You haven't understood my position at all. I'm simply willing to admit that ID folks are not all uneducated hillbillies, while you assume only morons can think that way. I don't agree with them, but some really smart, educated people have adopted it - sf author James P. Hogan really surprised me when he went over to it. And is Tom Cruise unintelligent for belonging to scientology? I like his movies, even if his religion does nothing for me.
Maybe I missed it, but neither Longinus nor I called them uneducated, hillbillies or stupid.
An intelligent, knowledgeable individual can fall for brainwashing.
As for Tom Cruise, I'd sooner accuse him of lacking integrity than intelligence.
Scientology uses celebs as walking, talking ads and pampers them; he needs not even believe in their precepts to have an interest in joining.
That is, if I cared about celebs' private lives.
You really think that militant atheist is an oxymoron?
It's a shock term only in use in the US (and, sadly, the very US-influenced internet) to label atheists abhorrent.
All "militant" atheists do is refuse to be second-class citizens.
The unexamined belief is not worthwhile.
A person who inherits a belief in any particular religion, who never questions it and wrestles with their faith to finally decide what they believe simply follows their programming. Someone who rejects that programming and just substitutes the opposite (or some other creed taught them by some leader figure) to shock Mommy and Daddy is no better off. Only someone who critically eyes their faith or philosophy is really thinking for themself.
Firstly, I have no belief (at least no religious one).
Secondly, I resent the implication that I never examined the religious question, or that my lack of belief in deities is me trying to shock mommy and daddy.
For someone who claims open-mindedness, you don't demonstrate much.
We're not, despite the agit-prop you see in your country. Fox is slightly left of center, the rest of the media is farther left, and even the republicans have been sliding left for years. Just because you're used to a world-view that is further left, you assume that we are far-right. It's all relative.
I've no idea what "agit-prop" is. Sounds like a pharmaceutical name. New form of Ibuprofen?
Anyway, you don't know what my country is (though you should have a good idea of the continent), I never volunteered that info.
I assure you, our political parties run the gamut: we've got left-wingers, right-wingers, far-left and far-right mainstream parties and your repubs would sit right at home with our far-right and democrats with the democratic right.
I gave up on religion probably before you were born.
I don't recall volunteering my age, but if that's true, then please remember to drink enough water in the summer.
And don't be afraid, those children on their skateboards are quite harmless.
Separation of church and state was supposed to be about preventing any one denomination or faith from running the government.
And hopefully, one day, you guys will get there. It'll take time, probably a few centuries, but I trust you guys to get there eventually.
Let's just hope it doesn't take you as long as it took us and that your crusades soon come to an end as the world pays a heavy toll for your country's adolescent flirt with theocracy and imperialism.
See, we only had swords, you guys sadly possess stronger toys.
Lack of experience and knowledge of history, then. 'In God we trust" on our money is mild
Mild as it may be, it's symptomatic.
And one would be intrigued to see the result of the converse: what if your money loudly proclaimed "there is no god"?
Do you not think furore would ensue? I guarantee you, it would.
the center of that pendulum or yours, not one of its extremes!
In the example of the money; no inscription either way is the perfect middlepoint.
compared to a nation where the head of state is the head of the religion, and members of other sects or faiths are not able to hold office. It certainly is not theocratic. If atheists had to use a lesser scrip than true believers, it would be theocratic.
I must've missed all those non-christian US presidents.
Or even non-protestant.
In fact, I seem to recall quite a few hateful objections to your current president on the wrong assumption that he was a muslim!
I also must've dreamt the double standard of labelling any outspoken atheist (and presumably Asatru, buddhist, Mythos cultist, satanist, jew, scientologist, muslim, etc) militant while allowing freedom of proselytism for the christians.
Which is fine, but a lot of folks are fairly vitriolic on the issue, which precludes understanding and hardens attitudes against them. I see this in your's and Longinus' assumptions that a chaplain is a bad idea.
Expressing contrary opinion to yours about an hypothetical scenario on discussion board is being vitriolic?