The Wicked Shall Cease Their Troubling - Page 2

So it appears that BR is a teacher in a government school and he is concerned about what parents will say about how he teaches and what he does in the classroom.

Go to work for a private school...one where they don't take religious people. One where they don't force anyone to stay The Pledge or at least force anyone to say it with the words you dislike.

So is Trumpy iirc.....has anyone seen them in a room together?????

83% of Americans claim to belong to a religious denomination. Perhaps you should evaluate whether you are on the wrong side of this issue.

When you get into a classroom is a presumption of course, especially here in California where the unemployment rate and state budget are so bad. I wouldn't expect there to be a truly open position for half a decade. Declaring the majority out to adjust to you and that you are inflexible and intolerant of the majority ought to push that hire date out a couple decades.


He's talking about in a classroom. However if he honestly thinks two words is going to be the hardest part of his day or even the part most incompatible or hostile to his own personal views, etc. then he will have quite the rude awakening.


So put your job on the line. Don't be a fucking sellout. Sacrifice something to a cause of believing in nothing which you stridently believe in. Give something up to make a change rather than just bitching and moaning. Like most things convenient to your thinking you'll chastize those men for being white and protestant and sometimes slave owners but hold them up when it helps your cause.


If he is in California, it won't be for long. The employment situation here is terrible for teachers.


I absolutely rocked the boat. I rocked it when probationary as well. If you can't do it in a thoughtful and persuasive way then probationary status won't be your primary concern. You can be permanent and watch the district shuttle you away somewhere due to parent complaints or staff complaints. I've seen it happen. I've sat in on it happening as a union rep.


We were down to once a week at our school but recently have hired a new superintendent. Now there was a board resolution to say it once a day. I used to do it daily regardless of what the school required. The last couple years I went the once a week route due to a change in morning announcements and a desire to basically see the outcome while being mentally flexible. I really think that if one has a strong foundation, that as we get older we have to try different things even if we don't change what we believe. I try to be flexible.





It is quite the oxymoron. He appears upset that he wants a public job involving dealing with the public, and yet seems upset that he has to consider what the public wants when doing that job. Teaching is about much more than transmission of information. That's the easy part.

But they're not all the SAME religion!!! Perhaps our pledge should say "One nation, under Allah", maybe our coinage should say "in Budda we trust".

The point is, if we want to promote religious FREEDOM, then government implements (like money and courtrooms) should not promote a SPECIFIC religion. Leaving religion out of it all together would allow the individual to feel as if his government were not trying to push a certain denomination.

Perhaps there was a REASON the original author of the pledge of allegiance left "god" out of it!

Originally there was no pledge at all as it wasn't written until 1892. So really discussing founder intent is sort of ridiculous isn't it? A look into the history will show many groups having issues with it for a number of reasons including problems with the intention with which it was created.

Whether it be the word god, idol worship (JW's), mindless patriotism, what have you the point is that religion is a large part of many people's lives and if the issue is felt that strongly change it as it has already been changed four times. If the majority feels the need then it will happen because it already has in the past.

Tyranny of the majority in this case. Something trumpet never fully understands.

So...we should be guided by something other than just the whims of the masses?

Also, again, why not go to work for a private school...one where they don't take religious people. One where they don't force anyone to stay The Pledge or at least force anyone to say it with the words you dislike?

If the majority wanted slavery, would you be cool with that, too?

There you go again. You appear to be assuming something more than what my question asked.

I will pay you the courtesy of answering your question in the hopes that you'll pay me the courtesy of answering mine.

No. If the majority want slavery I would not be cool with that. But I'll bet you are. You just don't realize it.

Furthermore, I generally consider "majority rule" to be a dicey and dangerous model of governing.

In the US we were supposed to have a written constitution that outlines the "rules of the game". While it is flawed in many ways, that matters little if no one really abides it anyway. And this constitution was to trump the whims and wishes of majorities (or well-connected and funded and vocal minorities) and political factions and so on. Oops.

The majority DO actually want many things that leaders or society deem unacceptable. Not slavery in this case as it is not in fashion but they want many 'good' things they are not allowed to have and many 'bad' things they are not allowed to have.

Democracy is an illusion that is waved in front of them much like a hypnotists watch.... it's function is not to give them freedom or democracy as such but to keep them asleep.

In the end though they never get what they want - they get what their leaders convince them they want.

You received some nice thoughtful replies and the best you can do is this crappy strawman?

Yes, we can all see how analogous they happen to be. Saying the pledge is just like being a slave and forgoing all the fruits of ones labors for their entire lives in addition having absolutely no control over their own person in any way shape or form.

Get that weak stuff out of here please.

Might as well just remove the word "Indivisible" then from the whole damn thing. Clearly we are a very divided nation. And those who shout they love their country the most tend to be the same who forsake the ideals upon which it was founded.

Clearly nothing less than the removal of those two words will bring our nation back together. That is what the whole problem is. And until the oppressors become the oppressed you will never be satisfied with your ability to simply not say the words.

Excuse me, I have to get back to repressing people with my cohort overlords. Come see the violence inherent within the system.

There is injustice out there. Those two words, not so much.

Baby steps. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Seems like removing "just two words" would be an easy first step.

Journey of a thousand miles may well start with a single step but no matter how many steps are involved you'll never reach Mecca if you're on the road to Turkestan.

...and oddly enough (well, not surprising really) many of those divisions have their roots in "religion".

Or the intolerance towards said religions. \

BR I need the routing number for your checking account. I'm having all your earnings forwarded to me since you are now a slave for having to utter two words.

KA-CHING!

Almost everyone's a slave and it ain't nothing to do with words.....

I'll need your routing number as well Sego.

Do you really believe that removing religious influence from government is the wrong path or are you just playing games?

Indeed.

As you know - and as I've told you many times - I don't play games....that's just the label people use when they can't process the information.

But just in case, I am happy to reiterate: I do not regard religion as the problem. Or even 'a' problem.

The problem, such as it is, is - imo- irrational fundie bias - so I think that any influence stemming from that source, which encompasses 'religion' and 'secularism' and the A-word, would be the thing I see as 'the wrong path'.

And BR avoids answering another reasonable question.

So when people don't understand something, they just say "oh... it's magic!" rather than putting forth some effort and energy to find out what's REALLY happening.
...and you're OK with that attitude??

Spreading that kind of mis-information (or even just that attitude) the way religions do is BAD for society as a whole... not just for the USA. It really does hold us back.

First, do we have to agree with your misunderstanding and mischaracterization of religious faith?

Edit: too early in morning....

Dang. Missed it.

It wasn't all that

Been reading about the discovery of what may be the earliest Christian documents - if validated they are claimed to be possibly the greatest Christian discovery of all time and perhaps even one of the greatest archaeological discoveries (not my words....makes you wonder though).


Link

I wonder what they contain?

Looks like the 'Jesus did not exist' meme might need a bit of rethinking..... maybe that should read 're-framing', not that much thinking went into it.

If there really is a Jesus? Religion is a money maker

I never said anything about "your religious faith" ... I said that religions spread mis-information, and in the context of the thread, inferred that government should not be in that business. (r providing ANY support for that business.)

As an individual, you have the right to believe in Unicorns if you want to. But not the government of a nation that purports to uphold individual freedoms.



On another note... If my characterization of religion is wrong, please tell me where it's wrong... I would love to see the supporting evidence for your claims of a divinity or the existence of "heaven" or "hell".
Really... I would LOVE to see that evidence. But every time I ask for it, I am summarily dismissed with some form of "you just don't understand faith."


You really should find my presence in this thread encouraging... the fact that I am here, troubling you, indicates that we are nowhere near the "end times".

Agree...this is starting well.....


Uh-oh....spoke too soon.

Question: why say "you have the right to believe in Unicorns if you want to" ? Why not say:

"you have the right to believe in God if you want to."

Because you are implicitly stating that YOU ARE SUPERIOR and are stating you are correct and you have THE TRUTH.

Just like a fundie who says:

"you have the right to reject Christ and go to hell if you want to".

I think you have the right to believe that religion is crap. I do not say though that "I think you have the right to believe the bullshit idea that religion is crap".

Why?

Because I accept you may be right - I don't believe it personally but I can conceive of how you could be right. Just like I could be right.

But you can't say that...... I leave others to decide which position is preferable and more rational.


No evidence either way...... that's why it's BELIEF.

Won't ask you for YOUR evidence - we all know you don't have to provide any and there's a heap of 'Holy Writ' and 'Scripture' you can quote to prove it.


Odd.....the prevalence of this sort of 'logic' running rampant makes me think EXACTLY that we are in the 'End times'.

All of them? All the time? On all subjects?



Well, yeah, government shouldn't be in a lot of businesses.



Huh




Who said you are "troubling me? And what makes you think I'm overly concerned with or focused on the end times? Surely you're not relying upon caricatures and stereotypes of people of religious faith are you?

I used "Unicorns" because there is just as much evidence to support their existence as there is to support the existence of "God". Saying "Unicorn" doesn't imply superiority or lack of truth any more than saying "God" and both are equally believable.
I'm sorry for you that you feel threatened by comparisons like that.


As for MJ's "Huh?" ... I'll agree that my poor/improper use of punctuation there made that statement pretty meaningless... imagine I replaced that period with a comma and it might make more sense ... or perhaps I should have just worded it differently.

And the OP by Fellows was referring to the "end times" and the return of JC... so I was referring to this thread, not to stereotypes. (Not all religions... or even all denominations of Christianity believe in the physical "return of Jesus".)

Is there any specific evidence for God that you would accept? What would that evidence look like? What would it be? How would it present itself? What thing or things, if they happened or existed, would make you go "Holy cow! God does exist!"



I'm just missing what your point is in that statement. It might help if you re-worded it. If you want to.

I don't feel threatened by the comparison - I feel threatened by the illogicality and irrationality and inability to use logic.

Afaik - no-one has ever claimed to see a unicorn or communicate with one. Or do you have some reference.

Oth people HAVE claimed encounter with the spiritual or God.

Now these people may be insane - perhaps one could argue that. You however are NOT arguing that - you are merely drawing a comparison between two unrelated things. That is irrational.


If you note, I also attempted to counter Fellow's original proposition. Because it is irrational.

He might be right - it's possible. But his reasoning is not logical.

The objection to you is the same: you might also be right.

Obviously you can't BOTH be right but you CAN both be illogical in your methods.

And seeing as (rationally) there is no proof or evidence of either of your positions then logic and rationality - rather than just claiming the truth - are very much needed wouldn't you say?

Of course that's if it IS truth that is the goal....it might alternatively be just a tribal partisan thing...apologies if so...this is PO after all, I sometimes forget...

It's a great question because it points to the nature of reality - or more specifically how we make our OWN reality.

Atheists often talk of 'facts' and 'proof' but the real fact is that they create their own reality mush like God originally said "BE!" and it was....

For example - if an atheist had a Near Death experience where they went to heaven and God laid it on the line chapter and verse, then on their return to this mortal coil we all know it would make them all the MORE virulent.

We would hear endlessly of 'temporal lobe epilepsy', 'effects of 'anaesthetic', 'lack of oxygen causing hallucination'.

If God himself came down specifically to 'save' the atheist in question it would be 'stress', a 'neurotic panic attack'

Etc etc...

Because ANYTHING that happens that could even remotely be evidence COULD NOT BE EVIDENCE because the starting point is 'God does not exist'.

This is why they are irrational.

This is also why they are what one might term neo-fundies.

If a scientist who was 100% certain there is no water on Mars designed an experiment to find water on Mars he would not find any.

So far he would be an irrational disgrace to his profession.

When he claims he is using science and is better than the barbarians who think there might be some or even those who point out his hypocrisy then he becomes something rather more...or less.

Segovius, the master wordsmith superhero who swoops down in defense of misused religious terms, does the same fucking thing he so despises with atheism.

ATHEISM IS MERELY A LACK OF BELIEF IN A DEITY. IT DOES NOT BEGIN WITH AFFIRMATIVELY PROCLAIMING A DEITY CANNOT EXIST.

Now, I may say certain deities that certain people believe in don't exist. The Christian god is hocus pocus bullshit. I say that because such a god as described by christians and the bible is largely self-contradictory. But nowhere, nowhere do I rule out a higher power existing. But until a falsifiable definition of god even exists, the whole debate is pointless. You can't define it so how can it be proved or disproved?

So, fuck off with the mischaracterization of atheists. We've had this discussion before. Cut it out.

If you are really having trouble with the concept, watch this video. It will help. Seriously.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNDZb0KtJDk

And there it is in all it's woefully pathetic unoriginality - the Hoy Writ. The atheist's John 3:16.

The mantra: just check out our materials and if you are not stupid or a sinner then you'll be SAVED.

Saved from hell, saved from ignorance, saved from religion, saved from sin....

Saved from the thing I DECIDE you need saving from. Saved from the thing I DEFINE. Saved from the thing I in my own pathetic little myopic limited understanding DECIDE applies to you too.

It's like the class dunce telling Einstein he doesn't understand why storks bring babies or the moon is made of cheese.

And then he goes off and laughs about how some people 'just can't see the facts'.

If atheists could bring anything to the table then they would actually do so - unfortunately though all they can do is DENY what others bring - and then they call this 'thought' - they're actually proud of it.

Which in a way is the whole essence of their movement - they are the 'anti-religion' in the sense they are the yang to the ying. They could not exist without religion - it's symbiotic. Tellingly though, religions can and does stand alone from atheism.

Br's argument is really the last stamp of the foot of the frustrated school boy who oh so badly wants to understand but somehow can't actually listen to the teacher or do his homework. He would rather be watching TV. But if you don't put in the time you don't get the pass.

Atheism is in many ways the equivalent of the old excuse: "where's your homework?" - "the dog eat it...."

Some people even buy that shit but with atheism 'the dog always eat it".

You will never ever find any original thought or radical ideas in atheism (except if you count Sam Harris calling for war and murder and arguing torture is ethically necessary but even this is not original - it's just that he's an extreme-right quasi-racist Neocon and hasn't realize it's passé yet) all you get is a denial of other people's ideas and a constant reference to "we don't have to prove it....."

You can almost hear the "nuh nuh ne-nuh nuh" of the Old School Yard. The analogy would almost be exact except for the fact that even in these dumbed-down days of moronic introspection the School-yard is somehow more incisive.

Look at it like this...at the dawn of man when people were in their caves and there was no religion or science then they would go out and look at the natural world and the observe the sky and two things were possible:

With no theories, cultural traditions, history or libraries - two things only: either all this was created and designed or it occurred by accident or was 'just there'.

Two things only.

No 'Holy Writ'. No superior, sneering and mocking New-Inquisitors or legion of Torquemadas ready to bash you over the head with the "Blind Watchmaker" or the King James Version. None of that....

Just the wonder and the possibilities....and either could be right. Thank God it's difficult to imagine this interchange ricocheting through the stillness and unsullied beauty of the primeval dawn :

Caveman 1: I think a being must have made all this......it's so beautiful......

Caveman 2: where's your evidence???? Where's your evidence??? WHERE'S YOUR FUCKING EVIDENCE FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK...............

Unfortunately Caveman 2 is alive and well and dragging his club as well as his knuckles. And he ain't hunting mammoth no more.

Nietzsche famously said "Plato is a bore" - God knows what he'd think of neo-atheists...it's one of the tragedies of life that he isn't around to pin them down. Oh well....I'll just have to do it...oh and look....I can do it without fucking resorting to bloody fucking swearing for fucks sake just so as I look cool.

It's kind of like "ooh ooh I know...we're atheists so let's swear - God won't like it..... hehhehehh"
It's pure fucking Beavis and Butthead.

See what I did there? I believe in God BUT I CAN STILL FUCKING USE AN OBSCENITY BETTER.

The sad fact, for atheists, is - that although they, like their mirror-image irrationalists on the religious side is that they fail massively in all their goals.

In fact, if you weight it up it's embarrassing and pathetic - which is why they NEVER weigh it up. Let's take a look:

1) The fight of materialistic 'rational scientists' versus Xian fundie 'thinkers' is essentially Mike Tyson versus Pee Wee Herman.

They should be embarrassed to get in the ring - but no....they clamber in all puffed up like it's the Thriller in Manilla and guess what? Herman goes 15 fucking rounds..... ???????????

Wtf???

And THEN when they fail to land a killer punch and win on points because Herman gets disqualified for being a pervert or something we have the endless crowing of "it was up to him to land the punch and he didn't.....it's not up to us......" (cue Queen "We are the Champions" on endless loop ad nauseum)

2) Not one single scintilla of the smallest iota of original thought. Not one scrap. And yet....and yet.... the peacock struts unashamed....or perhaps unaware and unseeing.

Imagine if a scientist wanted to disprove a theory but refused to actually ever address it attempt to do so but instead every time it gets mentioned throws themselves on the floor smashing their fists and bawling "it's not up to me to disprove it.....it's up to them to prove it...it's not fair" scream, bawl, tantrum...

Oh...wait...that's ACTUALLY WHAT FUCKING HAPPENS!

We just don't get to see the foaming and foot-stamping as this is just an internet message board.

3) oh...there is no 3...sorry...that's all they got. We expected so much more from these giants walking amongst us...... oh well.

And another thing - why in the name of all that is Holy do we have to have this pseudo-religious bullshit???? If I want religious fanaticism I'll take my own flavour thanks......

No...I don't want 'chapter and verse' of YOUR OPINION just because to you it is the height of human achievement...to me it's now worth wiping my ass with after a Vindaloo at "Ganges Revenge".

And no - there's no trouble with the concept: I don't need to read the Bible or watch your vid.

I have a song going round my head every time an atheist cranks up into 'preach mode'


It make me think of Reservoir Dogs too - stuck in a chair going out of your mind with religious fundies to the left and neo-atheist fundies to the right.....and YES you should be fucking worried......

In fact that's the whole problem really: neither of the two protagonists under discussion either wants (is capable of?) to engage in debate. I don't mean here - that's a given ffs - I mean in the wider context.

They both have a vested interest in NOT debating in fact. For the same reason.

It's essentially a turf-war. It's Shi'is and Sunnis. Protestants and Catholics. I could use secular examples but they would be inappropriate - neo-athesim is not only a religion it is a FUNDIE religion. It uses all the same tactics and has exact same methodology.

It even - so I hear - imbues people's lives with meaning and gives them validation in exactly the same way.

All fair enough.....just get your fucking foot out of my door and stop telling me you have the 'truth' - it makes no difference whether you want to convert me to atheism, Xianity or Uncle Tom Cobley......the problem is that you have not earned the right to try it..... none of you......