Proselytism and Atheism (Jesus, follower, choice, experience, atheist)

[Apex]

Originally Posted by Father Heathen

CHRISTIAN RECONSTRUCTIONISM, DOMINION THEOLOGY AND THEONOMY

Blue law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party

I fail to see how these are adequate examples. The first seems to be about extremist group(s) which I have never heard of and only shows that people are free to create organizations with whatever goals they want. Simply because an organization or group exists does not mean their goals are becoming an integral part of society. The second is about laws which were written in the 1800's and, according to the first paragraph of your reference, "Most have been repealed, declared unconstitutional or are simply unenforced". The third seems to be part sensationalism and part conspiracy theory.

I think you misunderstood what kind of examples I was asking for. I meant examples of actual laws and issues that have made it into the governmental process. The existence of groups and people who wish for religious views to be made into laws means nothing. There are atheist groups and individuals who wish to abolish all public references to anything dealing with religion and some who wish to abolish religion all together. This does not mean that I think they will be made into laws. Again, the only example I can think of that has actually made it to the legislation step is Homosexual marriage.

EDIT: I just thought of another that could sort of fit, abortion. The only problem with this one is it is not as split down religious lines as gay marriage. But I think it is close enough to be included.

[Father Heathen]

Originally Posted by Apex

I think you misunderstood what kind of examples I was asking for. I meant examples of actual laws and issues that have made it into the governmental process.

I originally stated "I'm talking more about them trying to enforce their religious views", and then you asked "Could you cite some examples?". The examples I provided, regardless of how effective or successful they were/are, were adequate examples of people *trying* to enforce their religious views. This also covers abortion clinic bombings, violence towards gays and disrupting their funerals, etc.

[Father Heathen]

Originally Posted by Apex

Since when does atheism have a monopoly on reason and critical thinking? And what prevents someone from having these attributes if they are also religious?

Of course atheism doesn't have a monopoly on reason and critical thing, nor are mutually exclusive from religion. However it does seem to be more commonly used and valued among atheists than religious folk.

[mball1297]

Originally Posted by Apex

Since when does atheism have a monopoly on reason and critical thinking? And what prevents someone from having these attributes if they are also religious?

We don't have a monopoly, but it is a bigger part of being an atheist than being a member of some of the biggest religions. For instance, Christianity promotes belief before reason. You're generally expected to believe in God, and then He will show himself to you. That is not critical thinking or reasonable.

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by Father Heathen

I originally stated "I'm talking more about them trying to enforce their religious views", and then you asked "Could you cite some examples?". The examples I provided, regardless of how effective or successful they were/are, were adequate examples of people *trying* to enforce their religious views. This also covers abortion clinic bombings, violence towards gays and disrupting their funerals, etc.

Could you remind me who the "them" is here? I see a very big difference between someone voting in favor of restricting abortions based on his beliefs and some guy bombing an abortion clinic.

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by Father Heathen

Of course atheism doesn't have a monopoly on reason and critical thing, nor are mutually exclusive from religion. However it does seem to more commonly used and valued among atheists than religious folk.

It is more highly valued, yes. I'm not sure about more commonly used.

[Father Heathen]

Originally Posted by lilithu

Could you remind me who the "them" is here? I see a very big difference between someone voting in favor of restricting abortions based on his beliefs and some guy bombing an abortion clinic.

Of course. Look, my original statement was "What I have issue with is when people try to turn their little personal religious views into everyone else's laws.", which would be "them". In other words anyone who thinks that the rights and liberty of others should take a back seat to their own personal hocus pocus.

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by Father Heathen

Of course. Look, my original statement was "What I have issue with is when people try to turn their little personal religious views into everyone else's laws.", which would be "them". In other words anyone who thinks that the rights and liberty of others should take a back seat to their own personal hocus pocus.

I'll reiterate: I see a very big difference between someone voting in favor of restricting abortions based on his beliefs and some guy bombing an abortion clinic. You seem to be lumping them together.

The latter is going completely outside of the law. The former is using his constitutionally given right to voice his preference based on his beliefs. I don't agree with his preference, but I acknowledge that it is no different than me voting in favor of my preferences based on my beliefs.