4/7/09

Atheism is Anthropocentric – On Making Silence Illegal and Thought Crimes

FYI: this post has been moved here.
Share |

TwitThis

Posted by Ken
Labels: , ,

21 comments:

  1. kh123April 7, 2009 at 4:55 PM

    Hmm... add a mustache and you've got a pretty good Stalin there.

    ReplyDelete
  2. ModusoperandiApril 7, 2009 at 5:57 PM

    "The latest measure sought to make the previously optional moment of silence required (not optional or required for individual students but for school districts)."
    So is it optional or required? The bill says "Sec. 1. In each public school classroom the teacher in charge shall observe a brief period of silence with the participation of all the pupils therein assembled at the opening of every school day." (emphasis mine),

    "The new measure stated that “the period shall not be conducted as a religious exercise” and does not propose penalties for incompliant schools."
    Of course it does. In the same vein in no way is "teach the controversy" intended to sneak the completely anonymous Designer in to public school science class.

    "This title is a big red flag that attracts atheist activists like so many rabid bulls."
    Obviously. It's only atheists. I'm sure that these people are only cultural jews, like Jon Stewart.

    "Did you understand that? Allowing for prayer is unconstitutional."
    Did you understand that? Mandating it is, no matter what fuzzy cover they hide it under.

    "This is certainly a virtuous goal. But I wonder, will she sue to make lunch illegal?"
    Everyone needs lunch. Only Jesus needs your prayers.

    "I heard Rob Sherman and his daughter on the Michael Medved.."
    Heh. Medved. He's nutty. His Townhall column, consistently so. Did you know that, if you massage statistics and ignore all the inconvenient facts that Dubya was, um, not a complete waste?

    "...and she was virtually unable to answer the most basic questions surrounding the issue. “But she is a mere child,” you say? Indeed, the is being used as a hand pupper through which the father expresses his prejudice."
    What's worse, an ill-informed child and a "prejudiced" father, or the State ill-informing your children with someone else's religious prejudice? Not everyone's kid is as well informed, or as tough as the Dover kids. Remember Dover? That was another totally and completely secular program that divided a town.

    "Rob Sherman, apparently utilizing some form of Vulcan mind-meld to determine the immaterial thoughts and motivations of others, stated..."
    Uh, yeah. You know what the Act is really about, right?

    "Astonishingly, 'The ACLU…has declined to participate because it believes the Illinois statute is not legally objectionable.'"
    They're waiting for it to be abused. And it will be. You don't need to be a Vulcan to mind-meld that.

    "Sure, the ACLU generally too busy protecting terrorists and pedophiles while attacking the Boy Scouts and the Ten Commandments..."
    Sure, the ACLU (is) generally too busy protecting (accused) terrorists' (rights) and pedophiles (rights to Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Conscience) while attacking the Boy Scouts (for being partly taxpayer supported while discriminating against taxpayers, like faith-based funding with kerchiefs) and the Ten Commandments (on courthouse steps). (Also, they're too busy defending...dramatic pause...Christians. Yes, Christians. I shit you not).

    "The reason for stating that atheism is anthropocentric is that in rejecting God atheist have placed themselves as the highest being in the universe."
    Hardly. That's the eagle. Those birds get way up there. The flying squirrel is up there too, man.

    "The individual atheist sees themselves as the very height of creation..."
    The height of what? Do you actually ever speak to atheists? And what's the height of Christian theist creation?

    "...not only because there is no higher being..."
    That's because there isn't. None that I'm aware of, anyway, exempting the potential gods that haven't been made up yet and the deist one, who never returns our calls. *Sniff*

    "...but because they consider humanity the very pinnacle of evolution."
    I'm just as evolved as the microbes in my intestine. While I do have the advantages of thumbs and mind, I need them more than they need me.

    "Thus, in cases such as Rob Sherman’s, we perceive that the atheists sees any and every expression of religiosity as a personal affront. Certainly, he would argue that kinds can be silently prayerful on their own time and away from government property."
    They can even, hold your breath, pray out loud. In school! And they can read their bibles. In school! Kids can voluntarily on their own; public schools, as arms of the State, can't mandate or appear to mandate it (this act mandates to appear to mandate it, thus muddying the waters for a generation of lawyers and helping to divide your country into "us" and "them". Kudos for attacking the guy whose trying to prevent it).

    "But the point is that the very concept of a moment of silence, in which the kids are free to pray, think about the day that is ahead of them, or listen to the crickets chirping in their heads, is unconstitutional because kids might be praying on public property."
    No. The point is that the State is mandating a "moment of silence". Kids (and teachers) can have all the "moments of silence" that they like (with some exceptions, as long as it doesn't interrupt class). The school, as representatives of the State isn't supposed to stand on either side. This Act will eventually fail the Lemon test. You know it will.

    "Part of me is actually a lot more empathetic to his cause since the premise, “The Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act” is just asking for trouble."
    Exactly. Adding more flashpoints is hardly going to help.

    "Apparently, modern day liberals understand Thomas Jefferson’s concept of Separation of Church and State better than Jefferson himself understood."
    Apparently, secular is more secular than it used to be. That's not a bad thing. Jesus can defend Himself. The guy has got the strength of a bear. I heard He cursed a fig tree once. Stuff like that takes chutzpah. People love figs.

    "The bottom line is that Rob Sherman wants to ensure that, in the public schools, the Christian God (to whatever extent He is “there”) is replaced by nothing—the god of atheism."
    Public school is public school. Not advantaging any group over another isn't "the god of atheism", it’s secularism.
    You know why the Act came about, and you can see how it will be abused.
    So why are the atheists the bad guys here?

    ReplyDelete
  3. AnonymousApril 7, 2009 at 6:12 PM

    The reason for stating that atheism is anthropocentric is that in rejecting God atheist have placed themselves as the highest being in the universe. The individual atheist sees themselves as the very height of creation, not only because there is no higher being but because they consider humanity the very pinnacle of evolution.

    Does anybody want to comment on this?

    I am thoroughly fed up with this bigoted ignoramus, who demonstrably knows not the first thing about atheism and finds it beneath him to acknowledge and engage with criticism against his flawed views. That would be a waste of his time.

    ReplyDelete
  4. AnonymousApril 7, 2009 at 6:38 PM

    Ah, modus already did. Nice post.

    ReplyDelete
  5. jdhueyApril 7, 2009 at 6:40 PM

    @ Modus

    Thanks for the critique. I wrote a long thoughtful one but the computer system ate it. I then wrote another one that said simply that Mariano was a doo-doo head but the system ate that one too. So, I gave up. The system will probably eat this response as well.

    ReplyDelete
  6. ModusoperandiApril 7, 2009 at 9:15 PM

    Digs at atheists, digs at kids who don't understand what the fight is about, digs at liberals and, annoying me the most, a dig at the ACLU (do I agree with every fight they pick? No. That's precisely why they're so important). The link to Conservapedia on the frontpage here is the cherry on the cake.

    Pity. Mariano seemed so nice when he started here. Remember? He sat us all down and told us that atheism was dead. Hit by a car, if memory serves. Then he dug out a giant cookie and we all split it. Sure, it was stale and tasteless...I guess that was just foreshadowing.

    ...
    On a side note, remember when Rep Monique Davis said, "It’s dangerous to the progression of this state. And it’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists! Now you will go to court to fight kids to have the opportunity to be quiet for a minute. But damn if you’ll go to [court] to fight for them to keep guns out of their hands. I am fed up! Get out of that seat!" Anybody want to hazard a guess as to whom she was talking?

    ReplyDelete
  7. ModusoperandiApril 7, 2009 at 9:26 PM

    adonais "Nice post."
    Wups. Sorry. /me pulls up pants

    jdhuey "Thanks for the critique."
    No problem. It's what I do.

    "I wrote a long thoughtful one but the computer system ate it."
    I wrote a short and thought-free one. That was it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. adudeApril 7, 2009 at 9:29 PM

    I think idea of content-less atheism is what is being lost here. Atheists cut themselves off from the bloody Stalinist by arguing that there is nothing in the simple definition of atheism that requires Stalinism as the outcome.

    In the same way, though, there is nothing in the simple definition of atheism that suggests that an atheist couldn't want to take moments of silence, meditate, or even that they might not gain from it. There's definitely nothing that forbids this as an activity.

    However, the courts have ruled these type of things "religious" in motivation. Basically suggesting--an interpreation under law--that only the religious could find value in a meditative silence. As the purpose is not "wholly secular," as is the standard now, it is an unnecessary entanglement with ... well ... "religion". (Which is stupid.)

    As there is nothing that can be argued to be directly required by atheism, then it's hard to see a distinct separation between "religious" and "secular", unless secular means what it has traditionally meant, a broad-based, not strictly sectarian value.

    I've been to a lot of churches, and silence does not play a prominent role in most. Sometimes we are silent; but most of the time, somebody's talking. It's hard to argue that silence portends to be a religious imposition.

    How can I accept that there is no connection between Stalinism and atheism, because we have to requirement to become Stalinist Russia, when atheists themselves argue that they are being beset by silence (in which somebody intends to pray!!), despite there being any clear requirement to be against it in the definition of atheism.

    Unless we have a clear principle that it oppresses the non-religious, what we're left with is just a willful expression of preference deciding for everybody regardless of how broad-based we can make a program. Way to go, girl! Way to stand up for those "first amendment rights". Who cares that it comes at the cost of a people's right to petition the government.

    In case, somebody would rely on "non-religious" as being a refuge here, by applying the atheism standard, it actually means less than "atheist". Atheists lack a belief in a God or gods. Non-religious doesn't even have that defining feature. Atheists are non-religious, people who don't like to go to church are "non-religious".

    ReplyDelete
  9. adudeApril 7, 2009 at 9:44 PM

    "digs at kids"

    Way not to read. How's a kid by herself going to oppose this policy? Is her dad not publicizing it? Did she not just get an award for her "vigilance"? Are they not stewing over this in a court of law? Or did she just draft an "injunction", as well as an "award", on her Mac?

    ReplyDelete
  10. ModusoperandiApril 7, 2009 at 10:13 PM

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  11. ModusoperandiApril 7, 2009 at 10:43 PM

    adude "Way not to read."
    Way to jump the gun. This page has her in a lawsuit and her doing poorly in an interview. That's the dig I was talking about. How good of a public speaker were you at 14? (I had to give a presentation in french class, in french, no less, from memory at around that age. I got up to the front of the class and it was gone. Gone. Even with prompting I had no idea what I was supposed to say. Then I sat down and it all came back.)

    "How's a kid by herself going to oppose this policy?"
    Is she supposed to?

    "Is her dad not publicizing it?"
    Obviously. Is activism wrong?

    "Did she not just get an award for her "vigilance"?"
    Damn straight. Standing for the unpopular deserves it (try reading about what happens to other kids who get caught trying to rebuild the wall 'tween Church/State. As an adult, the abuse of my peers, loss of friends, abandonment by family would be devastating. Imagine that through a kid's eyes).

    "Are they not stewing over this in a court of law?"
    Yes. Stewing. Completely alone...in a class action lawsuit.

    "Or did she just draft an "injunction", as well as an "award", on her Mac?"
    No. It's not all her. Thank God. (note that in the "future", you "should" use more "scare" or "sarcasm" "quotes").

    ReplyDelete
  12. Scary JesusApril 7, 2009 at 11:40 PM

    Yeah, I'm about to quit this blog, Mariano isn't moving forward, in fact he seems to be getting more loony. This isn't a place for reasonable discourse.

    ReplyDelete
  13. MartinApril 8, 2009 at 9:23 AM

    This blog has no discussion, no response to criticism, just loud proclamations one after another. No reasoned debate at all.

    I'm removing it from my RSS reader.

    ReplyDelete
  14. ReynoldApril 8, 2009 at 10:02 AM

    The reason for stating that atheism is anthropocentric is that in rejecting God atheist have placed themselves as the highest being in the universe.
    Wrong. Athiests don't "reject" god, atheists don't believe that any god exists. Or at the very least, more into agnosticism, they don't see any evidence that any god exists.

    The individual atheist sees themselves as the very height of creation,
    Name one. Atheists just don't believe in god. That says nothing about how much we think we evolved. Atheists are generally smart enough to know that while humans may be the smartest animal on the planet, we're not the fastest, strongest, etc. So, how does one judge something to be "the very height of creation"?

    not only because there is no higher being but because they consider humanity the very pinnacle of evolution.
    See my comment above.

    Christ, what a bunch of ignorant strawmen you've set up, Mariano.

    Are you trying to make Ray Comfort look smart?


    Martin is right...all Mariano does is fire off one proclamation after another, and this isn't even his only blog. Does this guy have no life?

    He'll have to go without me, too.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Masked MarauderApril 8, 2009 at 2:39 PM

    Does it take a law now to make Christians shut up for a moment and reflect? It may be unconstitutional, but if that's what it takes...!!

    And, yeah, Mariano is just a drive-by quoter these days. Its getting hard to see what he's for or against.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Scary JesusApril 8, 2009 at 4:14 PM

    I'm done guys.

    ReplyDelete
  17. AnonymousApril 8, 2009 at 9:11 PM

    Yeah, it's gotten pretty bad. All the best, everyone. I'm outta here.

    ReplyDelete
  18. ModusoperandiApril 8, 2009 at 9:53 PM

    People! Don't you see? It's Atheism is Dead. It's not a question; it's a statement. Statements require no discussion. Sure, I could understand your point if it was Atheism is dead?.
    The sooner you get used to the idea that it's dead (and it is dead), the sooner you can start the long journey to the Truth of some variant of Protestantism. I'd go with the Southern Baptists. Those cats got it all covered. Plus they have casseroles and jell-o with stuff suspended in it (it's best to pick your religion/sect/denomination based on its picnics).

    ReplyDelete
  19. adudeApril 9, 2009 at 3:20 AM

    "Way to jump the gun. This page has her in a lawsuit and her doing poorly in an interview. That's the dig I was talking about. How good of a public speaker were you at 14? ..."

    First of all, she is involved in a lawsuit, and based on your personal account, and your implication that this is a somewhat common occurrence, she could have well done poorly in an interview. Merely the mention of those things does not make the account a dig. It would be dwelling on it, which the post does not do. And if you didn't catch that, you need some help with critical reading.

    I don't think that the point is that she should have been a polished orator, but that as the one "standing up for her rights" she should have some coherent idea of the grounding of those rights. Otherwise, it's a big promotional show, or the celebration of willful preference.

    Dictionary.com defines "dig" as "a cutting, sarcastic remark". On the contrary, much more sarcasm is displayed toward the father, throughout the piece. Even "her" point about having her studies "interrupted" is portrayed through Rob Sherman.

    Sure it probably won't pass the "Lemon Test" but I remain unconcerned with how arguments stand up to fashionable sophistry. Arguing that the court's ruling would inevitably establish something is a form of Arugment from Authority.

    I didn't you guys went in for fallacy.

    If you think about it as the parents voted for an interruption in their day, only to have a precocious child object to it, because she wanted to get on with her studies. If you think about it as a matter of the child right to decide what interrupts their studies, then the point about lunchtime (and recess) is actually cogent.

    This is something that Ron Sherman pretends to understand, so the principle can be discussed in view of the broader base, without necessarily being comment on the child.

    There is little here, except perhaps a hyper-sensitivity on your part, to suggest a "dig" at the kid.

    '"How's a kid by herself going to oppose this policy?"
    Is she supposed to?'

    What is this, argument by ADD? The point was that this article was not just about the kid, but the facts of the matter show that it has a broader base both in pursuit in the courts and awards from organizations. How that all falls on the kid seems to be a product of your imagination.

    I'll leave off there without commenting on the rest of your pop-up-video-style, wandering commentary....

    except for this effectless bit of sarcasm: (note that in the "future", you "should" use more "scare" or "sarcasm" "quotes")."

    I'll use quotes where I damn well please. Where do you get the idea that they are meant to "scare" anybody? (Couldn't you have "jumped the gun" here?) "injunction" and "award" were words taken from the undisputed account that demonstrate the participation of other people. They're clues. Get it?

    ReplyDelete
  20. ModusoperandiApril 9, 2009 at 10:01 AM

    adude "First of all, she is involved in a lawsuit, and based on your personal account, and your implication that this is a somewhat common occurrence, she could have well done poorly in an interview."
    Yes. Expecting a kid to be able to speak well on any subject, particularly under pressure, is expecting kids to do what kids don't do. Most of them are not li'l orators (I do hope that she's more knowledgeable than she appears).

    "Merely the mention of those things does not make the account a dig."
    Yes it does. It's not a big dig, but it's still a dig. And if she had done well, Mariano would've implied that her dad had coached her. I'm through reading this site as though it is arguing in good faith. Is that a weakness on my part, or is it something else?

    "On the contrary, much more sarcasm is displayed toward the father, throughout the piece."
    And does anything about father have any effect on the real subject, the Act (and the motivations behind it)?

    "Sure it probably won't pass the "Lemon Test" but I remain unconcerned with how arguments stand up to fashionable sophistry."
    Am I reading that correctly? The Lemon test is sophistry?

    "Arguing that the court's ruling would inevitably establish something is a form of Arugment from Authority."
    Except that they will eventually have to rule, and that decision will be the authority. I can see it. Mariano can see it. Surely, fashionable sophistry aside, you can see it as well?

    "Arguing that the court's ruling would inevitably establish something is a form of Arugment from Authority."
    Which isn't a fallacy if the Court is authority.

    "If you think about it as the parents voted for an interruption in their day, only to have a precocious child object to it, because she wanted to get on with her studies."
    If you think about it, the parents voted to make a voluntary silence in the kids' day mandatory. That's problematic.

    "If you think about it as a matter of the child right to decide what interrupts their studies, then the point about lunchtime (and recess) is actually cogent."
    If you think about it as what school is and what it's for, then it's not.

    "There is little here, except perhaps a hyper-sensitivity on your part, to suggest a "dig" at the kid."
    I'm willing to concede the potential for my own hypersensitivity.

    "What is this, argument by ADD?"
    You brought it up. You're the one that focused on a single point from my comment.

    "I'll use quotes where I damn well please."
    Well then, good "luck" with that.

    ReplyDelete
  21. kh123April 25, 2009 at 2:23 AM

    Wow, some of the atheist proselytizers have jumped ship. Which means that circular arguing must be going out of vogue.

    Either that, or they've (finally) found themselves girlfriends.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)