http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-4-2011/culture-war-up date---the-dividening-of-america---american-atheists-vs--the-groun d-zero-cross
Embed doesn't seem to be working. Probably my bad.
Easiest to just search on comedy central...
As far as I can tell, what the atheist group is asking for is pretty fair:
The organization, American Atheists, filed a lawsuit Monday seeking to have the cross removed, or at least be accompanied by symbols of value to other faith communities and non-religious groups.
It's kinda hard not to look like dicks when you someone wants to make you look like one...
I don't think they needed any help in this case. That guy Jon quoted is an insensitive prick, and by keeping him on, his group is supporting that kind of behavior. The second you start publicly mocking a tragedy in order to advance your agenda, it doesn't matter how right you may be, you've officially begun doing your cause more harm than good. That's the moment when you should step aside and let your job be done by someone who understands how to communicate with other human beings.
Agreed, probably a more tactful way to speak officially (although they have to decide how true they want to stay to their message and price in the mud that will be slung back to them no matter how they say it).
But as far as I can tell, they didn't mock the tragedy. Where do you see that in the video?
Well, according to the president of American Atheists, 9/11 was a result of God "not caring enough" to stop the attacks.
Except he obviously doesn't believe in God (a position which actually gives God a really good excuse for not stopping the attacks.) So why even postulate that? Oh, right: he's being sarcastic. He decided that the best way to deal with an issue involving thousands of innocent dead, many if not most of whom believed in God, was by being sarcastic.
Sarcasm is often used as a form of mockery.
It's kinda hard not to be dick when your opposition openly says you're evil, immoral, and the only way for you to be a "good athiest" is to shut up and never oppose religion in any way.
Heaven forbid someone whose opinion on morality you have no respect for calls you evil or immoral.
No, he was saying that revering the cross as divine intervention is logically inconsistent. Why would an omnipotent and benevolent not change the world to stop slaughter, yet change the world in order to leave his mark? Like how people will credit God for every person saved from a disaster, but not blame him for every one lost. It's Epicurus in a nutshell.
The American Atheists have specifically compared this one to the Ground Zero mosque, where they support the right to build a religious building. Not because they favor Islam, but because both the cross and banning the mosque are examples of Christians wanting to use government to mark ground zero as sacred to their faith to the exclusion of others. If the cross was displayed in a private memorial, there'd be no problem.
He wasn't being sarcastic to be mean, he was being rhetorical to make a point. Now if you're saying that it's offensive to people of faith and he said it in a dickish manner, I'll agree. But I'll guarantee that the Tea Party felt at least as outraged when Jon mocked their suggestion that the area where loved ones died was "sacred ground". Let alone how he trivializes their beliefs in protecting the unborn. As Jon would probably be the first to say, it's fine for people to be offended. But if he's speaking a truth that matters, that's no reason to shut up.
Hooker, suck my godless nuts.
Every religious icon the government erects is subject to the Lemon test (insert old dick jokes here) to test for signs of endorsement or excessive entanglement. I think that the cross probably is an acceptable display under current constitutional standards. But it has to be examined and decided, rather than have any discussion about the civil rights of a minority shouted down by an impassioned majority.
I can understand why John has that reaction. But then I understand when local towns get outraged when the ACLU comes in and says they need to take down their 10 Commandments. That doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do.
The whole "why not think of it as a metal t shaped thingy" is just a dumb argument though. Jon wouldn't accept "pretend it's a plus sign" when he's standing before it in a courtroom. There's no reason to pretend that the government erecting a cross as a memorial is just "an interesting coincidence".
|Scrotum H. Vainglorious |
Why couldn't the Romans just drown Jesus in a vat of pig shit?
You don't make friends with crosses, unless you want goth friends.
Already said this but, this is just atheists trolling. Who cares about one more cross? I don't, and i couldn't care less about super jesus and his army of invisible angels.
We need two new terms to replace the word atheist. On the one hand there are the people who are enraged Christian haters that respect Tibetan Buddhism and the Caddo Ghost Dance. On the other hand there are the people who don't believe in god(s) but do believe in living in peace and letting people worship pretty much however and whatever they want.
So shut up or you're a bad athiest?
And I know you're retarded and all that, but christians aren't exactly happy just worshiping their sky wizard and letting everyone else do whatever they want.
Accidentally reply to the wrong comment (I know I've done that before)?
I doubt he was. Both of you are making the point that "bad" atheists don't criticize and simply let religious people be. But the whole point of the lawsuit and discussion is that some atheists (and religious people who think secular government is a good idea) shouldn't just let religious people do what they want when it involves government action, or infringing the rights of others.
When people promote bad ideas, bad morals, or nonsense science into government or onto children, we laugh at those from fringe religions or new age movements, but if it's a mainstream religion that same criticism for even more absurd beliefs is treated as taboo, not just by those who believe the claims, but by people who've bought into the idea that you can't equally criticize a claim once God is mentioned.
It seems hypocritical to claim a moderate and enlightened position by telling atheists they need to shut up in criticizing the beliefs of others, while it's fine for religious people. Criticism and debate of whether ideas are good and claims are true is a GOOD thing, even if it makes some entitled theists and their apologists uncomfortable.
I actually think that Christianity does have some fundamentally bad principles at it's core, and that Buddhism is, while not perfect, is a better philosophical system to study for morality. I don't know what the hell a ghost dance is. And I believe in peace and letting people believe what they want. But I don't believe in letting those beliefs go unchallenged when they intrude into government or teach people bad moral principles that have real consequences for the rights and treatment of others due to the promotion of close-mindedness, division, and bigotry. It's absurd that so many problems in this country are caused or exacerbated by religious claims going unchallenged, yet there's a large contingent of atheists/agnostics who complain every time someone is willing to actually challenge them.
What can I say? I agree with the Atheists.
|John Holmes Motherfucker |
God did kill some Christians at WTC, but unfortunately he had to go through them to get to the Jews and Muslims.
I agree with the principle in some kind of abstract way, but standing on principle when the dead are being mourned is a dick move. Dick moves should be avoided.
Are only the christians being mourned? That's the point.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|