Man, life on earth sure does suck eggs, sure glad I'm a good person, I might get to go to heaven when I die!

Anti-Theist: NO. THERE IS NO GOD, THERE IS NO HEAVEN. AFTER YOU DIE YOU'RE GOING TO ROT IN THE GROUND. THERE IS NO MEANING IN LIFE. YOUR LIFE IS USELESS, AND YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED FOR HAVING BELIEVED IN SOMETHING THAT I DON'T. FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER. MUHAMMED WUZ RAPIST, JESUS DIDN'T EXIST, ETC.


If you don't mind, I'll leave off on the very personal aspect of belief itself -- you illustrate it well here.

The domain where non-/belief *can* be made an issue is in the context of government itself -- whether religious institutions should get special tax breaks or not, whether religious-minded concerns should be respected, adopted, turned into law, and enforced by the state, or not. All of this would fall under the heading of 'secularism'.





Actually, my arguement is that they should ditch the "Athiest" title, and just call themselves anti-theists, since that's all they are (they won't, it would hurt their "numbers"). The fact that they also happen to be atheists is just an addendum to their primary motivation (attacking and "disproving" the beliefs of others). As has been said elsewhere, atheism is just the non-belief in a god figure. That's a really broad group of people, and is in all likelihood the majority of the world, silent or not. This non-belief does not require political action, or a political identity. It certainly doesn't normally lead to evangelizing against "god" (a silly notion for one who has no belief in such things. why should one protest children's belief in santa claus? Unless they're an asshole that is.) and for scientism.


Again, I won't debate here just for the sake of debate, since this forum is about *political* issues. I also won't attempt to speak for others who may happen to be particularly vocal on the subjects of atheism or religion -- the *social* arena for such topics can be found anywhere....

Hopefully it will suffice to say that religious / spiritual beliefs should be *kept* on the personal and interpersonal level, and *not* seen as a valid basis for enacting religious-minded government policy, as with law-making.

Conversely, atheism *doesn't require* laws in its favor -- it only requires that government not-respect *religious* mandates for society. This is where a more-militant, *political* 'anti-theism' *does* make sense, because the results -- legislation, enforcement, etc. -- can be plainly seen for *everyone* in society.

[Guy Incognito]

If you don't mind, I'll leave off on the very personal aspect of belief itself -- you illustrate it well here.

Sounds good. I figured my exaggerations would get my point across loudly.

[QUOTE=ckaihatsu;2390912]The domain where non-/belief *can* be made an issue is in the context of government itself -- whether religious institutions should get special tax breaks or not, whether religious-minded concerns should be respected, adopted, turned into law, and enforced by the state, or not. All of this would fall under the heading of 'secularism'.

Religious institutions should not get special treatment. If they are a charitable organization, they should be following the exact same rules. If they're a for profit church, they should be taxed fully. Respected is a two way street. In what regard are we talking respect? If by respect, you mean special rules just for them inside the bounds of government, then no. They should not be. If you mean that it is then open season to disrespect and attack religions without government interference, up to and including discrimination based on religious belief, then no. Fuck that.

The organizations in question need their heads removed (by a "strong urging" or by force if need be), and political power destroyed. Any religious attempt to pass laws to enforce their ways, should be crushed. It's those attempts that should be the focus, and not the beliefs of those proles who follow it. This is not currently the case with the Anti-theists. They have made the proletariat believers their target, with their attacks sending them straight back into the waiting arms of the bourgeosie priests who will defend and comfort them.


Again, I won't debate here just for the sake of debate, since this forum is about *political* issues. I also won't attempt to speak for others who may happen to be particularly vocal on the subjects of atheism or religion -- the *social* arena for such topics can be found anywhere....

Well, technically we have a full section for Political topics. Also, debate is fun. It's rare that I get to defend the viewpoint of the religious believers. Usually I'm on other forums, assaulting the fundie's attempts to force Islam out of the US.


Hopefully it will suffice to say that religious / spiritual beliefs should be *kept* on the personal and interpersonal level, and *not* seen as a valid basis for enacting religious-minded government policy, as with law-making.

I agree. So long as it's not pushed into a "don't ask, don't tell" situation.


Conversely, atheism *doesn't require* laws in its favor -- it only requires that government not-respect *religious* mandates for society. This is where a more-militant, *political* 'anti-theism' *does* make sense, because the results -- legislation, enforcement, etc. -- can be plainly seen for *everyone* in society.

Well, here's the thing; The more you paint a bullseye on a person's beliefs and not their actions, the more you confirm their suspicions about your motives. This only hardens their resolve and their faith, and damages your image. Saying "you know it's a myth" is just condescending douchebaggery. Instead, how about take that same money and spend it on countering the fundie's actions by whatever means. Make light of and mock the action itself: ("you REALLY want to force people who are not of your religion to pray to your god in schools?") and not the belief, and it will drive a much harder arguement.

[Guy Incognito]

In fact, they're not :D Columbus called them a pepper because they were similar, but they are of a different genus scientifically.

Damnation! I had no idea... Well in this case, I too prefer chilis.

[NGNM85]

By the actual definition, an atheist is simply a non-belief, which is a default state. Nobody should be bothered by anyone for this. But in practice, many "atheists" are just more of the same. Anti-theist worshippers of scientism are just as rabidly zealous and evangelical as their fundementalist theist counterparts. Neither should get a pass. Both are groups of arrogant fools who want to oppress you so that you believe as they do.

This is completely wrong. There is no such thing as ‘Atheist fundamentalism.’ As you say; Atheism is simply the refusal to accept extreme claims about the existence of a supreme being, the afterlife, etc., without sufficient evidence. I strongly believe in natural selection, and gravity, however, that belief is entirely conditional, it’s based on evidence. No-one should ever be expected to accept truth claims without sufficient evidence. Furthermore; I am willing to, continually, amend my understanding of the universe, as new scientific data comes to light.

‘Atheist oppression’ solely exists in the paranoid fantasies of individuals such as yourself. There is no significant, concentrated effort by Atheists to limit Theists right to preach their respective brands of poisonous nonsense, or to live in accordance with their primitive dogma, so long as this does not infringe upon the rights and freedoms of others. None of the so-called ‘New Atheists’ (Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins, Dennett) have ever suggested anything of the kind. As a Libertarian, I firmly believe in the right to free speech, that, by definition, includes speech I find, personally, repulsive. That includes the Ku Klux Klan, NAMBLA, and the Roman Catholic Church.


We should be fighting for the rights and lives of non-belief and non-practition of non-believers in theocracies and the lives of believers of other faiths in the same places. Not because they are oppressed for non-belief or the "wrong" belief, but because they are oppressed at all. Basically a brutal dictator is a brutal dictator, regardless of their zeal of choice.[/QUOTE]

No argument, here.

[hatzel]

Hopefully it will suffice to say that religious / spiritual beliefs should be *kept* on the personal and interpersonal level, and *not* seen as a valid basis for enacting religious-minded government policy, as with law-making.

This strikes me as an aspiration towards some kind of crappy liberal democracy shindig in which 'the political sphere' is totally detached from society and the pesky demands of its constituent parts...

[ckaihatsu]

Religious institutions should not get special treatment. If they are a charitable organization, they should be following the exact same rules. If they're a for profit church, they should be taxed fully. Respected is a two way street. In what regard are we talking respect? If by respect, you mean special rules just for them inside the bounds of government, then no. They should not be. If you mean that it is then open season to disrespect and attack religions without government interference, up to and including discrimination based on religious belief, then no. Fuck that.

The organizations in question need their heads removed (by a "strong urging" or by force if need be), and political power destroyed.




Any religious attempt to pass laws to enforce their ways, should be crushed. It's those attempts that should be the focus, and not the beliefs of those proles who follow it.





There is no significant, concentrated effort by Atheists to limit Theists right to preach their respective brands of poisonous nonsense, or to live in accordance with their primitive dogma, so long as this does not infringe upon the rights and freedoms of others.





Any religious attempt to pass laws to enforce their ways, should be crushed. It's those attempts that should be the focus, and not the beliefs of those proles who follow it.




This is not currently the case with the Anti-theists. They have made the proletariat believers their target, with their attacks sending them straight back into the waiting arms of the bourgeosie priests who will defend and comfort them.


I can appreciate your (or anyone else's) taking issue with the *tactics* of a group like American Atheists (or any other), but the question of strategy and tactics is always secondary to the *premise*, or politics itself.

If NGNM85's premise is correct -- that there is no official government persecution -- *and* that there is no social movement to persecute religionists (actually, it's the *opposite*, that religion and religionists are shown *favoritism*), then you don't have a leg to stand on. You may continue to critique atheist organizational strategies and tactics from the sidelines, as we're all entitled to our opinions, but you cannot proclaim that religionists are objectively "[being] attack[ed]".





Well, here's the thing; The more you paint a bullseye on a person's beliefs and not their actions, the more you confirm their suspicions about your motives. This only hardens their resolve and their faith, and damages your image. Saying "you know it's a myth" is just condescending douchebaggery. Instead, how about take that same money and spend it on countering the fundie's actions by whatever means. Make light of and mock the action itself: ("you REALLY want to force people who are not of your religion to pray to your god in schools?") and not the belief, and it will drive a much harder arguement.


Right now your actions are, to me, appearing preachy and condescending.

I'm far more interested in a person's beliefs, or societal/political mindset, than in their actions, because how people interpret the world says far more about them than what they do in their personal lives. In other words, I'm not a moralist.





This strikes me as an aspiration towards some kind of crappy liberal democracy shindig in which 'the political sphere' is totally detached from society and the pesky demands of its constituent parts...


Well, since this issue is taking place in the here-and-now, the issue of secularism -- separation of state and church -- is squarely in front of all of us. And, since politics transcends all of us as *individuals*, it *is* a 'separate sphere' that runs according to official policy and *not* according to its constituent parts. That's why only mass movements really change the officialdom on any kind of permanent basis.

[ckaihatsu]

[D]eclaring "clearly there is no such thing as a creator, conscious or unconscious, because you can't prove there is one" is bullshit reasoning to push scientism (which can't currently explain the origin of the universe, or nature of life/death either...) on people.


In the interests of being somewhat even-handed here, I'll readily acknowledge that (bourgeois) science, or "scientism", if you like, is still lacking in several respects.

At the top of *my* list is that it uses a very compartmentalized, overly-reductionist method that *has* been good for much exploration of the heretofore-not-known, but is positively *damaging* when applied to contexts that are organic in nature and massively parallel, like society, for example, or the individual's role in it.

You're mentioning cosmology here, and I'll agree that science can't quite grasp the entire universe as it exists, though space-telescope explorations *have* yielded evidence of different "strata" of galaxies at various "depths" in space.

In the social realm we see much of the influence of bourgeois vested interests in their positions of power, as in the "medicalization" of much simply for the sake of delineating a hegemonic social stratification. (This also ties into reductionism in the social sciences, etc.)

Genuinely religious-minded people might point out the problems of method in generalizing a theory of existence from so many different, disparate millions and billions of individual life experiences -- I don't really know, though, since I claim absolutely no religious credentials.

So, much of your criticism of "scientism" may actually be a critique of modern science, in the default bourgeois mode, rather than a critique of an a-theist position itself. As a socialist I have much to say about the current practice of science as well.

[NGNM85]

How do you get a five-year-old to understand what "insufficient data" or "truth claims" mean?

I don’t think it would be that complicated.


Besides, indoctrinating children into agnosticism doesn't seem to me any better than indoctrinating them into atheism. Particularly when the parents in question aren't agnostics, but actual atheists.

This is a misunderstanding of atheism. Again; atheism is simply the refusal to accept extreme claims about the origins of the universe, god, the afterlife, etc., without sufficient evidence. Therefore; you cannot be ‘indoctrinated’ into becoming an atheist. There is nothing that you would have to accept on faith. There’s a significant difference.


Oh yes, but this is a quite different issue than child abuse.

It depends on how strictly one defines ‘abuse.’ I’d say the shoe fits.


Education, though, within a capitalist society, is directed by the bourgeois State. I don't see how it is going to be aimed at the suppression of bourgeois ideologies.

I can’t really respond to that without going into the significant ideological differences between us, and I’d really rather not derail the thread.


One thing that people usually disregard: the educational system of Germany in the 20's and 30's of the past century was quite better when compared to those of France, United States, or Britain.

The Japanese educational system was even better than the German. Always was; indeed the educational system of late feudal Japan was better than the educational system of early capitalist England!

Yeah.


Indeed, though it seems outlandish to me, living in a country where evolution is indisputedly taught in school.

Well, in a number of areas it isn’t, or they teach creationism, or ID (Which, again, is just repackaged creationism.) and evolution, as if there was some kind of equivalency. This, undoubtedly, has significant social ramifications, which will probably haunt us for some time.


That too; trade unions used to fulfill that role in the 19th century, but unhappily have lost that function.

Yeah. Progress isn’t always a straight line. However; just as these organizations were dismantled, we could build new ones.


Well, yes, but it is hard to see how we do that, except by a reform movement concerning education and an actual revival of the working class movement.

Those sound like excellent ideas.



Maybe; cultural imports from one country to another often fail because they do not take into account the actual role of cultural traits in different societies. For instance, the American debate about whether the Ten Commandments have a place in courts would seem completely absurd in Brazil, where not even the fundies want to raise the question, and where not even the atheists would be "offended", as long as the actual functioning of the courts continues to be bound to secular, instead of Biblic, law.

I don’t think that would be much of an issue, in this case.

I think it’s over the line. First of all; the American religious right has absolutely no intention, whatsoever, of staying within the boundaries of the law. As far as they are concerned; the Establishment Clause doesn’t exist. That’s the difference.

[Franz Fanonipants]

haha an anarchist concerned w/law

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

haha an anarchist concerned w/law

I'm pretty sure anarchism means no leaders, rather than no laws. Yes, an awful lot of laws on the books today deal with issues such as private property which wouldn't exist in an anarchist society, yet I imagine things like murder would still be very much frowned upon.

[Franz Fanonipants]

I'm pretty sure anarchism means no leaders, rather than no laws. Yes, an awful lot of laws on the books today deal with issues such as private property which wouldn't exist in an anarchist society, yet I imagine things like murder would still be very much frowned upon.

the point is that ngnm is a liberal and it owns to make fun of him

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

the point is that ngnm is a liberal and it owns to make fun of him

If you've got a substantial criticism of NGNM85's politics, then make it. If you'd rather be tilting at strawmen, then carry on with your current shitty posting and attitude and sooner or later people here will get tired of your shit and you will be banned for the troll that you seem to want to be.

For example, you mentioned laws. The only law NGNM85 mentions in his last post is the Establishment Clause, which stipulates a seperation between religious and executive political functions within American society.

Since I gather by implication that the Establishment Cause doesn't sit well with you, perhaps you can enlighten us as to what you think the role of religious superstition should be in politics?

[Franz Fanonipants]

If you've got a substantial criticism of NGNM85's politics, then make it. If you'd rather be tilting at strawmen, then carry on with your current shitty posting and attitude and sooner or later people here will get tired of your shit and you will be banned for the troll that you seem to want to be.

man i am seriously going to take posting advice from the nub who was cool when his tendencymates were for bringing fascists onto revleft so they could play some dumb forum games

post less you fucking scrub

[l'Enfermé]

If you've got a substantial criticism of NGNM85's politics, then make it. If you'd rather be tilting at strawmen, then carry on with your current shitty posting and attitude and sooner or later people here will get tired of your shit and you will be banned for the troll that you seem to want to be.

For example, you mentioned laws. The only law NGNM85 mentions in his last post is the Establishment Clause, which stipulates a seperation between religious and executive political functions within American society.

Since I gather by implication that the Establishment Cause doesn't sit well with you, perhaps you can enlighten us as to what you think the role of religious superstition should be in politics?
I think most people are pretty tired of his shit already.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

man i am seriously going to take posting advice from the nub who was cool when his tendencymates were for bringing fascists onto revleft so they could play some dumb forum games

Thank you for proving to the forum that you are a worthless fucking troll by issuing an irrelevant personal attack in lieu of any argument.


post less you fucking scrub

NO U.

[Franz Fanonipants]

I think most people are pretty tired of his shit already.

report me for trolling

[bcbm]

god dammit i cant leave this place for a minute


man i am seriously going to take posting advice from the nub who was cool when his tendencymates were for bringing fascists onto revleft so they could play some dumb forum games

post less you fucking scrub

infraction for flaming

[NGNM85]

haha an anarchist concerned w/law

Presuming you're not simply trolling, as usual, this comment reflects a serious misunderstanding of Anarchism. Anarchists may be opposed to the way laws are made, or specific pieces of legislation, however; Anarchism is not opposed to law, as a concept. Quite the contrary. As NoXion pointed out; there is no reason that child abuse, or homicide would be any more permissible in a, more-or-less, 'fully realized' Libertarian Socialist society. I could give three shits about the Constitution, it's just a piece of paper. However; it does happen to contain some good ideas; like freedom of speech, or, as I mentioned, the separation of church, and state. I don't care about these things because some old white guys wrote them down a couple hundred years ago. I care because they happen to be good ideas. I believe in freedom of speech because it's a basic human right, to which all persons are entitled, regardless of whether or not the state recognizes it.

[Franz Fanonipants]

I believe in freedom of speech because it's a basic human right, to which all persons are entitled, regardless of whether or not the state recognizes it.

lol yeah you sure did stick it to those accusations of liberalism dressed up in punk rock clothes

[Luís Henrique]

I don’t think it would be that complicated.

I rather think people in revleft are unable to remember their experiences as children. Which is rather sad, and reveals an extreme degree of repression. And also accounts for ridiculous political positions about "ageism".


This is a misunderstanding of atheism. Again; atheism is simply the refusal to accept extreme claims about the origins of the universe, god, the afterlife, etc., without sufficient evidence.

Well, no. That would be agnosticism. Atheism isn't simply the refusal to believe in God. It is the belief that God doesn't exist.


Therefore; you cannot be ‘indoctrinated’ into becoming an atheist. There is nothing that you would have to accept on faith. There’s a significant difference.

Of course if you are going to live a normal life there is a lot of things that you have to accept on faith. Or do you think you can "prove" the existence of your bedroom, for instance?


It depends on how strictly one defines ‘abuse.’ I’d say the shoe fits.

And I would say it doesn't. I don't mean that parents cannot be abusive in the kind of education they give to their children; that is certainly possible. I mean that educating and protecting children means necessarily sharing their - the parents' - world vision with children. There is no "neutral" process of education that respect some kind of abstract "freedom" children would have.


Well, in a number of areas it isn’t, or they teach creationism, or ID (Which, again, is just repackaged creationism.) and evolution, as if there was some kind of equivalency.

Not in my country that I know.


Yeah. Progress isn’t always a straight line. However; just as these organizations were dismantled, we could build new ones.

Or take them back.


Those sound like excellent ideas.

Maybe, but that cannot achieved by an emphasys on the rejection of religion.


I don’t think that would be much of an issue, in this case.

I think the issue, in the case of the United States, is that the far right has found a way to blackmail and paralise all other political tendencies, from the far left to the moderate right. They have kidnapped the political discourse.


I think it’s over the line. First of all; the American religious right has absolutely no intention, whatsoever, of staying within the boundaries of the law. As far as they are concerned; the Establishment Clause doesn’t exist. That’s the difference.

They know how to mix the legal and the illegal quite well. Perhaps we should learn from them.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

lol yeah you sure did stick it to those accusations of liberalism dressed up in punk rock clothes

Your attitude undermines the ideas that you are trying to defend.

Luís Henrique

[NGNM85]

I rather think people in revleft are unable to remember their experiences as children. Which is rather sad, and reveals an extreme degree of repression. And also accounts for ridiculous political positions about "ageism".

I just don't see it as being that difficult. I'd probably say something like this;

‘A 'truth claim' is a statement that is supposed to represent something true about the world. For example; if I show you a blue crayon, and I say; ‘This crayon is blue.’, I’m making a ‘truth claim.’ You, or anybody else, can know that this is true by studying the crayon.’



Well, no. That would be agnosticism. Atheism isn't simply the refusal to believe in God. It is the belief that God doesn't exist.

No, this is a misunderstanding of Atheism. Again; Atheism is simply the refusal to accept extreme claims about the nature of the universe, the afterlife, etc., without sufficient evidence. It has nothing to do with ‘refusal.’ The Theists simply fail (miserably) at meeting the burden of proof for their extreme assertions. We can discount the Christian mythology, fairly easily, because much of it is either obviously false, or highly suspect, but I can’t possibly discount, with any certainty, the existence of an intelligent ‘prime mover’, some kind of extraterrestrial. However; that only goes so far. I can’t disprove the existence of unicorns, either.


Of course if you are going to live a normal life there is a lot of things that you have to accept on faith. Or do you think you can "prove" the existence of your bedroom, for instance?

I’m not impressed by this, at all. If you got out of bed this morning, you’ve found some way to reconcile this. There’s absolutely no comparison. First of all; the burden of proof that my bedroom existed is fairly low, and has been more than sufficiently established, by a number of individuals. Conversely; the burden of proof for Christianity is exceedingly high, and they offer, essentially, zero evidence. Furthermore; we do have significant evidence that either clearly disproves some of the truth claims made by Christians, etc.



And I would say it doesn't. I don't mean that parents cannot be abusive in the kind of education they give to their children; that is certainly possible. I mean that educating and protecting children means necessarily sharing their - the parents' - world vision with children. There is no "neutral" process of education that respect some kind of abstract "freedom" children would have.

Do I think it should be illegal to fill children’s minds with poisonous bullshit? No. Do I think it’s morally reprehensible? Absolutely. Religious indoctrination oftentimes leads to pathologies which can lead to significant unhappiness, for years to come. As I mentioned; the pathological attitude towards sexuality, especialy homosexuality. Another example would be first confession. I mean, you take a small child, put them in a tiny room with a hulking man in black robes, and make them confess their crimes. There is no possibility of innocence. You are guilty. Everybody is guilty. You’re simply there to confirm your guilt. The sickest part is you find yourself scrambling for things you might have done wrong, or embellishing, or even inventing transgressions. I mean; how fucking sick is that? What could they have possibly done that was so horrible?




Not in my country that I know.

I can only imagine. It’s a constant legal battle in the US. Also; individual teachers frequently step over the line, with no consequences. I remember, in High School, I frequently refused to say the Pledge of Allegiance. It’s never gone to the Supreme Court, but nearly every time a citizen has contested this, the state courts have, usually, found in favor of the student, as it, clearly, conflicts with the 1st, and 14th Amendment. (Of course; admittedly, my opposition had less to do with the phrase; ‘under god’, and more to do with my philosophical objection to pledging fealty to the state.) It’s a no-brainer. However; I had several teachers try to bully me into it.


Or take them back.

That’s also a possibility.


Maybe, but that cannot achieved by an emphasys on the rejection of religion.

By itself? Certainly not.

I understand why, especially in many poor areas, the church becomes the center of the community, it fills a role, what we need to do is create secular institutions that empower people, and meet their needs.


I think the issue, in the case of the United States, is that the far right has found a way to blackmail and paralise all other political tendencies, from the far left to the moderate right. They have kidnapped the political discourse.

The United States does have one of the most sophisticated propaganda systems, if not the most sophisticated.

I just don’t think there’s anything fundamentally British, or Austrian about European secularism.


They know how to mix the legal and the illegal quite well. Perhaps we should learn from them.
Luís Henrique

They are bloody organized, I’ll say that much.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Well, no. That would be agnosticism. Atheism isn't simply the refusal to believe in God. It is the belief that God doesn't exist.

I think this part of the argument at least is based on a mutual misunderstanding.

Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive, depending on your precise definition of agnosticism. An agnostic atheist is someone who does not believe in a deity, but who also does not "know" that there is no god in the same sense that one knows the sun will rise tomorrow. The agnostic atheist's lack of belief is predicated on the lack of evidence for deities, and such a person would presumably become some stripe of theist upon the presentation of convincing evidence. A gnostic atheist "knows" that there no god with the same certainty that most believers have for the opposite case, and hence dismisses the possibility of evidence to the contrary from the outset (at least one gnostic atheist I encountered considered the entire concept of deities, especially the 3-O conception of god, to be logically incoherent).

[NGNM85]

I think this part of the argument at least is based on a mutual misunderstanding.

Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive, depending on your precise definition of agnosticism. An agnostic atheist is someone who does not believe in a deity, but who also does not "know" that there is no god in the same sense that one knows the sun will rise tomorrow. The agnostic atheist's lack of belief is predicated on the lack of evidence for deities, and such a person would presumably become some stripe of theist upon the presentation of convincing evidence. A gnostic atheist "knows" that there no god with the same certainty that most believers have for the opposite case, and hence dismisses the possibility of evidence to the contrary from the outset (at least one gnostic atheist I encountered considered the entire concept of deities, especially the 3-O conception of god, to be logically incoherent).

I'm aware of this distinction, I just didn't think it mattered 'Gnostic Atheism', as you call it, is fundamentally irrational. Furthermore; nobody really takes this seriously. None of the prominent atheist thinkers, from Betrand Russell, to Sam Harris, subscribe to this viewpoint. I don't believe I've ever met an athiest who espoused this idea.

[ckaihatsu]

---





[T]he Catholic Church [...] more and more defines religious freedom as the unfettered right of the church to do whatever it wants. This means: the freedom to impose religious doctrines in secular education (freedom of religious education), the freedom to operate and command mass media outlets (freedom to disseminate), and the freedom to openly intervene in politics (freedom of religious association).




The establishment of a secular state in Mexico is the result of more than 160 years of struggle, which at times took on the character of a civil war. Since formal ties were re-established with the Vatican 20 years ago, the church has sought to claw back its former power over Mexican society, often by supporting the most reactionary legislation, e.g., the criminalization of abortion and contraception, and opposition to same-sex marriage.

Article 24 was written into Mexico’s Reform Laws and Constitution in the 1860s, guaranteeing freedom of religion and limiting religious practices to the interior of temples and churches. The Constitution of 1917 that followed the Mexican Revolution retained the same language. In addition, the post-revolutionary Constitution prohibited the churches from owning property, prohibited them from participating in the political process and forbade religious education in primary schools. All churches and temples became government property.

In 1994, under the PRI government of President Carlos Salinas, the process of secularization was reversed. Rights were granted for churches to provide non-secular instruction in elementary schools, and the right of churches to own property was restored.

In his visit to México, Pope Benedict XVI has made it clear that there is one thing that he will not do: meet with the victims of sexual abuse by Catholic priests.




http://wsws.org/articles/2012/mar2012/papa-m21.shtml

[Franz Fanonipants]

JP II was still worse but yeah the institution needs a fundamental change

[Luís Henrique]

I just don't see it as being that difficult. I'd probably say something like this;

‘A 'truth claim' is a statement that is supposed to represent something true about the world. For example; if I show you a blue crayon, and I say; ‘This crayon is blue.’, I’m making a ‘truth claim.’ You, or anybody else, can know that this is true by studying the crayon.’

This seems obviously ununderstandable by a five-year-old child.


No, this is a misunderstanding of Atheism. Again; Atheism is simply the refusal to accept extreme claims about the nature of the universe, the afterlife, etc., without sufficient evidence. It has nothing to do with ‘refusal.’ The Theists simply fail (miserably) at meeting the burden of proof for their extreme assertions. We can discount the Christian mythology, fairly easily, because much of it is either obviously false, or highly suspect, but I can’t possibly discount, with any certainty, the existence of an intelligent ‘prime mover’, some kind of extraterrestrial. However; that only goes so far. I can’t disprove the existence of unicorns, either.

Well, an atheist rejects "prime movers" or "some kind of extraterrestrial" [as the originator of the world as we know it]. And otherwise, how would we reject "intelligent design"?


I’m not impressed by this, at all. If you got out of bed this morning, you’ve found some way to reconcile this. There’s absolutely no comparison. First of all; the burden of proof that my bedroom existed is fairly low, and has been more than sufficiently established, by a number of individuals. Conversely; the burden of proof for Christianity is exceedingly high, and they offer, essentially, zero evidence. Furthermore; we do have significant evidence that either clearly disproves some of the truth claims made by Christians, etc.

And how would one know if they got out of be this morning? How does one know that the world has not been created one second ago, ready with all of one's memories too?

Such solipstitic positions are logically unassailable; you have to anchor your rejection of solipsism in something different from logic, sensual data, or the combination of both.


Do I think it should be illegal to fill children’s minds with poisonous bullshit? No. Do I think it’s morally reprehensible? Absolutely.

This assumes that the person "filliing children minds with poisonou bullshit" realises that the poisonous bullshit is... poisonous bullshit. But the problem is exactly we are dealing with people who consider "poisonous bullshit" (or, better saying, what you consider "poisonous bullshit") something perfectly acceptable, or even revealed truth.

So basically you are saying that other people should educate their children according to your value system.


Religious indoctrination oftentimes leads to pathologies which can lead to significant unhappiness, for years to come.

Pick a list of famous mathematicians, whose contributions to the progress of the field are significant. How many of them lead a life free from "pathologies" that could lead to "significant unhappiness"?


As I mentioned; the pathological attitude towards sexuality, especialy homosexuality. Another example would be first confession.

Indeed. The religious attitude towards homosexuality has been extremely nasty. I doubt very much such beliefs are inseparable from actual religious beliefs; one could believe God created the world 6,000 years ago, complete with gay people (in fact one could argue that this is more consistent with theism; if God created everything that exists, and homosexual people do exist, who created homosexual people?) And of course, we perfectly know there are non-theist homophobes.


I mean, you take a small child, put them in a tiny room with a hulking man in black robes, and make them confess their crimes. There is no possibility of innocence. You are guilty. Everybody is guilty. You’re simply there to confirm your guilt. The sickest part is you find yourself scrambling for things you might have done wrong, or embellishing, or even inventing transgressions. I mean; how fucking sick is that? What could they have possibly done that was so horrible?

This is a specifically Catholic practice; many, propably most, theists don't practice it.


The United States does have one of the most sophisticated propaganda systems, if not the most sophisticated.

I don't think this shows that the United States has a sophisticated propaganda system; it just shows that a particular section of the American opinion has been able to tactically deceive the majority.


I just don’t think there’s anything fundamentally British, or Austrian about European secularism.

And where do Britain and Austria come from?


They are bloody organized, I’ll say that much.

They are bloody smart, and an essential part of their bloody smartness is to deceive others into the idea that they are imbeciles.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive, depending on your precise definition of agnosticism. An agnostic atheist is someone who does not believe in a deity, but who also does not "know" that there is no god in the same sense that one knows the sun will rise tomorrow. The agnostic atheist's lack of belief is predicated on the lack of evidence for deities, and such a person would presumably become some stripe of theist upon the presentation of convincing evidence. A gnostic atheist "knows" that there no god with the same certainty that most believers have for the opposite case, and hence dismisses the possibility of evidence to the contrary from the outset (at least one gnostic atheist I encountered considered the entire concept of deities, especially the 3-O conception of god, to be logically incoherent).

There is no such thing as "gnostic atheism"; the word "gnostic" is not used to mean the opposite of "agnostic".

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

I don't believe I've ever met an athiest who espoused this idea.

Nice to meet you.

Luís Henrique

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

There is no such thing as "gnostic atheism"; the word "gnostic" is not used to mean the opposite of "agnostic".

Regardless, your focus on semantics does not impinge on my actual point; certainly there is such a thing as agnostic atheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism) - "gnostic atheists", in the sense I was using the term, are those atheists who claim to "know" that no deities exist, in the same sense that non-agnostic religious believers "know" that deities do exist.

[Luís Henrique]

Regardless, your focus on semantics does not impinge on my actual point; certainly there is such a thing as agnostic atheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism) - "gnostic atheists", in the sense I was using the term, are those atheists who claim to "know" that no deities exist, in the same sense that non-agnostic religious believers "know" that deities do exist.

I don't find the concept useful. An agnostic is someone who doesn't know whether god exists or not; an atheist is someone who believes god doesn't exist. Those are mutually exclusive positions.

To criticise Russell's quote in Wikipedia,


Bertrand Russell uses the example of the celestial teapot. He argues that although it is impossible to know that the teapot does not exist, most people would not believe in it. Therefore, one's view with respect to the teapot would be an agnostic "ateapotist", because while they don't believe in the existence of the teapot, they don't claim to know for certain.

Russell may have been an agnostic about the teapot, but I am not - and I don't think being an agnostic about it makes any sence. I believe there is no such teapot, and I am pretty sure that it cannot exist. Teapots don't exist unless they are intentionally made for that end, and could not be in outer space unless intentionally launched, which we do know never happened.

Mutatis mutandi, same goes for god.

It is just an example of Russell's abstract philosophy, that does never take into consideration actual history and human activity.

Luís Henrique