This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← A vision for a secular America

A vision for a secular America - Comments

drumdaddy's Avatar Comment 1 by drumdaddy

Thank you, Sean. We're with you.

Sat, 24 Mar 2012 12:38:17 UTC | #930151

aquilacane's Avatar Comment 2 by aquilacane

Well, I just got a resume across my desk from a candidate for a position we are advertising for. I see on the resume, this person is not afraid to point out that they also happen to be the leader of their University's Free Thinkers Society. Will I see them, hell ya! A vision for a secular America is one where atheists and secularist can put that on their resume with no shame or fear. Nice work, potential employee # 14, your interview and additional portfolio pieces better not suck.

Sat, 24 Mar 2012 13:01:19 UTC | #930153

drumdaddy's Avatar Comment 3 by drumdaddy

Sat, 24 Mar 2012 15:06:06 UTC | #930174

mordacious1's Avatar Comment 4 by mordacious1

In order for our society to change in the direction of secularism we need three things to happen. First and foremost is a radical change in SCOTUS. As long as Scalia, Roberts, Thomas and Alito sit on the court (as a block) we won't move toward secularism. With the moderate Kennedy usually supporting a conservative position, the court rulings have been keeping the U.S. mired in the 20th Century (somewhere around 1950). Kennedy has voted the other way on some key issues, but not enough to move the country forward. Secondly, we need Obama to not only get re-elected, but to have the fortitude to not only nominate (if the opportunity arises) progressive judges but to adamantly support a progressive agenda. And lastly, we need a Senate and House that will pass progressive laws and confirm the judges that are nominated.

This is why the Civil Rights Movement was successful. All these things were in place. The society did not really want to go there and marches and speeches alone would not have changed much. They had the perfect storm of Executive, Legislative and Judicial support for change. Society changed, but it went kicking and screaming. And it will change again, even though it may not want to, if we can get another perfect storm in the next four years.

In conclusion, in order for our society to get the secularism that we feel is needed, we need Obama, control of the Senate (at least) and for Scalia to choke on a meatball. The odds of this happening given the current politcal situation are less than 1 in 5, in my opinion. I am not optimistic.

Sat, 24 Mar 2012 15:15:24 UTC | #930178

aroundtown's Avatar Comment 5 by aroundtown

I watched religulous last night and seeing the affliction of religion in the movie and others like it just takes your breath away. Lets you know what you are up against. It is going to get ugly but let us hope we can get these people to consider the proposition that 2+2=4. I think we have to keep it somewhat rudimentary for these people. Oh yeah, bye the way, +1 on the meatball.

PS - Thanks for that scribble aquilacane from the other post, hard to envision people being tortured to death by the, so called loving church, but that is certainly a fact of their history and did happen. Hard to believe that Ratzinger is out there still and getting away with the deception as we speak.

Sat, 24 Mar 2012 16:01:54 UTC | #930183

Stafford Gordon's Avatar Comment 6 by Stafford Gordon

I don't suppose you'll need it, but good luck Sean. It's those outside of the rally that it's important to reach, so here's hoping that it gets wide coverage.

Sat, 24 Mar 2012 16:13:08 UTC | #930185

MikeMurphy's Avatar Comment 7 by MikeMurphy

Given the naked hatred shown to atheists in America I think you guys are going to have a helluva struggle to changes views and opinions there! I don't know of any other country where atheists are vilified so much - not even holy, Catholic Ireland, or even in the Vatican!!!

Good luck!

Sat, 24 Mar 2012 16:56:31 UTC | #930191

Stafford Gordon's Avatar Comment 8 by Stafford Gordon

Comment 7: MikeMurphy

I'm being given jive by friends in the UK for not being religious, but it's not my problem, it's theirs.

Instead of being open to debate, which is all I ask, they get very shirty in short order, so I just avoid the subject; however, it appears that they feel at liberty to knock my world view, but I don't mind.

If, as some have done, they fly off the handle, I leave them alone to calm down. So far none of them have come back to enter into discussion, but I'm always open for business should any of them choose to do so.

My approach is to forward people articles, and videos which I think are funny, or hilarious in some cases, which cover science and religion generally, and the only individuals who've bucked are believers; one took umbrage over Tim Minchin, another told me to stop all the "born again atheist stuff".

I'm an agnostic, humanist, secularist, freethinker, atheist and naturalist, just to make sure I've got it covered, and no one's in any doubt.

I've discovered that the one thing they dislike the most though, is not being taken seriously, which renders me sorely tempted to take the initiative, not to mention the piss! But I don't want to wind people up just for the sake of it; but, oh, temptation, you are a little devil!

Sat, 24 Mar 2012 18:47:38 UTC | #930212

aroundtown's Avatar Comment 9 by aroundtown

I am going to state the same thing I posted in another thread here at RDFRS and it seemed logical to say it here too. This is what I wrote.

I am excited about the reason rally today and for that reason I tried to find content about the event and it raised some concerns for me. I went to Google news and clicked on the U.S. section for some info on the rally and there was not one mention of the reason rally. They did however have a story about a religious freedom rally in San Francisco and that fact rather miffed me. I don't know how we can advance forward with possible suppression of stories that would assist our cause. If 30,000 people meeting at the National mall is not an obvious story to cover then what is? it concerns me that suppression of the secular movement is a possibility.

It is a concern for me if the secular view cannot get out. Yes, if you type reason rally exclusively into the search bar it will come up but you would think this meeting of the secular community for an event that had an element of the "Woodstock" of it's kind would grab national headlines but that was not the case for me. I will hope that this was just an isolated experience for me and that possibly other sources are getting it done today.

Sat, 24 Mar 2012 19:36:05 UTC | #930222

TIKI AL's Avatar Comment 10 by TIKI AL

Reality check from a non-godbot in Tempe, Az, USA. The Catholic neighbor on the corner placed a picture of a saint in a Ball canning jar and hung it from a sick tree in hopes of a blessed cure. (Aren't there better Voo Doo cures?) Corner 2 is a Mormon who watches Fox News exclusively. Corner 3 has a picture of Jesus in the window with the caption "Abortion is murder. Have a nice day." Jury is out on the renter on corner 4 who lives with his girlfriend and brother and wakes me into a near stroke with a full set of drums. Could this be the secular hope of which you speak?

Sat, 24 Mar 2012 20:15:01 UTC | #930234

aroundtown's Avatar Comment 11 by aroundtown

Comment 10 by TIKI AL Reality check from a non-godbot in Tempe, Az, USA. The Catholic neighbor on the corner placed a picture of a saint in a Ball canning jar and hung it from a sick tree in hopes of a blessed cure. (Aren't there better Voo Doo cures?) Corner 2 is a Mormon who watches Fox News exclusively. Corner 3 has a picture of Jesus in the window with the caption "Abortion is murder. Have a nice day." Jury is out on the renter on corner 4 who lives with his girlfriend and brother and wakes me into a near stroke with a full set of drums. Could this be the secular hope of which you speak?

I feel your pain but as far a lunatic asylums go your State has nothing on mine. To use an analogy your State would be the greeting room or possibly the lobby where as mine would be the isolation lock-down ward. Arizona is not even in the top 10 of most conservative States, and those States are where is gets unusual for reasons that would be obvious to most here at RD.net. I live in the second most conservative rated red State of Idaho and a liberal voice here is like a mouse squeak and an atheist voice is a fart in a windstorm, please excuse that graphic example. I was simply trying to voice an opinion that the liberal secular atheist view might be heard but that is an extremely hard proposition here and I don't expect it to change any time soon.

Sat, 24 Mar 2012 21:01:35 UTC | #930246

drumdaddy's Avatar Comment 12 by drumdaddy

Fantastic Rally!!! We made history today. Unfortunately, thus far the TV news silence is deafening. Nothing. This afternoon NBC news actually had a camera crew at the Supreme Court building filming about a dozen protesters for health care, with not a whisper about the tens of thousands of American citizens rallying on the mall. Not a whisper. Yet.

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 00:30:12 UTC | #930287

debonnesnouvelles's Avatar Comment 13 by debonnesnouvelles

Comment 12 by drumdaddy :

Fantastic Rally!!! We made history today. Unfortunately, thus far the TV news silence is deafening. Nothing. This afternoon NBC news actually had a camera crew at the Supreme Court building filming about a dozen protesters for health care, with not a whisper about the tens of thousands of American citizens rallying on the mall. Not a whisper. Yet.

sacrilege!

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 05:40:12 UTC | #930328

William T. Dawkins's Avatar Comment 14 by William T. Dawkins

RE: Comment 12 by drumdaddy :

Neither American politicians nor the media, should abnegate this historic rally as "Petty Gossip." An emblematic example of this mistake was recently experienced by the pope.

The American Eagle has evolved prodigious vision and soars high with both wings when left untethered by bias, gridlock or political and religious dogma.

I salute our secular heroes.

William

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 09:08:45 UTC | #930340

drumdaddy's Avatar Comment 15 by drumdaddy

The New York Times remains strictly silent about the historic Reason Rally. I smell fear.

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 10:47:46 UTC | #930349

Jonathan Dore's Avatar Comment 16 by Jonathan Dore

Comment 4 by mordacious1

Quite right. I've always been staggered that Bill Clinton, who had cunning and savvy to spare, fell down on this point: the two SC justices he nominated during his eight years were both older than the two nominated by his predecessor, Bush 41, and thus likely to need replacing before them. That's just inept, and it's sheer luck that Souter (one of Bush's) retired under Obama.

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 15:08:52 UTC | #930377

TrevorG's Avatar Comment 17 by TrevorG

The danger here is that you must remember you can't be 'all right'.

The reason the founding fathers, founded, was in fact freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

Say you got everything you wanted passed. What are the chances that every decision you've made, and had passed, are really the best for society?

In a free society there is a reason the religious can vouch for certain things, just like you are now attempting to vouch for other things, contrary to some that are religious.

Both of you need this freedom if you believe in the original intent of the founding fathers and the country as a whole.

One nor the other can 'get it all' in the current system and there is no sign that one side or the other (secular or religious) DO have it all, by any stretch, so the system seems to be working fine.

(Ex: Abortions, if religious had their way there would probably be none. Evolution: If young-earth creationists had their way it would not be allowed to be taught. Etc.)

Both sides need the freedom to check each other if you believe in the original system of freedom, freedom of speech and of religion.

If you hold the position that 'everything I want to pass is correct' and don't allow for the other side to 'check' you, you move away from the original system or intent of a free society into a form of dictatorship.

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 17:27:11 UTC | #930385

TIKI AL's Avatar Comment 18 by TIKI AL

No mention of separation?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

  -- The First Amendment

In order to guarantee an atmosphere of absolute religious liberty, this country's founders also mandated the strict separation of church and state.

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:02:33 UTC | #930389

Alan4discussion's Avatar Comment 19 by Alan4discussion

Comment 17 by TrevorG

(Ex: Abortions, if religious had their way there would probably be none.

There is no single religious or even Christian view on this although some like the RCC views are ridiculous.

Evolution: If young-earth creationists had their way it would not be allowed to be taught. Etc.)

Young Earth Creationists are ignoramuses which no competent scientist or teacher should take seriously.

If you hold the position that 'everything I want to pass is correct' and don't allow for the other side to 'check' you, you move away from the original system or intent of a free society into a form of dictatorship

All opinions are not equal! The issue of scientific evidence and expertise comes into the debate.

If you hold the position that 'everything I want to pass is correct' and don't allow for the other side to 'check' you,

Oppositions debate and amend proposals in committees and full assemblies all the time. Complex issues are seldom "either-or" matters of simplistic polarised views.

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 22:03:32 UTC | #930452

reaper081087's Avatar Comment 20 by reaper081087

SEAN FAIRCLOTH FOR US PRESIDENT!!!!! If he runs, he gets my vote!

Mon, 02 Apr 2012 03:49:04 UTC | #931809

Shrommer's Avatar Comment 21 by Shrommer

  • Stem cell research still thwarted by religion
  • This point seems to be cloudy in several ways.

    First, is there an effort to stop stem cell research, or only to stop the destruction of live human embryos? Apparently, most American Christians are all in favor of most stem cell research. Are there other religious groups who are opposed to adult stem cell research, or stem cell research regardless of whether or not human embryos are involved? Are we talking about animal rights activists who don't want to see animal embryos destroyed either and believe animals have a soul?

    Second, last time I checked, stem cell research, even embryonic stem cell research is legal in the USA. I can't think of any federal or state laws that prevent it. Are we considering that the only way to "not thwart" it is to fund it with taxpayers' dollars? Isn't there a middle road where it is an open scientific field funded privately, perhaps by investors who could profit from any breakthroughs?

    Third, are we allowing room for people to be against the taking of human life, holding that position merely for secular humanitarian reasons, not because of religion? If all religious ideas get magically sucked out of the USA, won't we still have people who want to protect human life just out of secular ethics and morality? There is room for disagreement about whether human beings should have the right to life at any and every stage of development, or only after birth, or only after the second trimester, or only after being able to talk, etc. There is no law of science that says you have to experiment every way possible on living human beings, and no law of science that says you must be allowed to kill some people in the process of helping others.

    Mon, 14 May 2012 03:35:29 UTC | #941343