I actually hate Christianity!

[Gallstones]

Individuals don't have to accept anything except consequences.

Yes, they can campaign through democratic means to change things, but if they fail they obey the law

Or not. An individual can still--and many do--defy the law. I have been known to defy the law myself from time to time when it suits me. It's a cheap thrill.

Another example: Rosa Parks, Mildred and Richard Loving.

[MrJonno]

You can't campagin for change if there arent any democratic methods in place to do so, which there are now but werent in the 60's

[Gallstones]

You can't campagin for change if there arent any democratic methods in place to do so, which there are now but werent in the 60's

What was the Civil Rights Movement then?
What was the Labor Rights Movement before that?

[Seth]

Freeodm to 'practice' religion is utterly meaningless.

I suggest you make that statement to the 12 million or so Jews who died in the ovens.

A religion is anything a person wants it to be so its pretty obvious that no one is free practice anything they feel like.

Huh? Yet another completely incoherent statement.

What there is freedom of belief but that is not freedom of action, if you want to believe that sacrificing children will make the sun come up the next morning than you have that right, try practising that then you are in serious trouble (but you will still probably get the sun)

This is both a false dilemma fallacy and a straw man fallacy. That one or another form of religious practice may be regulated in the public interest does not mean that all religious practice may be so regulated, or need to be so regulated.

Under our Constitution, what is specifically protected is the "free exercise" of religion, which includes both belief and practice of those beliefs, subject, as are all civil rights, to overriding constitutional and civil rights principles and civil law. Thus, a religious practice of sacrificing children is proscribed not because it is a religious practice, but because the civil rights of the children are being violated by such acts. Self-mutilation, snake handling that results in death or injury, or other religious practices that harm only the individual who is voluntarily practicing them are entirely lawful and the Constitution prohibits Congress, and the states through the 14th Amendment, cannot make laws prohibiting such practices.

[Seth]

Individuals don't have to accept anything except consequences.

Yes, they can campaign through democratic means to change things, but if they fail they obey the law

Or not. An individual can still--and many do--defy the law. I have been known to defy the law myself from time to time when it suits me. It's a cheap thrill.

Another example: Rosa Parks, Mildred and Richard Loving.

Yup. But the essence of civil disobedience is the willingness to accept the punishments of the law for the violation as a part of demonstrating the immoral nature of the law. Just being a scofflaw bears no particular moral rectitude, although almost everyone scoffs at some law every day.

[Seth]

You can't campagin for change if there arent any democratic methods in place to do so, which there are now but werent in the 60's

Complete ignorant historical horseshit. It was, in point of fact, the democratic methods we have that gave victory to the civil rights protesters. In case you hadn't noticed, the civil rights laws were the product of our legislative and legal system, and were passed by Congress in response to public outcry over the indignities and abuses being heaped upon blacks in the Civil Rights Era.

And one can always "campaign" for change, even in the absence of any "democratic methods." At the ultimate, it's called "armed revolutionary overthrow of a dictatorial tyrant."

[egbert]

Complete ignorant historical horseshit. It was, in point of fact, the democratic methods we have that gave victory to the civil rights protesters.

What a goddam outrageous evil perversion of truth. The civil rights movement achieved progress by CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE, NOT through the laughable corrupt crooked "democracy" of Jim Crow laws and "voter registration"!
What a dirty malicious piece of disinformation that is.

Here's what DEMOCRACY did for the civil rights movement -

[MrJonno]

You forget Seth is quite unique in thinking the world was a lot better in the 19th century and since then has got worse, the rest of humanity recognises that humanity started swimming in its own shit in caves and PROGRESSIVELY has got just that little bit better year by year. I look back at the the people who came before us as savages, some brave, some foolish, some a little more enlightened than others but all savages. That is exactly how people in the 22nd century and later will see us and they will be right.

Roll on the future and progress, its what it means to be human

[Rum]

You can't campagin for change if there arent any democratic methods in place to do so, which there are now but werent in the 60's

Complete ignorant historical horseshit. It was, in point of fact, the democratic methods we have that gave victory to the civil rights protesters. In case you hadn't noticed, the civil rights laws were the product of our legislative and legal system, and were passed by Congress in response to public outcry over the indignities and abuses being heaped upon blacks in the Civil Rights Era.

And one can always "campaign" for change, even in the absence of any "democratic methods." At the ultimate, it's called "armed revolutionary overthrow of a dictatorial tyrant."

Good grief! I agree with you!

[amused]

People who live together in a society decide how they want that society to operate, and what moral, ethical and yes religious principles will be dominant in the culture. That's their fundamental human right. If you don't happen to like the expression of religion in one society, then you can fuck off elsewhere and find another society that better suits your belief system. But just because you don't like one or another expressions of religion at the societal level doesn't mean that you are inherently correct and the society is inherently incorrect, because people, as a group, have a right to form their society, and their government in whatever way they believe best suits their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and you don't get a dissenter's veto.

Not a veto, no, but we do have the right to try to change minds toward the moral, ethical and religious principles that we think would make our society better, or at least more like the type of society that we want to live in. To tell atheists to fuck off and find another society that better suits our belief system is wrong, and you know it. Why would you say such a thing?

[Seth]

Complete ignorant historical horseshit. It was, in point of fact, the democratic methods we have that gave victory to the civil rights protesters.

What a goddam outrageous evil perversion of truth. The civil rights movement achieved progress by CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE, NOT through the laughable corrupt crooked "democracy" of Jim Crow laws and "voter registration"!
What a dirty malicious piece of disinformation that is.

Here's what DEMOCRACY did for the civil rights movement -

I'm sorry, but what part of the United States Code is unclear to you? Yes, the civil rights movement achieved a sea-change of public opinion through civil disobedience and peaceful persuasion (in most cases), but it was public opinion, expressed by millions of people outside the deep south, that was turned into democratic action in Congress, which created and passed the civil rights LAWS that actually put a stop to such abuses. It was FEDERAL TROOPS who stood outside the schools in Little Rock. It was the FBI that investigated the murders of Freedom Riders and other crimes that were made FEDERAL CRIMES by the DEMOCRATIC PROCESSES that took place in the halls of Congress.

Peaceful civil disobedience and protest was the method that Dr. Martin Luther King used to sway public opinion and the democratic process. It was not the end goal. The end goal was democratic rejection of Jim Crow laws and legalized racial discrimination and oppression, which is exactly what happened. And once the federal government became involved, as the result of laws which required it to do so, the states themselves began to change their own laws, through democratic processes, to eliminate ingrained racial bias and laws that were now violations of the civil rights of minorities.

The civil rights era was one of the finest examples of the democratic processes we use to peacefully resolve such issues in all of human history. There were very limited riots, and relatively few deaths in a situation that historically results in civil war and genocide, as in Rwanda or any of a hundred other nations in history where oppressed minority populations rose up in anger and armed rebellion.

The civil rights movement was nearly unique in history for its NON-violent dedication to democratic political change rather than armed rebellion.

Go read a book on the subject FFS, before you make even more of a fool of yourself.

[Seth]

People who live together in a society decide how they want that society to operate, and what moral, ethical and yes religious principles will be dominant in the culture. That's their fundamental human right. If you don't happen to like the expression of religion in one society, then you can fuck off elsewhere and find another society that better suits your belief system. But just because you don't like one or another expressions of religion at the societal level doesn't mean that you are inherently correct and the society is inherently incorrect, because people, as a group, have a right to form their society, and their government in whatever way they believe best suits their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and you don't get a dissenter's veto.

Not a veto, no, but we do have the right to try to change minds toward the moral, ethical and religious principles that we think would make our society better, or at least more like the type of society that we want to live in. To tell atheists to fuck off and find another society that better suits our belief system is wrong, and you know it. Why would you say such a thing?

Because it's necessary to make the point that people of religion have rights too, including the right to have their religious beliefs inform their political opinions. Atheism is NOT common political ground, you see. Religion has formed the basis of the laws of most nations, to one degree or another, throughout history. Just because atheists don't believe what religionists do does not mean that society is obliged to recreate itself in the atheist image. People get to have the government they choose, and since some 80 percent of people on the planet happen to believe in some sort of deity or other, for socialists who seem to argue consistently for "democracy" as if it were some natural law to complain about the democratically-decided religiously-based political decisions of a culture made up primarily of religious people seems particularly hypocritical.

Sure, you have as much right to espouse your political opinions as anyone, at least in the US and a few other places, but that doesn't mean anyone is obliged to listen to you or give your opinions credence, much less enshrine them in the law. At the core, if you don't like the theistic infiltration of the government of the state you live in, find another state to live in because the democratic majority who put the theistic notions into their laws have a perfect right to do so, even if you don't agree. That's how "democracy" works, don't you see? And the more "democratic" the society, the less likely you are to be protected in your minority opinion.

In the US, because we are NOT A DEMOCRACY, but rather we are a Constitutional Republic that utilizes limited democratic methods in our political decision making, we have founding documents and principles that protect both the religious and irreligious equally. But that does not mean that the irreligious may impose their irreligion on others. The majority still rules, within the confines of the Constitution.

So, while you're free to complain, until you can convince a majority to change the way things work, the majority has limited rights to have their government and their laws reflect THEIR social, political and religious mores and morals.

You might think that sucks, but trust me, "democracy" sucks far, far worse.

[amused]

People who live together in a society decide how they want that society to operate, and what moral, ethical and yes religious principles will be dominant in the culture. ... and you don't get a dissenter's veto.

Not a veto, no, but we do have the right to try to change minds toward the moral, ethical and religious principles that we think would make our society better, or at least more like the type of society that we want to live in. To tell atheists to fuck off and find another society that better suits our belief system is wrong, and you know it. Why would you say such a thing?

Because it's necessary to make the point that people of religion have rights too, including the right to have their religious beliefs inform their political opinions. ...

So, while you're free to complain, until you can convince a majority to change the way things work, the majority has limited rights to have their government and their laws reflect THEIR social, political and religious mores and morals.

You might think that sucks, but trust me, "democracy" sucks far, far worse.

(edited quotes for briefness)

All true enough, but still misses the point. We've considered the evidence and concluded that our society would be better with a worldview not clouded by the obscurantism of religion any more. Religion has served its historical purpose and is now destined to fade in influence as science takes center stage. So we secular atheists work to change our society by trying to change minds. Sometimes that means making fun of beliefs that have no apparent basis in fact. Humor is the best solvent for this sort of work. To profess hatred for a particular religion can also work to jolt people into re-considering their opinion of it. Granted, that can backfire, but a strongly worded opposing opinion is usually what it takes to bring conventional wisdom into doubt.

[JimC]

Complete ignorant historical horseshit. It was, in point of fact, the democratic methods we have that gave victory to the civil rights protesters.

What a goddam outrageous evil perversion of truth. The civil rights movement achieved progress by CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE, NOT through the laughable corrupt crooked "democracy" of Jim Crow laws and "voter registration"!
What a dirty malicious piece of disinformation that is.

Here's what DEMOCRACY did for the civil rights movement -

I'm sorry, but what part of the United States Code is unclear to you? Yes, the civil rights movement achieved a sea-change of public opinion through civil disobedience and peaceful persuasion (in most cases), but it was public opinion, expressed by millions of people outside the deep south, that was turned into democratic action in Congress, which created and passed the civil rights LAWS that actually put a stop to such abuses. It was FEDERAL TROOPS who stood outside the schools in Little Rock. It was the FBI that investigated the murders of Freedom Riders and other crimes that were made FEDERAL CRIMES by the DEMOCRATIC PROCESSES that took place in the halls of Congress.

Peaceful civil disobedience and protest was the method that Dr. Martin Luther King used to sway public opinion and the democratic process. It was not the end goal. The end goal was democratic rejection of Jim Crow laws and legalized racial discrimination and oppression, which is exactly what happened. And once the federal government became involved, as the result of laws which required it to do so, the states themselves began to change their own laws, through democratic processes, to eliminate ingrained racial bias and laws that were now violations of the civil rights of minorities.

The civil rights era was one of the finest examples of the democratic processes we use to peacefully resolve such issues in all of human history. There were very limited riots, and relatively few deaths in a situation that historically results in civil war and genocide, as in Rwanda or any of a hundred other nations in history where oppressed minority populations rose up in anger and armed rebellion.

The civil rights movement was nearly unique in history for its NON-violent dedication to democratic political change rather than armed rebellion.

Go read a book on the subject FFS, before you make even more of a fool of yourself.

This seems to be a perfecly reasonable assessment overall. It is worth emphasising, though, that the normal exercise of party politics by itself did very little, and that it took a mass campaign of protest and civil disobedience to change the momentum of a whole society, which was then reflected at the ballot box.
In otherwords, peaceful mass protest campaigns are not the toothless tigers that the far left wants us to believe. Except in extreme cases or in true self-defence, turning to violent methods of protest is usually self-defeating, and makes a truly mass movement improbable.

[Rum]

Seth won't like this, but from my reading the Kennedy brothers were huge civil rights supporters and they pushed like mad for the politics to follow their leadership.