I never have, nor ever will worry about the religious anything taking over my country, our Constitution will prevent it, as does the Second Amendment, which protects the First Amendment. These are protections most countries do not have.
The Atheist Holy War
- Thread starter s_lone
- Start date
I never have, nor ever will worry about the religious anything taking over my country, our Constitution will prevent it, as does the Second Amendment, which protects the First Amendment. These are protections most countries do not have.
It does nothing of the sort, ironsides. Religious right’s plan until a few years ago was to make Republican presidents appoint prolife judges, judges who will overturn Roe vs. Wade.. religious right was confident that they should win the abortion battle at the state level and get abortion banned over all of USA (or most of it).
In the last few years they have had a change of heart, they can see a much quicker way to ban abortion in USA. Now they want Republican presidents to appoint judges who will declare that human life begins at conception.
Once they get five judges on the Supreme court to rule that, abortion will become automatically illegal all over USA, at the stroke of a pen. Then the only way to permit abortion in USA would be to pass a constitutional amendment, a near impossible task.
Currently there are four prolife Supreme court justices, I assume they all believe that human life begins at conception, and I assume would be willing to rule so. If that is the case, then USA may be one vote away from a total ban on abortion. If Joan of Ark is elected in 2012, it seems a near certainty.
Now you may not be worried abut religious right taking over your country, on the contrary, you may even welcome it (if you are truly prolife). But there are many Americans who would be unhappy with that.
our Constitution will prevent it, as does the Second Amendment, which protects the First Amendment. These are protections most countries do not have.
Now, about Second Amendment I agree with you, At least Canada does not have similar protection. There is virtually no gun control in USA, I understand in many places in USA it is easier to buy gun than it is to buy a loaf of bread.
In Canada we have strong gun control. I assume the current PM would like to get rid of all gun regulation, he would like to transform Canada into a smaller and weaker version of USA. Unfortunately for him (and fortunately for Canada), he has a minority in the Parliament, and all the other parties support strong, effective gun control.
If a Conservative candidate ran on the platform of getting rid of all gun regulations, I assume he will be the darling of the West (especially Alberta), but will get massacred in Ontario and Quebec. Since Ontario and Quebec have more than 60% of Canada’s population, nothing happens without the consent of Ontario and Quebec. In both provinces there is strong support for effective gun control.
So in this case you are right, Canada does not have free access to guns that they have in USA (and I hope we never do).
Now, about Second Amendment I agree with you, At least Canada does not have similar protection. There is virtually no gun control in USA, I understand in many places in USA it is easier to buy gun than it is to buy a loaf of bread.
In Canada we have strong gun control. I assume the current PM would like to get rid of all gun regulation, he would like to transform Canada into a smaller and weaker version of USA. Unfortunately for him (and fortunately for Canada), he has a minority in the Parliament, and all the other parties support strong, effective gun control.
If a Conservative candidate ran on the platform of getting rid of all gun regulations, I assume he will be the darling of the West (especially Alberta), but will get massacred in Ontario and Quebec. Since Ontario and Quebec have more than 60% of Canada’s population, nothing happens without the consent of Ontario and Quebec. In both provinces there is strong support for effective gun control.
So in this case you are right, Canada does not have free access to guns that they have in USA (and I hope we never do).
Self elevating religious thinkers with flocks and wool in mind do volunteer themselves toward the pulpits, but feel this, in the main, is a case of being called to arms by the supreme radiant illumination of the one true god. They all tend to be very much experts in the needs and wants of god and of flocks of lost needy sinners. They are as brokers between the sinning sheep and the originator of sin itself. go figure Go forth and spin no more.:smile:
The abortion question is not a primary concern here, we may have some restrictions come and go over time, but we do not lose any sleep over it. No religion will ever get the abortion situation included as an Amendment. We have a population of over 333 million, the issues of abortion is not a driving force one way or another with them. It is an cause being fought by minorities, those that care and those that don't. Me personally I only have concerns with so called late term abortions because my wife's concerns. The religious have very little control over us, just depends where you live. The only population center they hold control is Salt Lake City, and I do not live there and I do not foresee a Mormon expansion. Hmm prolife, prodeath. I'm somewhere inbetween.
"Now, about Second Amendment I agree with you, At least Canada does not have similar protection. There is virtually no gun control in USA, I understand in many places in USA it is easier to buy gun than it is to buy a loaf of bread."
For a Canadian to buy a gun, just go to Vermont, they have no restriction. Vermont State Requirements
Rifles and Shotguns
- Permit to purchase rifles and shotguns? No.
- Registration of rifles and shotguns? No.
- Licensing of owners of rifles and shotguns? No.
- Permit to carry rifles and shotguns? No.
Handguns
- Permit to purchase handgun? No.
- Registration of handguns? No.
- Licensing of owners of handguns? No.
- Permit to carry handguns? No.
Other Requirements
- Is there a State waiting period? No.
- Is there a FBI *NICS check for firearm transactions? No. State system.
- Permit to carry a concealed weapon required? No.
- Record of sale: Yes.
Gets harder in other States, they require background, mental checks, reasons for purchase etc
Get convicted of using a gun and the penalty's are stiffer.
For a Canadian to buy a gun, just go to Vermont, they have no restriction.
He may be able to buy a gun in Vermont, ironsides, but if he wants to bring it back to Canada, he will be governed by Canadian regulations, will have to get a permit, there will be waiting period (he may have to keep his gun with the Customs until then) etc. Unless of course, he smuggles the gun across the border.
He may be able to buy a gun in Vermont, ironsides, but if he wants to bring it back to Canada, he will be governed by Canadian regulations, will have to get a permit, there will be waiting period (he may have to keep his gun with the Customs until then) etc. Unless of course, he smuggles the gun across the border.
Any organized group of people who send out pamphlets to prisoners, hang symbols of their belief, tattoo themselves in symbols of their belief, and encourage people to view their literature, constitutes more than an 'off' channel.
Google 'the brights'.
Canada has had restrictions for years, were talking about the occasional Canadian who wants a firearm irregardless of the rules. There are a few
My favourite religion is the Liberal Party of Canada. Since, hey, all it takes to be a religion is to have some core set of beliefs in common, some literature that members try to convince non-members to read and maybe some recognizable symbols.
As such, I expect to see people stop bad-mouthing the Liberal party around here. My right to religious freedom and all. Although, I am not actually a member... but you get the point.
As such, I expect to see people stop bad-mouthing the Liberal party around here. My right to religious freedom and all. Although, I am not actually a member... but you get the point.
No, that still doesn't constitute a religion... but it does constitute more than the absence of religion.
if atheism is the absence of religion, the absence of desire to organize by belief with fellow human beings, then why belong to and promote an organization that does all the same things religion does? That's not the same thing as the absence of religion... plain and simple. It's merely a different take on it, much like zealous political enthusiasts.
If religion to you is merely belonging to an organization with common beliefs and promoting said organization, than the Liberal Party of Canada is a perfectly well defined religion. Further, if that is all it really is, we should really repeal freedom of religion, since it is obviously just a duplicate of freedom of association.
If I'd said it was a religion, what you're arguing would make sense. I never said that. I said it constitutes more than an absence of religion.
You do not have enough different cultures in Canada to have a real multicultural society, I just found out today that the United States has and has had a Mayan community for over 10 years, not to far from me.
Ironsides, I remember reading somewhere that Toronto is the most multicultural city in North America, even more so that New York.
You rely to much on tradition and have trouble changing fast enough.
Indeed, and in Canada, tradition works. If somebody tries to go against it, he is soon chastised. And traditions are forming all the time. I can think of at least two in recent years. One is the use of Notwithstanding Clause to override Supreme Court decisions. In Canada, Parliament has that authority, but it is tradition that it must not be used, except in emergency. So far the Notwithstanding Clause has not been used even once. Had this been USA, I have no doubt that Notwithstanding Clause would have been used (by both parties) to override Supreme Court decision, whenever they ruled against the government.
Another tradition I already mentioned to you, no abortions after 24 weeks, unless there is serious risk to mother’s life. Both traditions are of fairly recent origins. In Canada, traditions work.
And Canada does not change fast enough, are you serious? In the last 25 years Canada has changed much more than USA. We have legalized abortion (no restrictions), we have legalized gay marriage, abolished death penalty.
You claiming that Canada is slow to change is simply laughable. It is USA that is slow to change. You have a very strong religious right presence in your country, and they are opposed to any changes that they think takes the country away from the Bible.
Indeed, in many issues, Canada has had vigorous debate, changed as a result and moved on. USA seems incapable of doing so, fighting the same battles decade after decade. Abortion, death penalty, homosexuality, Creationism etc.
Ironsides, I remember reading somewhere that Toronto is the most multicultural city in North America, even more so that New York.
You rely to much on tradition and have trouble changing fast enough.
Indeed, and in Canada, tradition works. If somebody tries to go against it, he is soon chastised. And traditions are forming all the time. I can think of at least two in recent years. One is the use of Notwithstanding Clause to override Supreme Court decisions. In Canada, Parliament has that authority, but it is tradition that it must not be used, except in emergency. So far the Notwithstanding Clause has not been used even once. Had this been USA, I have no doubt that Notwithstanding Clause would have been used (by both parties) to override Supreme Court decision, whenever they ruled against the government.
Another tradition I already mentioned to you, no abortions after 24 weeks, unless there is serious risk to mother’s life. Both traditions are of fairly recent origins. In Canada, traditions work.
And Canada does not change fast enough, are you serious? In the last 25 years Canada has changed much more than USA. We have legalized abortion (no restrictions), we have legalized gay marriage, abolished death penalty.
You claiming that Canada is slow to change is simply laughable. It is USA that is slow to change. You have a very strong religious right presence in your country, and they are opposed to any changes that they think takes the country away from the Bible.
Indeed, in many issues, Canada has had vigorous debate, changed as a result and moved on. USA seems incapable of doing so, fighting the same battles decade after decade. Abortion, death penalty, homosexuality, Creationism etc.
That is only true if you have a presupposition which is also true, that the group includes a common approach to human spirituality. If it doesn't, then the group is simply a group like any other. Simply having similar hallmarks of religious groups does not mean that the group is "more than an absence of religion". What does that even mean?
The bold part is what I believe is relevant here. First off, not all atheists have said absent desire. Also, it's not part of any standard clause of the definition that I've read for what atheism is.
As to why they would organize? Because in some circumstances it is still very much an issue which must remain in the closet, for fear of personal harm, or career decisions. Maybe for support? For activism?
Anyways, as to the thread topic, I don't see how they have to be mutually exclusive. There are simply far too many scientists who are theistic for the two to be mutually exclusive. Really, how much does a belief in an afterlife or creator have to do with mapping out protein sequences? With chemical interactions on frozen surfaces? With studies of benthic populations in the ocean?
The short answer is, for the most part, nothing. It only seems to be the extreme believers, or special physical phenomena that actually show conflict bewteen theism and science.
Science is needed to combat some bad arguments from religion, but it's not confined to just religious motivations. Political motivations as well are fertile grounds for sowing doubt of solid scientific subjects.
Gilbert's assertion was that atheism is to religion as off is to a tv channel, or bald is to a hairstyle. First of all, he never said what atheism is to spirituality... he said to religion. And compared to religion, no, it is not the same as 'off' when one belongs to groups that are almost identical to religions. Now... to spirituality, that's another issue. Google the brights (as Gilbert encourages people to do). It says it followers ascribe to a 'naturalistic world view'. One could say that is a spiritual guideline for membership.
As to why they would organize... I know why humans organize. I know why atheists would organize. I'm honest about why religions form, why people organize into them. What I find funny is the self delusion of some who think they're 'above' such things.
I'll point out too that being spiritual doesn't make one religious, and being atheist doesn't make one impervious to acting like the religious. To say 'atheist is'.... is ridiculous, since atheists are human, and comprised of a million and one different personalities, just like the religious are.