Atheists gather to ‘push back’

[shawn703]

To the uninformed, the gathering here may have seemed like a church revival, full of zeal and fervor. But worshipping God was most decidedly not part of the agenda.

advertisement
Click Here
The attendees of the “All Atheists Weekend” came together to discuss what they call the rise of fundamentalism in the U.S. and the blurring of lines between church and state.

Attendees also took time to view documentaries that question the historical accuracy of the Bible — and to hear lectures about the dangers of religious icons on public property and problems with President Bush’s so-called “faith-based initiative,” which seeks to give religious groups equal footing in seeking federal grants to provide social services.

Organizers said they expected more than 250 people to take part in the weekend event, which featured a lecture by Ellen Johnson, the president of American Atheists.

The religious right’s increasing involvement in U.S. politics has triggered an angry backlash among the godless, say Bay Area atheist groups, five of which organized the event.

“It’s time for us to push back,” said psychologist Jaime Arcila, 52, of San Francisco, who was accompanied by his two children, Javier, 15, and Amanda, 12, in a tiny theater Saturday night just south of downtown.



more...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7950590/

[vi5]

1. As an atheist, it's not even a matter of my atheism...

It's a matter of getting all religion out of the arena of dictating public policy. Not because I'm an atheist, but because I believe in the constitution and most importantly the first amendment.

I treat my atheism like I wish the religious would treat their religion. As a personal matter not to be discussed in the public sphere.

[Kolesar]

3. Let's get to the point

The rising theocracy is just a ruthless ploy for immoral political leaders to exploit a compliant flock under the guise of religion.

[sendero]

11. Exactly..

.... and they've been working that angle for a long time.

They've taken it beyond "begging for money" all the way to "the judges are the problem".

They will untimately fail, because as people enter their ranks other people leave disilliusioned. But they can do a lot of damage in the interim.

[Roland99]

17. Bingo!!

The Same-Sex Marriage Ban Amendment, the Nuclear Option, etc. are all Rovian ploys using the Fund-A-Mentals in a carefully directed ruse.

[heidler1]

25. I agree except for your last word. I would of used SHEEP.

"The Same-Sex Marriage Ban Amendment, the Nuclear Option, etc. are all Rovian ploys using the Fund-A-Mentals in a carefully directed ruse."

Bush pretends to be the SHEEP while manipulating the voting of the Bible thumpers.

[renaissanceguy]

18. They're all Pharisees...

The louder they speak, the more obvious it is that they have problems of their own.


http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues/588704

[dmr]

32. Isn't that the truth!

You can also see the plotting of their test cases here and there; like the lawsuit filed against a school district last week which wouldn't let a little girl sing a Christian song. Plot! Plot! Plot! You can see right through most of it all.

When Madelyn Murray O'Hair took religion to the Supreme Court in the 60s, my little girl brain couldn't figure out why this lady was being so mean. We said the Lord's Prayer each morning before class. What was wrong with that? We said the Lord's Prayer before school functions. What was wrong with that?

But I listened to her. Her arguments were valid. She made a lot of sense. Maybe it was because as a Catholic, I didn't say the same ending to the Lord's prayer as my Protestant classmates. They made snide remarks, and were sometimes mean to me and other little Catholic kids because of it. We were going to hell, according to them. So, maybe that is why O'Hair's arguments made sense to me. I remembering thinking about how I felt - and I was praying! Imagine how a little kid felt for not praying?

I think this was the turning point in my life of putting my feet in other people's shoes.

To complete this grade school story, our teachers told those who wanted to pray to do it silently. She would give us a few moments. The funny thing is, very few kids prayed. It turned out to be just waiting for time to pass before we began the school day. It wasn't long before the teacher no longer offered that extra few moments, and to tell the truth, I don't think any of the kids questioned her about it. I didn't miss it.

I sometimes think about O'Hair, and how it's too bad she is no longer with us. I sure would like to hear what she would have had to say about the state of affairs in this country. No doubt sparks would have been flying a long time ago if she were around. She wouldn't sit still one second. She was quite the champion when it came to freedom from religion.

[eridani]

67. That Lord's Prayer ending difference--

--probably was responsible for creating the whole Catholic school system! I remember being harassed for not doing it 'right' as well.

[PurityOfEssence]

19. Personally, I think that's the purpose of religion

I don't buy the "religion is inherently good" premise that then dismisses abusers for perverting the true social aim of the belief system, I see religions as political entities designed to control people. Sure, there's some truly real needs in the hearts of sincere people that are being serviced by the answers given by the various religions, and sure, many nurturing and decent laws are set forth in the various teachings, but I think that the birth of religion was to control people. We need them to stay in line and fear the consequences of their actions in order to climb out of the dirt and build towns. We need them to not fear death so they'll be productive and die for us when we need them to.

Religious appeals are inherently primitive because religions are inherently primitive. The disorienting pace of the ever-changing modern world has people running willy-nilly toward the warm bosom of primitiveness, and it's only going to get worse.

Much of all religious questions come down to peoples' basic premises. For those of us who see virtually all organized religions as being largely cynical, religion is a curse; we attribute the good done by them to the faithful, and we attribute the evil to the faithful, too. For those who truly believe, all bad things that happen because of the institutions are aberrations, and attributable to those who don't really believe, thus non-believers get yet another bad rap.

[Arugula Latte]

48. Bingo.

"Control" is the operative word in religion.

It's a symbiotic relationship between those who have the need for power and control and those who don't like to think for themselves and feel the need to "submit."

[Carla in Ca]

46. Absolutely...

It is for greed, not god.

[DoYouEverWonder]

10. There is no reason not to discuss religion

in the public sphere or anywhere else.

However, allowing one religion to take over our government and for them to force their beliefs down the rest of our throats is another matter entirely.

[Maat]

49. I'm not an atheist. I'm a recent law graduate.

It's not that I don't want to people discussing it - even in a public forum - I just don't want the government either entangled with religion or sponsoring it.

If a Conservative Christian org. wants to hold a rally in a public park, discussing end-of-times, fine.

But don't hit me over the head with it by having taxpayers pay for a Ten Commandments display, or maintain it in a public building, or enact laws based upon personal religious beliefs.

That's all.

[bluestateguy]

2. I'm not a fan of this group

I applaud some of the work they have done on Church and State issues, but it's also evident that these people look upon religious folks with contempt, even mainline, non-fundamentalists. I remember seeing one of their leaders on one of the cable shows beratring a mainline person, telling him that he worshipped "an ivisible man in outer space". That is nothing more than hateful, mean spirited rhetoric, top be expected of a consrvative talki radio host.

And sometimes they can be a little moonbat about the whole Church and State thing. I mean, taking In God We Trust off of the money? Isn't that kind of just a politically correct waste of time?

[Kolesar]

4. I observe atheist activism, although I do not participate in it

I don't recall any of their leaders featuring such language as "an invisible man...". Can you recall which leader said that?

[DeaconBlues]

5. And how do the majority of the religious look upon athiests?

Believe me, athiests get the short end of the stick when it comes to intolerance.

[lyonn]

37. You're either for me or against me

If you are against me I can kill you with impunity. Now those words keep many from telling anyone they are not "believers."

[Skittles]

43. Jeez, tell me about it, Deacon

I consider mayself Agnostic and I can tell you I am sick to death of having religion thrown in my face - absolutely sick of it.

[China_cat]

6. Well, if you talk to yourself

or somebody who's not visibly there and do it everywhere and anywhere, you get locked up as a loony. Unless you call it praying.

[heidler1]

27. They want to teach all kids to pray when they have a problem rather

than figuring out what is wrong and fixing it. They teach this method whether it's the car won't start or people are angry because they are hungry. Then when the praying don't cut it so they go on welfare the same bunch deny them help by cutting funding for safety nets. Of course the Bible Thumpers blame the Democrats for enabling the gullible.

[China_cat]

30. One of my favorite taglines:

Two hands working do more than a thousand clasped in prayer.

[heidler1]

33. Those who think religion is the answer seem to believe that we should

respect their view, but they are equally or even more disrespectful and much more inclined to torture and even kill those who disagree. All in the name of faith without proof. Has anyone ever heard of Atheists committing mass murder of non believers?

[China_cat]

36. The religious would answer that

with the examples of Stalin and Pol Pot. Without ever realizing that their atrocities were committed in the name of the state, not in the name of atheism. Or that Stalin was originally on track to become an Orthodox priest and Pol Pot was educated by the Catholic church. I'd say they both learned their history very well.

[heidler1]

39. OK so humans tend to kill and believing in anything aggravates the

problem, even Communism. IMO It's part of the pack mentality that we picked up while evolving. This is why gangs can be so ruthless. Do you think Atheists tend to be loners? Do you think Atheists tend to be Liberal Democrats? Do you think Atheists tend to have higher IQs?

[China_cat]

40. Yes. And you forgot more compassionate.

[Arugula Latte]

50. Right.

If something goes there way, it's: "God answered my prayer!"

If something doesn't go their way, it's: "Well, God has his reasons (of course it's a HE :eyes: )

Either way, that God sure comes out smelling like a rose eeeeevery time.

[heidler1]

70. The worst part about it is that they use it to cope like taking dope.

And end up like a flock of sheep. I tend to suspect religious people are being taught incompetence whether they know it or not. Is being gullible enough to believe in myths part of intelligent design?

If there did happen to be a creator and he some how created some who could not bring themselves to believe because the evidence was contradictory in their eyes. Would it be reasonable to send these non-believers to hell?

[vi5]

8. Oh yeah, compare that to how atheists are viewed...

by the people of religion in power in this country.

I don't care about the things like in God We Trust on money or even Christmas displays and stuff.

But compare what atheists have to endure in this country and how many of them hold positions of even modest power, versus what type of deference Christians or most other religions have at their disposal in this country and how many of them hold positions of power and then get back to me about the poor insulted christians (or whatever religion this person was).

[China_cat]

15. Read up some time on the Herb Silverman case.

Took him 7 YEARS of court battles to become a notary here in SC because he's an atheist.

[BiggJawn]

13. Well, that's always a sticky issue, isn't it?

"Invisible man in outer space". What's wrong with that?

So out of "Respect", I'm supposed to tell the Theists "Oh, you have a God, yes indeed, I acknowledge that FACT, I just choose to close my eyes and ignore Him..."

No, I'm not going to say that.

How would you feel about somebody who professes a solid belief in the Divinity of Eeyore? you'd think they were a few bubbles off centre, wouldn't you?
Then why should the invisible man in outer space be any different? Is it any different than to have a Theist say "I'll pray that you find the Truth..." Gee, thanks, I thought I already had...

Yes, the dialogue is less-than-polite, but we've tried polite, and it has gotten us nowhere. In much the same way that christian people who are feeding the poor and comforting the sick have been marginalized by the Fundy Taliborn-agains, so have we. In this 24/7 news coverage world, it's the screaming smoking wheel that gets the grease.

[progressoid]

58. "Taliborn-agains"

Ha! - That's a good one!

[BiggJawn]

72. Not original, though.

"Rumsferatu" is the one I claim authorship for. Everything else I "borrowed"...

[BlueEyedSon]

14. Religious "moderates" give cover to the nutjobs.

They have the same mental illness, albeit not as severe a case. Yet their "normality" makes the whole thing socially acceptable.

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." (Stephen Roberts)

[va_dem]

26. religous right

Shuting up those kind up would help our cause, attacking all religon is counterproductive, we just need to point out the flaws in the arguements of the religous right.

[MADem]

52. I don't think people want to 'attack all religion'

They simply don't want the government shoving it down their throats. People are sick and tired of religion in the corridors of power--it doesn't belong there. It is a private, not a state-sponsored, practice. Of the people, by the people, for the people can't work when there is only one 'acceptable' attitude towards worship (or disavowal) of a higher power.

And those who do not get the spirit are marginalized, in the name of the people? You want them to shut up? To help OUR cause? Nonsense. Complete and utter nonsense. It's wrong, and it is in direct contravention to the Constitution--a touchstone document for ALL Americans.

Freedom of speech is for everyone, not just those you happen to agree with.

On edit: I am not totally sure who you want to shut up, or even if you really meant it the way I intially took it. Do you mean shut up the religious right by using good arguments to make them slink away in shame and realization, or do you want to prevent them from speaking at all? Or were you referring to the atheists upthread???

[NAO]

65. not "attacking religion" as much as debunking myths

There is a serious problem in modern society, and it is especially bad in the United States. This problem is that ancient myths - fanciful stories that people used to make sense of the world and answer the unanswerable questions - are being taken seriously and believed as literal truth.

Now for someone to take these myths and subject them to rational analysis and modern scientific notions, and find them to be utterly implausible and beyond any reasonable doubt untrue is a positive activity.

People need to question the myths of the major religions and see them for what they are.

For example,

- A person rising from the dead is something that happens in a bad horror movie. It is not a notion that should be taken as something that really could have happened, much less the central tenant of human history.

- Eating the flesh and drinking the blood of a cult leader is cannibalism, not "holy communion".

- Being washed in the blood of Jesus, or anyone's blood, is really gross and is likely to spread communicable diseases rather than washing away sins.

- When Saul of Tarsus had that "event" on the road to Damascus, it was more likely an epileptic seizure than an epiphany of god.

- When John the Divine was on the isle of Patmos and was "taken up in the spirit" and saw all those horseman and plagues and women riding beasts, he may have accidentally ingested some hallucinogenic mushrooms.

- People being "taken up into the clouds" as if abducted by UFOs is a bizarre notion. Now if "the dead in Christ shall rise first", what would happen if a person (Smith) was a Christian, he died, a cow ate grass that grew from his rotting corpse, then a second person (Jones) ate a hamburger from that cow? The atoms that were Smith's body are now part of Jones' body. If Jones dies and these atoms that were originally Smiths pass thru the bodies of several other Christians, who gets those atoms when Jesus miraculously reconstitutes the bodies to "rise up first"? What if an un-repentant sinner was part of that food chain?

Christianity is FULL of such utterly ridiculous notions. People are so used to the teachings that they do not see how absurd they really are.

For hundreds of such criticisms, read Robert Ingersoll's "Some Mistakes of Moses"
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/some_mistakes_of_moses.html

[MADem]

68. From a party perspective, I don't think that is at all helpful

Fine if you want exercise your First Amendment rights and do it on your own time, but I wouldn't want that sort of "debunking" associated with our party platform, or connected to us in any way.

It won't convince people who firmly subscribe to a particular faith (and you are hitting christianity exclusively, I note) and it would only provide neverending fodder for the rightwingers.

I was just trying to establish what the other poster meant, not go on a rampage. I am all for getting religion off the Hill, out of the executive branch and the judiciary, away from government entities, and back in the damn houses of worship and homes where it belongs--if individuals so choose to participate, that is.

Real freedom is not just freedom of religion, it is also freedom from religion. But beating up Christians because you don't like their belief system is simply not a good game plan.

I think the way to handle religion in the larger sense is to let everyone know that THEIR freedom to practice their faith shall not be ABRIDGED, and the way we do that is to keep it a PRIVATE, PERSONAL, and NOT a taxpayer funded endeavor.

[NAO]

71. You are absolutely correct - it should not be a Political Party Issue

Christianity should not be associated with either party, nor should secularism.

No Political party should be attacking religion - or espousing religion.

But I do think it is very important to challenge the ludicrous claims of Christianity and not tip-toe around the issue and retreat on the "it's all a matter of personal belief". The teachings and doctrines of Christianity and other religions need to be exposed for the contradictory, mythological, pre-scientific superstition that they are.

At one time I believed that it was just best to let people go on believing in their chosen religion. But now I have see far too much harm come to the human race as a result of religion. I once thought that as mankind advanced, these old superstitions would just gradually fade away. But as we are seeing, they are not.

Now I believe it is critical to aggressively expose the fraudulent claims of religions and plant as much doubt and reason into the minds of as many people as possible.

The alternative is to have a second Dark Ages.

[AndyTiedye]

29. We are defaming their God by putting his name on our money.

It seems pretty clear to me that putting "In God We Trust" on our
currency is a violation of the establishment clause of the first
amendment. But good Christians are not supposed to care about that,
as it is their church that has been established.

But Christians may have their own reasons for being offended by it.
That placement would appear to violate the Biblical injunction:
"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's"
which was attributed to Jesus himself. Jesus was also known for
throwing money-changers out of the temple and all that.


We are defaming their God by putting his name on our money.

[immoderate]

42. Can there be a more meaningless statement than,

In God We Trust?

I've never heard it explained.

--IMM

[AtTheEndOfTheDay]

31. How is it hateful and mean spirited rhetoric

for one to interpret "God" as a invisible man in outer space. Sounds more like a description of an observation about the perceptions of the religious. To atheist's the whole thing is as preposterous as the tooth fairy or Santa Claus. It's rather hard not to be condescending when you're expected to take seriously people proposing ridiculous wishful fantasy as a real thing. Atheist's should generally be applauded for being as tolerant as they are given the foolishness they're expected to be respectful of.

[Maat]

51. Hmmm ... that attitude is why I usually walk away from atheists ..

during a conversation about religion.

I have atheists as friends (and my husband of 20+ years is an atheist), but, the minute the discussion starts getting disrespectful, I END it!

[Synnical]

57. "but, the minute the discussion starts getting disrespectful,"

Wow, aren't you glad atheists don't turn you off the minute the discussion turns disrespectful to our lack of belief?

[Maat]

59. I never give an atheist a hard time about their lack of belief.

I don't say things like "You're crazy because you don't believe in God," or something like that.

I do believe in all paths.

But, in keeping with my assertiveness training, I do not stand around while they say nasty things like, "You believe in Magic in the Sky," or whatever.

If an atheist wants to say, "Gee, what do you believe. I believe this. Oh, I disagree with that," that's cool.

It is the insulting words such as "mythical," "stupid," and "fable" that cause me to just excuse myself (conversation finished).

[Synnical]

64. Atheists don't "believe"

We think, or logically assert.

I must assert that you do not "believe in all paths" because you disregard that there is no path.

Off to bed, now.

Best regards,
Cindy in Fort Lauderdale

[Maat]

73. I do honor those who have 'no path.'

That was the point of my response.

But not believing in a God, emphasizing logic IS a path.

And that is fine, because it is a path.

No matter what you think, it is a path, for you are moving forward.

That's what I meant to say anyway.

[MADem]

53. Actually, I think they should remove IGWT from the cash

...and I do not have a problem with religion or religious people, doing their own thing, in a private context. I think doing so would "define the line" between church and state. Of course, I think faith-based funding is a bozo nono too. Too much of that faith based cash, I suspect, is lining the pockets of church leaders.

It is a long-used motto, but it does not respect or include ALL Americans. And that is just un-American, IMHO.

[Maat]

60. This person of faith ... really dislikes 'faith-based funding'

because, when I was a social worker, I saw clients who wanted to take advantage of 'faith-based' programs getting coerced into being 'born again.' These weren't progressive Christian operations, but Religious Right operations of the worst sort.

I had to help a couple of clients get their money back - sometimes they would have the client turn over their checks, so that they could 'manage' them for the client. I told them I would 'manage' to get a hold of a good lawyer for the client unless the reconsidered, along with spreading the word about the program (in a negative fashion) throughout the County. Clients got money back right away (as they had wanted).

[Az]

56. I wonder just how fast the phrase In Allah We Trust would be removed

First off it is a clear seperation of church and state. Simply put it endorses a particular religion. That is illegal. It is immoral. And the nation simply shouldn't be doing it.

The original phrase was much more in keeping with the true spirit of this nation. Out of many, one. This is a true representation of what this nation is about.

But don't worry about it. God on our money doesn't impact us as much as other issues. So there will be some time before it rises to the top of the agenda. We will be busy working on keeping the religious right from indoctrinating our children and dismantling our education system. There is far too much work to do to be overly concerned about the unconstitutionality of our money.

[funflower]

69. Saying that believers are worshipping "an invisible man in outer space"

is simply creating a straw man as a target. It is similar to what one hears in some churches about how anyone who is not a Christian is a lost, amoral materialist who lives for his mcmansion and his next trophy wife.

How about we all let religious folk define their own God and nonreligious folk define themselves?



:shrug:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

74. Get back to me when they say religious folk will be tortured eternally

for believing in God.

THEN we'll talk about "looking upon with contempt."

[Robworld]

7. Religion and God will never leave politics

As long as there are scam artist, charlatans, and con men, God will never leave politics.

http://www.dumdumgoestothecircus.com

[displacedtexan]

9. Wow! That's one of the best websites I've ever seen!

I hope you add a blog to your site!

Really, I'm not kidding. Your site is refreshingly different!

[Robworld]

12. Thanks

We appreciate the response, and suggestions. Drop us an e-mail sometime to be added to our mailing list for announcements and updates.

[Bellamia]

21. Indeed, site is refreshingly different.......

and put a smile on my face, now I can get through the rest of the day.;>)
Thanks.

[Lerkfish]

16. as a liberal christian, I completely applaud their efforts!

more power to them. They have my support.

[shrike]

20. Maybe Elayne Boosler can entertain them

Or maybe it was Poundstone. Anyway, one of the funniest stand-ups I ever heard was about atheism. Poundstone/Boosler said she was an atheist but she went to church because "she was not a heathen."
At the church of atheism, the hymn of choice was "One Hundred Bottles of Beer On the Wall." People get up during the service and say things like, "Before I came here, I couldn't walk, and now, I still can't walk."

I'm Catholic, BTW.

[earth mom]

22. Good for them.

Somebody needs to fight this fundie bullshit-because, seriously they want to take over the f-in world! Enough is Enough!

And I'm just wondering why is it not okay to bash Christianity but it's okay to for Christians to bash non believers over the head all the time with their proselytizing? After a while, how can there NOT be a backlash? :shrug:

[brentspeak]

23. San Francisco? Why not protest in the Bible Belt?

If they want to get their message across, they're kind of in the wrong place to do it.

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

24. I love how they characterize atheists as "godless" - why not "rational"?

I guess we can expect to see a similar slant in reporting with MSGOP when covering the prayer breakfasts that Shrub so likes to attend. I guess those attending would be "full of god" or "god-worthy".

Fuck this shit.

JB

[NJmaverick]

28. I don't like to see stories like this

It creates a false imagine. There are plenty of religious people that oppose the right wing's attempt to merge church and state. It is not limited to a handful of athiests. When you see the small number of people that attended the event you wonder why it was considered national news. Then you realize this is the kinda of story those favoring a theocracy nation want people to read.

[China_cat]

45. There may be plenty of religious people

who aren't in favor of a theocracy, but where are they? Why don't we hear from them outside of a bland 'oh they aren't really christians' and then turn their backs on the problem?

[Synnical]

54. So atheists should just shut up?

And not be hopeful/glad that we get national press?

[slackmaster]

34. The push back should not be made up exclusively of atheists

Mainstream Christians and practitioners of every other faith have a vested interest in preventing the degenerate Christian fundamentalists from cramming their backwards agenda down all of our throats.

The problem isn't religion. It's the blurring of the distinction between religious thought and rational thought.

[Miss Chybil]

35. What about agnostics and liberal Christians, liberal Jews, Buddhists

Muslims and people who only go to church on Easter, or for funerals and weddings, but still call themselves Christians? There are a lot more people in this country who need to be stamping out this fundamentalist rise than just atheists, or we're going to find ourselves in deep doo-doo.

[kineneb]

63. this Buddhist is for Freedom From Religions

Good for the athists. I would be happy to join a Separation of State and Religion movement. I don't share their beliefs and they don't share mine.

I would not try "convert" anyone to Buddhism. For one thing, it is more of a way of life and thinking than a belief system. And it does not require the worship of a "supreme being." I chose to be one because it fit in with my life experiences.

Humor-
Q:How many Buddhists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: None. The light bulb must seek its own enlightenment.

[Zhade]

38. "...like a church revival, full of zeal and fervor..."

This was written to offend. Atheists like myself do not appreciate being falsely compared to religious fanatics.

(Please note that I said FANATIC, not all theists.)

Frankly, I think there should be a huge alliance between atheists and mainstream (i.e. non-insane, non-literalist) believers to safeguard the separation of church and state, for the sake of believers' faiths as much as our own lack of belief in gods.

In the end, preventing institutionalized religion (which has not been fully successful in America) is far more important than debating something neither I nor a believer can possibly know at this point in time.

[Maat]

62. I agree.

Liberal Christians, Agnostics, Sufis, Moderate and liberal Muslims, Unitarian-Universalists, Atheists, etc., etc. (all those not part of the Religious Right Extremists) need to work together.

[Fire Walk With Me]

41. America's strength is that we can all live and work side by side

and benefit from diversity.

Excepting those who can't tolerate anything resembling opposing viewpoints, and try to use the law to force everyone else out.

Can we take a collection and buy these folks an island or something where they can pat themselves on the back and always be "right" and know that God loves them most?

[daleo]

44. Give me that old-time Un-State Religion

Give me that old time un-state religion
Tis the old time un-state religion,
Tis the old time un-state religion,
And it's good enough for me.

It was good for Thomas Jefferson.
It was good for George Washington.
It was good for Abe Lincoln.
And it's good enough for me.

[chknltl]

47. Divide and be conquered

As a card carrying atheist I am feeling impelled to state that we need Christians on our side, I believe that they are in the same kind of denial as those who purchased Yugos.... They all want to believe that they did the right thing. Hindsight shows one and all that perhaps the right thing turns out somewhat less. We can not wait for their car to break down in this case that car is our government and eventually our planet! One method of fixing our sad state of America is to enlist the Christians in our cause by showing them with exacting precision the true evils of the Bush administration. Sure not all of them will ever be on our side. By and large the Christians must become our allies if we are to ever to bring the Bush Regime to trial and save our planet! I urge you all to take your favorite examples of the neocons' atrocities to your local preacher and make him see what we see! I can not believe that there is a preacher anywhere in America who condones the use of depleted uranium on the peoples of the earth for example, take him to those websites! Why should the neocons have exclusive rights on the moral majority? We know who is and who is not truly moral, preaching to the choir just isn't working, it is time for a change in strategies!

[Synnical]

55. Wow, you have a card?

Why?

-Cindy in Fort Lauderdale

[funflower]

75. This is a good point....

Like most people, fundy preachers get a lot of their news from biased sources. I really think a lot of them sincerely want to care for people (body and soul) and do not have any idea what is really going on in the world (for some reason, the depleted uranium stuff just doesn't make it onto Jerry Falwell's website).

[okieinpain]

61. it's about time.

[Kerrytravelers]

66. As a Christian, I'd feel more comfortable with gathering than a

"religious one."

Good for them, I wish them all the best.