Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Mo Trauen on May 7, 2011 at 11:03am

The U.S. Constitution specifically made certain things NOT subject to a popular vote, those things included freedom of speech, press, and religion.

 

If some people have as their goal the dismantling of that Constitution, which they do, then I think it is clear that their values are completely inconsistent those upon which this country was founded.  People who don't respect the freedom of others have no right to demand that we respect their freedom.  They have declared open war on us, and you, apparently, think that "live and let live" is still applicable.  Wake up and smell the coffee.  You are saying that they have the freedom to take away your freedom, which essentially means that you think you have some sort of moral duty to let yourself be conquered and abused.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jim Minion on May 7, 2011 at 12:14pm

Mo I agree with until we get to those who disagree have to leave. Freedom means people can say things we don't like but the consequences of that are not deportation.

I'm not saying that people have the freedom to take away our freedoms, or that I have a moral duty to let myself be conquered or abused, I'm saying that they have the right to say what they say but they don't have the right to act on it, as I said in my first post.

Freedom doesn't mean people can't say things we don't like. Freedom of speech is to protect unpopular speech, you don't need to protect popular speech.

Mo I'm not the easily conquered type, I do understand since I hold the minority view that freedom of speech is a good thing, I also understand if you restrict someones speech because you don't like it then I have lost freedoms as a result.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mo Trauen on May 7, 2011 at 1:20pm

When the speech is that others don't have freedom to speak or think as they will, then I think those doing the speaking have implicitly given up their own freedom to do the same.  I know you think that is a contradiction, but I don't see it that way.  I see it as an affirmative choice they have made.  They have chosen to leave civilized society.  Let them live with their decision.

 

Also, I would point out that this sort of rhetoric is the sort of thing one hears from "eliminationist" movements.  First, they say things like "you people aren't really part of our society", then they say things like "you should leave", eventually they will start using phrases like "final solution".

 

When it comes to people born in this country, it is difficult to argue that they should be forced to leave even if they say such things.  And, I don't really propose forcing them to do so.  I do, however, recommend saying such things right back to any person who says non-believers should leave.  I also think our immigration policies should be changed to exclude anyone who does not truly support our Constitution. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on May 7, 2011 at 1:33pm

Being of mixed race I always find the 'if you don't like it then leave' comment rather fascinating.  Along one ancestral line, my family walked across the Bering Strait and let themselves be claimed by a land that was uninhabited.  Along other ancestral lines my family came here and claimed this land for themselves with no regard for the current occupants.  Ironically, it is my European family that feel they have had nothing but problems with immigrants ever since arriving here.  They did pass through the U.S. though, so maybe they picked up that attitude there.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by mvitaminx on May 7, 2011 at 3:16pm

I have never understood the relevance placed on ancestral lineage or the geographic location where they scurried around.

 

When it comes to the USA and Native Americans, they were conquered through many strategies including biological warfare (There is a horrid letter written by a CHRISTIAN general that clearly shows him instructing the use of blankets to infect Native Americans to slaughter them).

 

With that said, I find it amusing when we encounter the ignorant, hypocritical, ironic, etc. USA citizen that IS a Christian blathering such things.

However, it also is comical when people talk about the natives in terms of them existing on said region for many generations prior and that means something beyond the use of explaining the irony to those naughty Europeans.

 

Then, factor in the general improbability that the people chanting "if you don't like ti then leave," are anything but a mutt as well.

 

I have found it useful to posit to these people on their views on Canadian's moving to the USA and becoming a citizen. You can discover they in fact more refer to certain "people" as the problem (haha you can extract their bigotry for show and tell), such as ..Mexicans!!

Heck, they would probably be quite okay with CHRISTIAN Canncucks coming here but not atheists ;)

 

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on May 7, 2011 at 3:36pm

Indeed.  I moved to a French area of Canada to sort of get the 'immigrant experience'.  To some degree I feel a bit isolated by language (although I'm learning), and I have encountered people who want to know when I'm "going back to Canada", but generally people are far more patient with my limited language skills than with the same limitations of other people who have different colour skin.

 

For me, the relevance of my ancestral lineage is that it seems I am more capable of recognizing its irrelevance because it is so mixed.

Permalink Reply by Jim Minion on May 7, 2011 at 4:10pm

Mo, Our positions are not that far apart. The difference as I see it is I don't see a difference between their position and one that says because they feel that way they have to leave. Where you have taken your position is a contradiction.

I agree that the rhetoric from the "eliminationist" movement is un-Constitutional, but to take the same position of the "eliminationist movement" how do you logically defend it?

You have every right and should hold any one's feet to the fire that use this your Un-American so you need to leave argument but don't fall into the same trap.

If we are going to exclude people who don't support the Constitution most of the members of three branches of the Federal government could be removed from US soil.

Freedom means you have to understand people will hold views you find objectionable but if you take away their right to hold those views understand it is only a matter of time before you lose yours. This in no way infers that you should not speak out against it, but you have to use a logical argument that doesn't sink to their level of understanding, elevate the discussion.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mo Trauen on May 8, 2011 at 1:59pm

Actually, Jim, I think you overlooked the implications in the final words of my original post on this:

 

"People who don't support the separation of church and state are un-American and need to leave--if anyone is going to leave."

 

The words "if anyone is going to leave" should make it somewhat clear that I am not really advocating kicking people out of the U.S. for their opinions. 

 

That being said, there are situations where words alone can cross the line into unacceptable behavior punishable by law--such as threatening the President.  I think those who threaten the Constitution with their words have come very close to that line and an argument can be made that they have stepped over it.

Permalink Reply by Mo Trauen on May 8, 2011 at 3:03pm

I should add that both in my own experience and based on news reports it is clear that those who say atheists don't belong here do NOT limit themselves to words.  They take actions--as much as they can get away with--against us.

Permalink Reply by Arcus on May 7, 2011 at 4:18pm

It's not really what I originally meant.

I didn't mean primarily mean leave as a physical act of removing someone, rather the act of excluding socially unacceptable behavior. It's only the very extreme of this which would entail physical expulsion (like pedophelia), the first step is to just not condone it (like violence) - and at least pointing out continously that their empreror has no clothes. 

I do not take offense to plurality, but this must entail a comparison and contrast between schools of thought, and acceptance that certain way of doing things just work better. Prayers acheives nothing and is a waste of time. In addition, the crimes committed when in the name of religion are pretty bad, and on average religion ends up doing more harm than good. I would like the day to come where religion is viewed as something as unacceptable as other cults. I like some people despite them being religious, I don't like anyone because they are. I am selection against it, and it is leaving my life.

That's the type of leaving I'm after, more like evolution's way of dealing with the appendix - it might have some function, but it doesn't hurt us to remove it. And we usually remove it physically only once infected enough to be dangerous to our health.

(Though some people see it more like a cancer...)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Karen Azimianaraki on May 7, 2011 at 12:10am

To @andy just joined born and raised in Cali Yes we are the land of fruits and nuts. And I love It! You got that rite we are different than the rest of the nation.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chuck B. on May 7, 2011 at 8:47am

Shared the petition link on face book, hopefully it get's ya a few more signatures. 

As for the video, well it's his business so he can do whatever he wants but I don't have to give him my money.  Seems like a good ploy for the bible belt business.  Funny thing is the gas he gets is produced out of oil from a Muslim country with a different God than his.

On another note, I'd like to see a big group of Atheists get together and move to one state.  Have a state to call our own and do as we please.  Not likely, but a pleasant thought.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 11
• 12
• 13
• 14
• 15
• …
• 19
• Next ›
• Page