October 12, 2019

My first reply I deleted on accident

Ok if I got this right, I’m getting older...and sometimes a little slow on the uptake. Didn’t have the time to listen to the board meeting.

So this board in Indiana won’t allow Atheists a permit on Dec 6th, to use the courthouse lawn when it was left open this year, for irrelevant reasons (a live nativity was not going to be using it even though they have in the past). So the Atheists requested that date for a couple of signs and a table and it’s the Atheist causing trouble?!?. Because ....one religion owns December? :lol:

being snarky (if it’s a bitch to move a manger) probably should put it on wheels.

Nevertheless, the date was open but refused to be granted because the board wasn’t going to allow that special date to be used by Atheists. Instead the board decided when the Atheists could have their date. But definitely not on Dec 6.

Hmmm,

How dare those Atheists decide which day they can request fair use of government property.

Atheists should have equal time for signage or a Pastafarnian dinner or even a secular winter festival if they asked for the day first but especially if it was available.

Atheists should be able to say to the community writ large “We know December for those that do not celebrate religious holidays is a real bitch, but you have support from other Atheists and FFRF, and we have a day in December to let you know we are out here to help and support.

To the board;


I will assume you will allow use of the lawn for Muslims after their break fast at Ramadan? Although both Eid al Adha and Eid al-Fitr Use a lunar calendar and the dates change, you won’t tell them they are “causing trouble” if their dates conflict with Easter or another Christian holiday? Assuming they followed the rule and asked for the date first?

If the Jewish community wanted to put up a menorah on December 23rd (first night of Hanukkah) and they asked first you wouldn’t deny them their date? Would you accuse them of causing trouble? Even if you had to move the nativity scene out, before returning it for Christmas Day? After all it’s 12 days during December, will you decide when the Jews can celebrate?

Lawsuits would be filed if ANY religious organization was left out and I agree religious organizations should get the date they request including non religious organizations. First come first serve.

My point (I knew I would get there);

We all wouldn’t have to do this if all religious groups stopped using their holiday to promote their beliefs on GOVERNMENT PROPERTY!
If they are insistent on placing a manger or any religious symbol and/or celebration on government property then all should be included period... If the day is open and the rules were followed then it should not be a big deal.

I again say, we wouldn’t have this problem in the first place if religions and their organizations quit insisting on blurring the lines of church and state and using government property for religious reasons. This would all go away. But as long as the petty shit about “happy holidays” vs “merry christmas” and my religion is better than yours continues, we will continue to fight the good fight. Keep the church out of the state.

October 9, 2014

TBT Fawlty Towers (best bits)

These are some of the best bits between Basil Fawlty and his employee Manuel

These still make me giggle

October 4, 2014

Atheism is not an Institution

When religion and those that align themselves with a particular religion deal with atrocities committed in the name of said religion first and foremost then they are welcome to throw stones from that glass house.

Atheism is not a religion nor does it follow a doctrine and it isn't a political movement. Non-belief in a deity is what separates atheism from theism period.

I don't have a Dawkins shrine at my house (contrary to belief) lol...and I happen to think Harris is kind of an idiot after reading some of his books. These men don't speak for me, they aren't my appointed leaders. I don't look for their guidance in my everyday life. Do I agree with them on a debate about rational thought and secularism? Sure, but not because of who they are, but because I agree with their non-belief.

The very reason I am an atheist is because I am an individual thinker in my non-belief. I am skeptic. I do right by society because I have to live in this society.

Misogyny is still alive and well and so is homophobia and racism. It is practiced today because of a belief system based on doctrine. It is a long held celebrated belief system in some religions. Atheists don't institutionally condone any of those atrocities because atheism isn't an institution.

I am not condoning anyone's bad behavior nor am I responsible for what idiotic diatribe comes out of the mouth of an atheist. or whether some jackass pissed on the Alamo AND happens to be an atheist. Do I hold him accountable. Absolutely! But not because he is an atheist but because he is breaking civility and the law.

I'm more concerned that there is a percentage of people that want to run the USA like a theocracy and take away my rights because I don't believe in certain things. I am concerned that they have hijacked the constitution in the name of a deity.
I'm concerned that a very vocal group wants to take away the right to choose to have a legal procedure done, that is of no business to anyone except my doctor and I.
I am concerned about equal treatment for all people. Women should be paid equal to their male counterparts.
I believe the LGBT community needs equal rights NOW not when people feel "more comfortable" about the idea.

The false equivalence that somehow there is a concerted effort among atheists to promote misogyny or worse to ignore it, is ridiculous.
Especially when thousands of years worth of death, violence and mutilation has occurred and been encouraged by religions.
Should we address misogyny? YES of course!
But I have to impart, let's get some perspective here first. Religion is an institution. Atheism is NOT.

September 15, 2014

Now you have.

These policies put forth do hurt women and children.

http://www.latimes.com/world/population/la-fg-population-matters5-20120729-html-htmlstory.html

"My husband and I skip lunch if there is no money," Naz said as she dished rice and shrimp sauce into eight plastic bowls in the 10-by-12-foot room where the family eats and sleeps.

This was not the life Naz wanted. She and her husband, who sells coconut drinks from a pushcart, agreed early in their marriage to stop at three children. Though a devout Catholic, she took birth control pills in defiance of priests' instructions at Sunday Mass.

But after her third child was born, the mayor of Manila — with the blessing of Roman Catholic bishops — halted the distribution of contraceptives at public clinics to promote "a culture of life." The order put birth control pills and other contraceptives out of reach for millions of poor Filipinos, who could not afford to buy them at private pharmacies.

September 14, 2014

I don't know why

You seem dismissive about these victims.
I can understand it is embarrassing for the church as a whole.

To say that his position of power over his victims by scaring them into a silent shame with threats of fire and damnation has nothing to do with his being a priest is disingenuous. He is a representative of the church.

He was threatening those children with the very same doctrine they are taught to believe and respect by the church and their families on Sunday. So why on earth would they disobey a man they trusted if he is assigned to espouse rules of morality.

The analogy of candy is a bad argument because one is a reward, and eternal hell is fear tactics. Both the reward/fear atmosphere in dogma deserves further discussion but I don't want to get off point.

September 7, 2014

Wth?!?

Because a stoning in public doesn't pack a punch like it does in the third world ((eyes rolling)). The anti-choice advocates are running roughshod over women's choices. This burns me up. They are also messing with parental rights IMO.