Jump to content

Why are "ideas" so threatening to some?


Recommended Posts

Okay Merlyn; here is a spin-off so perhaps someone can answer my question? It truly makes little sense to me that people appear to have so little internal strength that common words and symbols so intimidate them.

 

So, for Merlyn, and others of similar feelings; explain how the simple exposure of someone to the mention of God is somehow hurtful to you. You do not believe God exists, nor any other power beyond yourselves, so why do you care? No one has said you have to change your opinion or accept theirs. While they believe their beliefs are more viable or real, they have no effect on you. Or does the remote possibility, shown by the existence of the word God or Power Greater than I, traumatize your Id? Why can't you simply "not believe", rather than find it necessary to belittle and demonify others for their their audacity "to believe"?

 

Have fun with your answer; I have already donned my fire suit.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 79
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

skeptic writes:

explain how the simple exposure of someone to the mention of God is somehow hurtful to you.

 

It isn't. I haven't said it was.

 

You do not believe God exists, nor any other power beyond yourselves,

 

I've already explained how the second clause of this is false, at least for me.

 

Why can't you simply "not believe", rather than find it necessary to belittle and demonify others for their their audacity "to believe"?

 

For the most part, I argue about civil rights in this forum. For ridiculing theists, I usually go to alt.atheism, which is unmoderated.

 

You seem to have ignored my first reply in the other thread; will you pay attention in this thread?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course I could be wrong, but some may object not so much to hearing the "mention of God", but that hearing it from the government represents a violation of the U.S. constitution - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ..."

Link to post
Share on other sites

"So, for Merlyn, and others of similar feelings; explain how the simple exposure of someone to the mention of God is somehow hurtful to you."

 

I'm curious, would the phrase "and others" include those that find the phrase "Happy Holidays" somehow offensive.

 

SA

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Moth to the flame...in my best Captain Barbosa accent,

"Why...WHY is anyone offended by 'Happy Holidays'?"

 

I'm not offended if someone says it to me. If I address my friends in Turkey and wish them a 'Happy Holiday' they are not offended. Same for my friends in Costa Rica, the Caribbean, and even more exotic places like India, Indonesia, or New York. So please explain how that is offensive.

 

Now, if I were to wish my friends in Turkey and some other places a 'Merry Christmas', they probably wouldn't be offended but then, it wouldn't mean as much to them as 'Happy Holiday'. I could probably even find someone who would respond, "what's that?" if I wished them a 'Merry Christmas'. I sure know I get that response once in a while in the South when I mention Hanukah (however it's spelled). After I explained the basic myths of Christmas they might understand but I doubt they'd be offended by that either.

Now it probably wouldn't be advisable to say 'Merry Christmas' in Sudan. But then I don't have any friends there. Yep, they all, every last one of them, hate me.;)

 

But the concept of a holiday is fairly universal. I don't get the offensive part. Unless someone is like a Scrooge or something and doesn't like holidays at all and thinks no one should celebrate them. Is THAT what you mean?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am curious, Merlyn, this is a boy scout site so why are you on it? I see no mention of Scouting at your son's web page. Just lots of indoor gaming.

Do you not like scouting, outdoor activities and such? Are you on who only enjoys word games instead of being in the world?

I have not seen anything really positive from you. What if anything do you belive in? It does not seem to be the American belief of allowing individuality and leting it be expressed. How can a simple rock with a simple statement be seen buy a rational, logical person as the government forcing a Religon (cap to indaicate a specific Sect or Group) on anyone.

Oh, also the forceful removal of a belief in a supreme being can also be forcing a 'religion' on the people (see Communism)

I believe we should live and let live. You may have your opinion but do not try to force it on me.

 Let peace and scouting return to the forum.

IDIC

K

Link to post
Share on other sites

FireKat, I'm an atheist, a former cub scout (from about 40 years ago), and a regional director for Scouting For All, which is an organization of scouts & non-scouts advocating that the BSA change its discriminatory membership requirements.

 

I enjoy actual word games like cryptic crosswords, but I don't have much patience for word games in policy arguments, like people who equivocate on "discrimination," for example.

 

I DO believe in allowing individuality and letting it be expressed. I am against having discriminatory, supposedly "private" organizations like the BSA using tax money to pay for or subsidise their discriminatory programs, and I'm against letting the majority vote on whether the minority gets to use a public forum. Both of these are counter to individual expression.

 

The government isn't just prevented from promoting specific sects; generic statements such as "the heavens declare the glory of god" or "god hates fags" or "gods are myths" are not tied to a specific religious sect, yet all of these are still unconstitutional government promotion of religious views. If it's a public forum where anyone can put up their ideas, fine.

 

And you'll have to explain to me just how I'm "forcing" my opinion on you. Am I forcing you to read my words? Perhaps you just don't want me to argue my opinions so forcefully -- well, that's the only way I know how. You can argue meekly if you like.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Merlyn, the thread was opened so as to answer the question. My observation is that individuals seem to bring these lawsuits against religious expression and symbols because somehow they are harmed by these words or symbols. For example, how in the world is anyone harmed by a cross on the Seal of Los Angeles, one that basically represents the mission era and the founding of the city? How can a cross on a hill be so offensive that you cannot just ignore it; again when they usually have historic or memorial reasons for their existence in the first place. It seems to me that individuals who are that insecure in themselves have far more to fear than words and symbols.

 

If, as some claim, a cross, Star of David, or even a Budhist Wheel somehow harms them or their children because they "may" respresent teachings they choose not to listen to, then they are not doing a very good job at supporting what they do believe, or want their children to understand. Why not ignore it on a personal level, and use it as a teaching example for their children's understanding of their principles, beliefs, or spiritual challenges? Many of the suits brought to court have only the vaguest connection to the so called damaged parties; and if it was not for the cost of fighting these, many communities would fight them. Change our court system so that the party bringing the suit would have to pay if they lost, including court costs of the defendent, and most would simply disappear, along with the legal predators who are actually behind many of them.

 

There are few, if any absolute rights. And while some minority issues should be corrected and protected, the rights of the majority should not be trampelled in the process.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, if you want a legal basis, the government doesn't have the power to promote religion, and is explicitly prohibited from doing so. I do agree that the "harm" is usually pretty small, but that seems to be a legal requirement for bringing a lawsuit in many of these cases, so even incidental harm is cited for reasons of standing.

 

A lot of money would be saved if people didn't try to use the government to push their religious views, too. But there seems to be no end to people who want the government to promote their views and not promote those "other" peoples' views. To paraphrase Ben Franklin, any religion that needs to use the government to promote itself probably isn't a very good one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...