To those bemoaning the presence of the divine in the inauguration

[nadinbrzezinski]

A few facts:

1.- Every inauguration, starting with Washington, has had references to the divine, each and every one. The US has a separation of church and state, but not so strict that God has been completely pushed out of political events. It might be galling to you, but it has not. You want an advanced economy where that has happened, look at France. A slightly less, look south of your borders. The latter, Mexico, fought a few bloody civil wars over it.

2.- The US is the most religious country among advanced economies. You want to change that...think generations and a very different educational system, as well as civil calendar. Good luck with it, given Christmas is central to the well being of the economy.

3.- One of the songs today is a deeply patriotic song, coming from the Civil War, and a hymn for former slaves. If you need an explanation for the inclusion of something like this, for god sakes, the very lay Mexico includes things like the Marcha Dragona in military parades, that mention god and all that. It's called tradition.

4.- You go ahead and try to change this, really, good luck. Best it would be if you learned why things are done. These ceremonies include every element they do on purpose and are pregnant with signals to different communities around the US...the fun is trying to understand every nuance, and every whistle.

Oh and yes, atheists are and can be their own worst enemies. Serious.

[FSogol]

1. K & R. n/t

[Danmel]

2. You have to pick your battles

This is certainly not it. I'm Jewish, but I am not in a knot over Battle Hymn of the Republic. Not when his speech included from Seneca to Selma to Stonewall.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. I am willing to bet it was picked by Shumer

Who is also Jewish. Given Jews marched with MLK at Selma...

[djean111]

3. Speaking as an atheist, your post would have made much more sense

if you had just said "Suck it".
Illogical and arrogant.
And militant religious people are my worst enemy, as far as that part of my life goes.

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. I do not believe in god my dear

And this was like any other inauguration I remember in my lifetime.

All of them have an invocation, yup. All of them the "so help me god." All of them have a bible. All of them. This followed the same exact order as any other ceremony since I was aware and paid attention to 'em

[djean111]

32. And I had not protested the inauguaration;

I just didn't watch it. Not militant about it, more of a meh, why bother feeling.
That being said, I am certainly glad that everything in this country has not stayed the same merely because it has always been that way.
Don't think France can trace its problems to no religion in the government, either.
The thought that the government might be even more corrupt if there were no bibles is a bit scary.

[nadinbrzezinski]

51. Yes, but changes in ceremony

Some of them going back to Washington...(the Oath) are not substantive changes. They are playing around the edges really.

Now slavery, that was not an edges change, LGBT rights, those are major ones. Ceremonies, last place to pick a battle really.

[riderinthestorm]

66. Actually ceremonies are EXACTLY the place many people choose to pick their battles!

Last edited Mon Jan 21, 2013, 05:14 PM - Edit history (1)

Wives refusing to "obey" their husbands during the marriage ceremony, hell even LGBT military members even having a wedding ceremony was picking a battle.

The Boy Scouts refusing to allow Eagle Scout ceremonies for LGBT Boy Scouts, to having black people even participating in such ceremonies like the inauguration are ceremonial deviations where strong positions are being put out for public display.

There are too many historical examples where ceremonies are EXACTLY the place where change is instituted. Honestly, I believe its a perfectly terrific place to pick a battle, really.

[bvar22]

96. ^ ! ^

I will ceremonially stand with you on this issue.
Well Said.

[RKP5637]

150. Excellent points!

[im1013]

153. +100!!

Absolutely agree!

[Fumesucker]

181. +1000

[patrice]

188. To me, one counter point to all of the theology is found in Blanco's poem, because that is what

poetry does, true poetry that is, through discipline and craft, poetry discovers those synchronicities in human experience that others purvey as religious truths (but then, in order for that to make sense, you should know that I distinguish between the primitive understandings known as "spiritual" cognitions and the organization and exploitation of that effort known as religion, bot pre and post Christianity).

[Walk away]

228. If not now when? I have every right to protest religion in goverment whenever....

I want. It's not my fault that this country is so backwards.

[amuse bouche]

243. That about sums it up for me

There's a great hash tag on twitter #thingsthegodlysay. It's truly hilarious

[amuse bouche]

247. Exactly. This isn't the time B.S

reminds me of the NRA. 'Oh a shooting. This is not the time to discuss guns'

[Phillip McCleod]

359. yes often the symbolic weight is greater than the practical

in terms of what we remember as a seminal moment. i think mlk jr knew this well.

[SCantiGOP]

57. 'atheists are their own worst enemy'?

One word: Bullshit.

[riderinthestorm]

70. Yes because atheists and other nonbelievers should just shut up on a discussion board doncha know?

Its historical.

[NCTraveler]

86. Militant Religious People.

This post was about the inauguration. What part did you find to be militant?

[djean111]

116. I was countering the declaration in the OP that informed me that I am my own worst enemy.

That may be so, but decidedly not because I am an atheist, I can assure you.
Anyway, I was merely stating what I felt WAS a "worst enemy", in the spirit of not just saying no I'm not.

[NCTraveler]

120. I am with you on the you are your own "worst enemy" part of the op. It was wrong.

I understand how the op used it in the manner they did, it just doesn't work.

[Major Nikon]

124. Growing up non-Christian in the US makes identification of your worst enemies pretty simple

Christian privilege is alive and well and is getting worse, rather than better unlike pretty much every other privilege in the US.

[MNBrewer]

281. +1

[Honeycombe8]

339. What's with the hostility toward people having a belief in a higher being?

Yeah, there are militant religious people. That's not what a hymn is all about, and most ordinary people of faith throughout time have not been militant and intolerant.

Most people believe in a higher being of some sort.

It sounds to me like you are the intolerant one in this scenario.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is a basic tenet in most religions. That's a good thing to believe in. Whether you believe in the particular higher being or not. It's really not a hateful thing, to be religious.

It is hateful, though, to deride someone else for having a belief in a higher being. That is something that sustains many people, is a tradition in families, and gives millions hope where they would otherwise have none. A belief that one day you may see your loved one again is sometimes the only way to bear loss.

Don't deride what others need or feel or believe. That's not cool.

[djean111]

383. I'll get back to you after I see if atheists have ever inflicted wars or crusades or inquisitions

on religious people.
Most people once believed the world was flat. It has been a long long time since I gave any weight to what "most people" believe.
And I have some born again Baptists in my family - I beg to differ about the kindness and whatever.
If they only poked fun, that would be a relief.

In any event, I just mentioned militant religious.

[Honeycombe8]

406. Obama has gone on a crusade? I missed that. When did that happen?

Get a grip. You have a personal unresolved issue with people who believe in a higher being (in other words, with most people in the world). Maybe you should see someone about that. It's beyong the scope of an internet forum.

Get healthy in body AND mind!

[djean111]

408. First, who decided to narrow the scope down to Obama?

Could have sworn I was talking about "religion" in general. Way to misdirect!
Second, keep you cheap put-downs about unresolved issues to yourself.
Are you suggesting that if I would only beelieeve I would be fine? Bwah!
Actually, your obvious anger and tedious (seen that crap before) faux "diagnosis" seems to indicate an issue for you - do you have problems with people who don't fall into line and say they do not believe in a higher being? Because, you know, lost people who believe only do so because they are raised that way.
So - get a grip.

[Fumesucker]

4. Minorities who don't know how to be quiet are their own worst enemies

[riderinthestorm]

14. How dare anyone say anything about the insertion of religion into what should be a secular ceremony?

I know right?!



Damn uppity atheists!

[Fumesucker]

19. Poutrageous behavior

I was not offended by the religious rhetoric in the ceremonies so no one else should be offended either.

[riderinthestorm]

37. And ON A DISCUSSION board no less!1!! How DARE anyone make a critique about the ceremony?!

Really. Damn uppity atheists and non-believers trying to say such shit!1elevens11!!



Will no one think of the children?

[Brickbat]

197. Jeeeeez, you guys! Tradition! And stuff!

[Honeycombe8]

340. It's Obama's ceremony. He believes in a higher being. R-e-s-p-e-c-t. Period. nt

[Demo_Chris]

379. No, it is the people's celebration

[NoOneMan]

5. presence of the divine?

Religion and the presence of the divine are not one in the same.

There was no more divine presence there than when I take a dump alone. Depending on one's perspective, that is a lot, a little, all, or none.

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. Yeah, but the order followed the same order

Every inaugural has followed since I remember, well except when I was a kid...but in Mexico God was kicked out in 1872.

[NoOneMan]

10. Thats ceremony

It has nothing to do with divinity.

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. This is tradition

I want to see the changes when inevitably we elect an agnostic. It might happen. I am sure there will be an invocation and a bible. Even if we elect an atheist,

[NoOneMan]

16. Im not arguing with you about that

Im simply stating "presence of the divine" was terribly worded.

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. I am sure for some that is exactly what you witnessed

For others, like me, I prefer to think it was just a reference.

But in many locals around the nation NOT having any of this would be not justo jarring, but un American

[NoOneMan]

35. Un-American you suggest?

Hey, that's not the worse thing in the world.

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. At this point in our history taking leave from all that

Could lead to some very real violence.

Oh and I used the words I used in a nod to Adams and Jefferson... I know it was missed. They both spoke of religious ceremony in this way when speaking of the public sphere. At times I reference obscure US history, sorry.

[NoOneMan]

41. So "Americanism" is being a fearful hostage to your nuts?

We are totally off topic here, but when people suggest their "more perfect union" has devolved into a state where we must put armed guards in schools and perform ceremonies to prevent violence, I would suggest its time to consider kicking such a union to the proverbial curb.

I mean, what is it everyone is so excited about anymore? Its all falling apart on our way out

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. Well a civil war is not out of the realm of possibility

But looking for one is not my idea of fun. Which is exactly what straying from the traditional order of the inauguration would be.

We have plenty of possible flash points. Why go look for more?

[NoOneMan]

44. If not mentioning "God" would create a war and plunge a country into crisis,

Then fuck it...Give everyone their own piece of dirt and close it in. If this is the case, its a failure in every regard while masquerading as success. And once you realize the magnitude of failure, you don't need a war to hang up your hat and find something real to put your faith in.

Just my two cents. Good Americans can carry on.

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. You realize Fort Sumpter was not the beginning of the civil war

But rather the flashpoint that led to the military phase of it? Right?

There is no need for provoking, to be honest. If you believe there is, well, what can I say? Really, nothing more needs to be said. Really.

Have a good day.

[NoOneMan]

50. I don't think you get what I am saying

If your nation is as fragile and primitive as you suggest, it may not be worth bending over backwards to further joyously perpetuate the existence of such a nation. Rather, it may be an act of futility, and an expensive one at that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

53. A few people wrote similar lines

In the Boston of the 1850s... But I am proof positive you did not know that.

[NoOneMan]

58. And on the other end of the neo-liberal slippery slope,

is militarily invading every country in the world that doesn't allow women to vote in order to institute democracy and progressivism. Because why should there be yet a region in the world that our military might cannot bring equality to (except itself)?

But we aren't arguing here about an issue like slavery. We are looking at a heterogeneous geographical area full of assholes at each other's throats at the decline of an empire. We don't even have a substantial moral argument any more for being opposed to regional autonomy in North America. We all just have a cultural narrative that we believe in about the preservation of a more perfect union, which has reach a point where we are held hostage to nuts with AR15s who love ceremonies so much they will draw blood over them (you assert).

[nadinbrzezinski]

115. For starters, that word (neoliberal) does not mean what you think

It is a center right movement.

[NoOneMan]

147. As far as I was aware,

Using military interventions to stabilize marketplaces and promote economic growth (under the guise of promoting freedom abroad) is an idea espoused by this camp. Forgive me if I am mistaken, but I thought they endorsed militarism as a means of molding the world according to their vision.

My main point was regarding shedding blood in the name of some greater "good". Where do we draw the line? There are extremes on both sides of such a line, are there not? Invoking one instance of a justified intervention (from our perspective) does not thereby justify every possible intervention.

In any case, its not the point here in this example. There is no "good" being fought for. There is a cultural narrative regarding the preservation of a (crazy) nation-state, which can not objectively be defined as an a priori "good" at this present time.

[nadinbrzezinski]

151. Yes, they are center right

Also known as Third Way and DLC.

John Major and Bill Clinton were the major pushers of it in the 1990s.

[zeemike]

179. You do realize you are in the minority don't you?

And why should the majority bend to your demands?....can you show cause for harm buy the mention of God?

But this is how people are divided and conquered....find a minority view and make them attack the majority for what they do....and all you need to say is you are offended...no proof of harm necessary. just a declaration of butt hurt, and the game is on.
then they stir up the radical fundamentalist against you...then you have more butt hurt to complain about and on and on it goes, building until there can only be war.
People are manipulated thorough these emotions every day.

[NoOneMan]

184. How do you know what I am?

I am merely commenting on these asserted masses of armed vigilantes who are holding the country hostage to their demands of hearing God's name evoked. Sounds like a hell of a nation you got yourselves there to go to bat for.

[zeemike]

240. Well that is how democracy works

the majority gets heard and catered to by politics...How do you want it to be different?
Do you want any minority that can claim some butt hurt to dictate to the rest what is said?

I am neutral really...I hear the president say "god bless America" I feel nothing at all....I am not hurt by it and I am not thrilled by it...I have nothing vested in any of that.
In my own beliefs a God would never bless or curse anyone or anything cause that is a human thing to do....God would be natural, and strangely enough the Bible says that very thing....he causes the rain to fall on the just and the unjust alike.
And I am not outraged that someone else don't, or can't. or just don't want to understand that, and so I am not hurt by it one way or the other.

[NoOneMan]

250. Democracy is God's name is mentioned or people start killing people?

Sounds like one hell of a gig you got there.

[zeemike]

260. I said that?

Who said that?
I said it is silly for anyone to be upset because the president mentioned God at his inauguration...
But to what purpose does a person want to complain about it?...
Makes no sense to me at all....I can see nothing good to come from it.

[NoOneMan]

267. That is what the majority of this subthread is about

At this point in our history taking leave from all that....Could lead to some very real violence

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2231619

Thats Reply #35. Follow the thread.

Me questioning the "goodness" of this hostage type arrangement is what led you to go on a tangent about "democracy" and how I am in the minority (whatever that means in the context of questioning the premise that the nation is teetering on the brink of civil war because of gun-toting God lunatics).

[Fumesucker]

206. The thread you are replying on was started by someone kicking the minority

So it's sort of silly for you to be complaining about the minority being divisive, at least on this particular thread.

If the replies to the original complaint of a lot of religion in the ceremony had been more like "you know, I can see your point, I'm sorry you felt excluded" rather than "STFU you stupid divisive atheist" then maybe we wouldn't be having a flame fest in the first place.

[zeemike]

232. Well you missed my point then.

I was not saying the minority was being divisive, I said they were being manipulated into outrage at something that did no harm to them.
Should the Christians say that when they see you post that God is just a bunch of shit and people are fools if they believe such nonsense that they should be offended by it?...
And what did you want the president to do....say he too believes that the sky god is a bunch of shit?
There is no offense to the atheist...if he wants to swear on a bible and thank god that is his business and his right...you have no cause to be offended....he was not talking to you, he was talking to the majority.

[Fumesucker]

237. It was a few comments on a discussion board, that's what we do here, we discuss things

And as I said, the immediate reaction from the usual suspects was "STFU you stupid divisive atheists". Along with that came a good dose of "Well *I'm* not offended so there's no reason you should be offended."

I'm really not sure about the other OPs on this subject but Nadine started this one specifically to attract attention and get recs, she was trolling in other words.

Find some division on DU and drive a wedge in the crack, that's how you get a hot OP and this one is smoking.

Pouring oil on the waters is not the same thing as pouring gas on a fire.

[zeemike]

248. Well I admit I am not as aware of all of the drama going on

I do know it does but I am not as interested in it as some.
But still there is something to be learned from all of it...that people can and do drive wedges in cracks...but the test of strength is how well the crack resists breaking...
I am not an atheist, nor am I a fundie by any means...but both can become angry with me when I question their stand on things...and to me that says I am closer to the truth than they are.

[Fumesucker]

253. You've been here long enough to have a clue how this place works

This is by no means the first religion rodeo here in GD, it's almost always a contentious subject and Nadine's overly pedantic preaching was 100% guaranteed to draw a response, as inevitable as gravity.

[zeemike]

264. Oh yes I know....I have gotten into it before.

But like you said...this is a discussion board and that is what we do.
But I would hate to think that people post here not expecting to draw a response.
And if it is about some things everyone thinks it is cool....look at the ones with a lot of recs...most people don't have a problem with it as long as it is not about faith or god things....in those cases it is trolling because there will always be someone that posts that God is a lie and you are a fool if you believe it....and that response is as inevitable as gravity too.

[Fumesucker]

272. Kind of the flip side of the real world isn't it?

Out there the Christians outnumber the atheists and will pound them down if they raise their evil pointed little heads.



Consider also that the atheists here are giving the Christians a treasure beyond price, a "go straight to Heaven" card.

Matthew 5:10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

[zeemike]

309. Is that what it is like out there?

Christians pounding down athiest?...really?...sounds more like you are being persecuted for righteousness sake.

But show me a Christian that is righteous and persecuted....you will find few of the former and even fewer of the latter.
Most Christians ignore the teachings of Jesus and openly worship the god of Mammon...so Mathew was not talking bout them for sure.
And I have often pointed that out to them, and they like it even less than the atheist do when I point out some things to them that they don't want to face.
If a man is a Christian he should not be upset when someone says there is no god...and the Atheist should not be upset when someone says there is...

[Fumesucker]

313. Here's how it feels for me

http://www.democraticunderground.com/121820137

[MessiahRp]

317. While I'll grant you that most of America is religious...

Which God should be mentioned? Seems to me catering to one religion (Christianity) over others pretty much destroys the whole myth of the melting pot where people of various cultures can all come here for an equal stake in America's future. With so many religions, I think it's irresponsible to reference any of them. Why dismiss one group of people for another? Because Christian fundamentalists will whine about it?

America is supposed to be about diversity in beliefs and that includes religion. When there are so many religions to cater to, cater to none for it is the safest way to go.

[zeemike]

333. Well I would agree with that.

With malice toward none and charity for all.
But god is common to all of those religions...all understand the concept of it....and the Muslim god is the same as the jewish and christian one...so it is a generic term....and I did not hear anything said that was specific to one of them.

[coalition_unwilling]

215. In the wake of the first bombs falling on Afghanistan in November 2001, I was heartened

to see some fellow anti-war protesters with a sign that said "United, My Ass" (to counter the cloyingly fascist "United We Stand" tripe then in popular usage). Of course, at the time, they looked a little eccentric but the intervening years have more than validated their sentiment.

With 1% controlling 40% of the wealth AT THE SAME TIME that 1 in 5 children live in poverty here, I fail to see what's so great about our republic any more. We have war criminals walking around as free men and women and no accountability whatosever for their crimes against humanity.

Wish I could rec your response.

[kestrel91316]

13. She meant "reference to the divine", I'm sure.

Nadin sometimes phrases things strangely but I think English is not her first language.

So suck it up and deal with it. We all know what she intended to say.

[NoOneMan]

20. Words have meanings...

We all know what she intended to say.

No, I didn't. Some people use language to imply truths beyond what a situation reveals. As the topic reads, it appears someone is using the performance of religious ceremonies to imply a presence of divinity at some event (one is a truth, and the other is a belief). We need to be careful of what words means IMO, especially if they suggest the divine exists and was at some place in some time.

[NoOneMan]

113. No, I don't know her and I'm not a mind-reader yet

Thats why we use words to communicate in the meantime

[bvar22]

111. WOW. An almost perfect re-statement of post #70 ^,

riderinthestorm (12,115 posts)
70. Yes because atheists and other nonbelievers should just shut up on a discussion board doncha know?


Its historical.

[Warren Stupidity]

67. I have had bowel movements that were religious experiences. nt.

[NoOneMan]

73. Every bowel movement can be the most religious experience

Shit is made of the same energy that the universe is compose of, which is entirely divine to some.

[MineralMan]

7. Some need a reason to feel sour and bitter today.

Any reason will do. Still, the President made a masterful speech today, touching on issues that affect us all. I don't mind a few mentions of the dominant deity worshiped in this country. The beliefs of others do not compel my belief.

[Skidmore]

127. Well said.

I have no use for religious institutions and am not a practicing anything. I am more than willing to tolerate the beliefs of others as long as recognition of their beliefs do not impinge on my right to believe as I will.

[RKP5637]

155. K&R !!!

[kestrel91316]

11. Possibly your best post ever.

The rabidly anti-religion crowd around here really ticks me off, and I'm a firm agnostic who is more for separation of church and state than most Americans.

They want to ban all religious thought and speech, and are horribly unamerican. Probably all paid RW trolls, even though many have high post counts.

They disgust me as much as the christofascists. Both groups are complete black-and-white absolutist thinkers.

[enlightenment]

28. kestral,

I have enjoyed most of your posts over the years - but this one is a disgrace. I am utterly and absolutely appalled that you are willing to label people who disagree with your assessment of what is right and proper as "horribly unamerican" and "probably all paid RW trolls".

That's some pretty black and white, absolutist thinking. I thought you were smarter than that.

Disappointing to see. Really.

[kestrel91316]

76. Disappointed to see I consider christofascists and rabid atheists as essentially the same?

Sorry if you don't like how I feel about that. I happen to believe in freedom of thought, and that includes spiritual throught. AND EXPRESSION.

If you can demonstrate to me exactly how today's benediction deprived you of your rights, then I will listen. Not until then. I am sick to death of the attacks on our president from people pretending to be Democrats.

[Warren Stupidity]

92. so you are ok with prayer in school too, right?

[enlightenment]

121. I didn't say it deprived me of anything.

Nor did I comment on your attempt to sweeten a really awful comment by tacking on the "one side is as bad as the other" line at the end.

I said that I found your post to be broad-brush and over the top. I really did think you were a more thoughtful person and I am truly disappointed to find that I was wrong.

You don't have to care what I think at all, of course - and I don't expect you to do so. My post to you was a simple reaction to seeing that kind of language and tone from someone I never expected to see it from. That's all.

[alp227]

148. I don't think the benediction took away anyone's rights,

It is just out of place in a thinking nation.

Looking at the big exchange here I wish the left were a secular movement. In 2016 I expect a godless dnc platform WITHOUT interference from a stooge chair like Villaraigosa.

[Fumesucker]

218. Well, at least you used the traditional adjective, rabid

So there is something to be said for tradition after all.

[kestrel91316]

77. Oh, and please direct me to your prior posts where you complained about the benedictions in

EVERY OTHER INAUGURATION since Washington's first.

I'll be waiting.

[enlightenment]

123. I can't -

I think you may have me confused with someone else.

[JoeyT]

159. Tradition!

The final refuge of the bigot under siege.

[amuse bouche]

249. Oh I disagree

I think the outraged, religious fanatics, including so called agnostics are the paid RW trolls.


So there

[Raine]

15. Totally agree. nt

[WilliamPitt]

18. Comprehensively epic win.

Spherical win; win in 360 degrees over all three dimensions. Win to all points on the compass.

Nicely said.

[jeff47]

45. Replace "atheist" with black.

Or woman. Or LGBT. Or any other marginalized group.

The same sentiment was said about them. Was it epic win then?

When it was too soon for women to vote? And besides, they had never voted anyway. When it was just the wrong time for blacks to use the same drinking fountains? And besides, they have their own separate-but-equal ones. When those getting all upset about LGBT rights just didn't understand that this is the way it's always been done (despite the fact that it wasn't true)?

So, should we celebrate our long-standing tradition of posts like this OP, or should we learn from our past, repeated, mistakes?

[Warren Stupidity]

72. yes but it was epic and a win!

or some other idiocy.

I'll crawl back over to my atheist free speech zone now.

[Pale Blue Dot]

178. Thank you. nt

[JI7]

235. stupid, there are/were laws preventing gays, women, blacks etc from getting rights

are there laws which ban an atheist from holding office ? from getting married ?

[Number23]

242. If you ignore facts, history and common sense it's all perfectly reasonable.

Just go with it, man.

[riderinthestorm]

255. Yes, there are still laws out there preventing atheists from holding office

In more than a few states may I add.

Same with bearing witness in trials and a whole host of other legally discriminatory actions beyond the cultural stigma. A University of British Columbia study found that believers distrust atheists as much as rapists. The study also showed that atheists have lower employment prospects.

So tell me what's stupid about critiquing the religiosity in the inauguration again?

[JI7]

258. so why not post about those laws and ask something be done about them

it's funny how many who complain about stupid shit like references at an inauguration never do that. instead the just want to get in some victim martyr post.

and i'm an atheist as are many others on this thread who are also turned off by stuff like the op.

[riderinthestorm]

265. Here's a link to a list of states that have those laws

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/12/15/which-states-ban-atheists-from-holding-public-office/

Its been posted before and action has been requested on these laws.

As for this particular issue, I posted on another thread that I didn't actually find the inauguration religiosity to be irritating because I've learned how to let it roll over me without a lot of process. I posted a lukewarm supportive post in another thread about it. And then the flamebait started here where this kind of critique was met with STFU and "tradition" (code for bigotry) and "history" and worse.

I'm sorry but THAT kind of shit turns me off.

Obviously you don't care if you get told to STFU but it does tend to provoke a spirited discussion shall we say...

[JI7]

268. that article said the ATheist will take office regardless of the bigoted state laws

[riderinthestorm]

275. Post #235, you asked "are there laws which ban an atheist from holding office ?"

I answered.

Now you are changing the goalposts to enforcement of those laws.

Okay. I'm done. I think your agenda is showing.

[JI7]

279. this started off because of comparisons to blacks, gays, women being denied rights

as being equal to reference of God in regards to atheists.

[Number23]

289. This link right here is 50 times more powerful than all of the emotional froth

and insanity from others in this thread. An actual list of states that prohibit atheists from serving in public office.

I'm more than a bit concerned that many of the links in your article are not working, but I still thank you for posting this.

[riderinthestorm]

291. I believe there's links to Wiki as well. I simply pulled up the first one that caught my eye that

WASN'T Wikipedia since many DUers have a thing about it.... Its pretty easy to google the states that still have these laws.

The 8 states that officially prohibit atheists from holding office (not recently enforced) has been a long standing issue in the atheist community and one they have worked to try to overturn.

[jeff47]

266. Yes, there are laws which ban an atheist from holding office.

And in many states, an atheist has to lie to get married - the official ceremony has "so help you God" in it in several states, even if you're getting married at the courthouse.

And freedom of religion is a right. It's one of the ones actually mentioned in the Constitution. Unlike the right for women to vote, which had to be added via an amendment. And unlike the right for most blacks to vote, which had to be added via amendment. And unlike the right for gays to marry, which isn't actually mentioned by the Constitution, but is inferred from the rest of the text.

[JI7]

271. i don't understand the point of your 2nd paragraph

as for the state laws we should work on getting rid of them. but as the other post says an atheist was elected in a state with that type of law and will still take office.

there are many bigoted state laws around . we should work to get rid of them.

but none of that has anything to do with some reference to God in some song.

[riderinthestorm]

277. Post #235, you asked "are there laws which ban an atheist from holding office ?"

Now you are changing the goalposts to enforcement.

I believe your slip is showing.

[JI7]

280. are you saying the 2nd paragraph prevents atheists from holding office ?

[riderinthestorm]

295. I will wait for Jeff to explain his post. I simply was addressing the goalpost moving nt

[JI7]

307. there was no moving of the goalpost since the original point still stands and the arguments are

becoming silly.

as pointed out the ATheist was elected in a state with bigoted laws and will take office.

the original response was to comparing the reference to god at this inauguration as being offensive to atheists in the same way blacks, women, gays etc were denied rights . and that is still stupid.

[jeff47]

298. That's probably because you seem to think freedom of religion isn't a right.

My point is not only is it a right, but it's one of the ones the framers explicitly listed when they wrote the original document.

The things you cite as rights are voting for women and blacks, and marriage for gay people.

Voting rights for women and most blacks were not part of the original document. They were explicitly not included because the framers didn't think those rights existed. That's why we had to have a civil war and a large women's suffrage movement to add them to the Constitution via the 15th and 19th amendments.

"Gay marriage" isn't in the Constitution at all. But then again, marriage in any form isn't in the Constitution. Instead, the right of "gay marriage" is inferred by all the other rights mentioned in the Constitution - essentially: if straight people can do it, gay people have to be able to do it too.

but none of that has anything to do with some reference to God in some song.

If it was just a reference to God in one song, it wouldn't be a big deal.

But we're talking about a ceremony that started with a prayer, contained an oath and a speech with references to God, contained hymns with references to God, and then was followed by an official "lunch" that started with a prayer, contained many, many speeches with references to God, and then closed with a prayer.

That's an awful lot of religion for a government with an explicit separation of church and state.

[JI7]

304. so you don't think same sex marriage is a right ? what does it matter if/when it was included

in the constitution in terms of whether they are right or just ?

i just don't see the point of it as far as it's importance and meaning.

[jeff47]

321. You aren't this dumb.

Seriously, you aren't this stupid. You can read what I wrote up there.

There are rights explicitly mentioned by the Constitutions and it's amendments. And there are rights which exist, but are not explicitly mentioned.

Gay marriage is the latter, but that's only because marriage is not mentioned at all - for gay or straight people. The right to gay marriage is inferred, just like the right to privacy.

i just don't see the point of it as far as it's importance and meaning

I'm pointing out that you are loaded for bear in support of rights that were not in the original Constitution, yet completely ignore one that was.

[JI7]

323. i'm not ignoring anything. and i don't support the 2nd amendment

so saying it's in the constitution itself doesn't mean much to me in terms of how right or just it is.

[jeff47]

330. .....why are you bringing up the second amendment?

Freedom of religion is in the first amendment. That's the right you were ignoring up-thread while talking about other rights.

[JI7]

341. i'm not ignoring any right, you aren't forced to pray at the inauguration , you don't have to take

the oath on the bible.

[jeff47]

351. Actually, you were

Your posts are still up there, where you manage to not find freedom of religion among our rights.

And while I'm not being forced to take an oath today, there was ample opportunity for my second-class status to be reinforced.

[JI7]

353. there is no place where i said we didn't have freedom of religion, i'm an atheist

a lot of your posts sound to me like the NRA martyr crap. feeling sorry for yourself and comparing yourself to civil rights heroes and others who fought for rights.

having to endure the inaurguration is the same as people fighting to actually vote ?

[HappyMe]

22. Very good post.

[cthulu2016]

23. To those bemoaning gun violence...

1.- Every American city, going back to 1776, has featured gun violence

2.- The US is the most gun-happy and violent country among advanced economies. You want to change that...think generations and a very different educational system.

3.- One of the shootings was a woman shooting her abusive husband, and if you need an explanation for something like that...

4.- You go ahead and try to change this, really, good luck. Best it would be if you learned why things are done.

Lesson: Just saying some smug stuff about how this is how the world is may not be news to anyone at all, and is thus just some condescending BS.

"I do not like that America is like X"
Response: "If you educated yourself you would find that America is like X"
"I just fucking said that. And I don't like it."
Response: "Well, it is childish to dislike something that exists."

Everybody (like actually every single person on DU) is well aware that the US is an unusually primitive nation when it comes to religion. So perhaps people who complain about it do so despite knowing that it exists in the first place.

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. Hi to you too!!!!

We know people died today from listening to prayer... Yup, mass religious shooting.

False equivalency, but you knew that

[cthulu2016]

39. I know nothing of the sort.

There is no false equivalency. I am not saying that payer is the same as being shot -- that is you layering disingenuousness upon triviality.

You posted this high-handed OP that defends something by stating that it exists, and mocks people for having feelings about public policy that would not be politically possible to enact in law.


Mocking people who are right for being unpopular (which is all the OP is) is the quintessential RW move. And it is a good move insofar as it works.


As for the overall nature of America thing... America is a widely racist nation and prior to 2008 all inaugerations featured a white President. So what?

If we are to represent the whole American psyche in the pageant, why not a wife-beating shout-out? Spousal abusers are probably more common in American than Jews.

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. Whatever dude

If summarizing history is getting on a high horse, whatever. But given the anti intellectual climate in the US it is all buts shocking. What you are doing is a RW technique...accusing somebody of arrogance for displaying some knowledge is exactly what anti intellectuals do.

Enjoy...please proceed...

[cthulu2016]

47. I love when people try to deny what they just wrote.

"To those bemoaning..."

That is how one might start a lecture, but not a history lecture.

You wrote the OP to show that you are smart and reasonable and the atheist whiners don't get the big picture, and did so by stating things that every atheist whiner already knew... so your post is not plausibly intended to inform. It is just some divisive "look at me" BS based on the theory that it is childish to criticize existing norms in American life.

[nadinbrzezinski]

49. Once again, proceed.

[trotsky]

63. Brilliantly put.

Thank you.

[GoneOffShore]

107. If I could "Rec" this I would.

Thanks for the excellent rebuttal.

[zappaman]

241. +1 n/t

[amuse bouche]

251. Yep

Some can't see the forest through the trees

[Kali]

372. pretty much nailed it to the wall

[GeorgeGist]

88. Well said.

[jeff47]

24. Yeah, the seats at the back of the bus still go to the same place!

The sentiment of your post has been said about every civil rights movement. Women were told that now is not the time, and that they just didn't understand. Same with those colored people who objected to the buses in my subject. LGBT people were told it's not so bad, they can just do that stuff in private.

And so on.

So you are indeed presenting a great deal of history and tradition here. I just don't think it was quite the one you intended.

[forestpath]

26. I find it highly ironic that the main argument for religion in the inauguration

is because it has always been done.

[Major Nikon]

128. It isn't

The main argument for religion in the inauguration is a certain highly vocal ultra-religious minority would freak the fuck out if it weren't.

[amuse bouche]

256. No kidding

Dumbest reason ever to do something is because it has always been done.

Well gee wiz I know people who smoked themselves into an early grave, because their grandpa smoked and lived until 80

[The Straight Story]

27. There are people in our 'big tent' whining about this?

Maybe they want the tent to be as small as the republicans do.

Some folks don't like history and tradition. It scares them. Probably the same people who see a 'christmas' display and get freaked out and feel scared.

Religions the world over have had their place in society and even as those societies move away the traditions can remain.

[jeff47]

56. So....forced prayer is designed to expand our "big tent"?

You might wanna take a minute or two to think about this. Especially if you replace "atheist" with any other group. Perhaps, "black" or "woman", or "gay". Was it not worthwhile to risk our "big tent" by bucking history and tradition on their behalf?

[The Straight Story]

60. Someone forced you to pray? Who??

I missed that. I didn't pray today, maybe I was not watching the TV at the right time.

Hope I don't get into trouble.

[Warren Stupidity]

74. If this were a school assembly would you get why it was wrong?

[jeff47]

145. Phew! Good thing you dodged the hard part with a quibble on terminology!!

I mean, otherwise you'd have to explain how dumping the Dixiecrats was OK, despite the shrinking of our tent and bucking tradition.

[davidthegnome]

29. Accurate points, on the other hand...

You were rather condescending, you know.

I long ago grew bored of trying to understand every nuance and whistle. I'm of the sort that honestly doesn't have a clue as to whether or not a higher power (God, Goddess, the flying spaghetti monster) exists. I don't really care one way or another about the presence (or lack thereof) of the divine at an inauguration. Some will scream in favor until blue in the face, others think that the separation of church and state should apply to pretty much everything.

What difference does it really make? Attempting to enforce it one way or another is silly. To me, it's kind of like demanding that no mention of Santa Clause be made around Christmas time. It's basically irrelevant to me.

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. If history is condescension, so be it

[alcibiades_mystery]

31. As a strident atheist

I'm rolling my eyes near to falling backward at all these "Why so religious?" posts. Half these people are very obviously just Obama haters looking for something to gripe about today. The other half are just being daft. The whole protest is sophomoric.

[nadinbrzezinski]

34. I agree.

And I can tell you exactly where I lost my religion.

[jeff47]

40. And plenty of strident feminists

spent a lot of time rolling their eyes at all these "why so sexist" statements. An an enormous number of them were declared simply man-haters looking for something to gripe about, or too dumb to understand.

Congratulations on continuing a lengthy tradition.

[LiberalElite]

64. News Flash!

I'm neither an Obama hater (I happily voted for him twice) or daft (really, I'm very very sane) and I don't like all the prayers in secular political U.S. events. You didn't feel like complaining about this issue, good for you. That doesn't make our complaints "sophomoric."

[GoneOffShore]

110. So true - Thank you.

[madrchsod]

82. that`s best explanation i have read today

[leftstreet]

33. It's just so mid-century

I didn't see it, nor do I care one way or the other

But it does seem a little outdated at this point

[Lone_Star_Dem]

38. I don't subscribe to, nor believe in any religion, and I agree with you.

That doesn't mean I all of a sudden became outraged at the course of today's events though. I know this is the normal procedure and I expected it.

I despise religion in politics, but the swearing in ceremony has been like this for ages, deciding to get offended suddenly during the event is just silly.

FWIW, I don't care of other people choose to believe in any religion so long as they don't use it as a basis for any form of policy, be that local or national, which has an influence on my life.

[ellie]

46. I am not religious at all

but I find the prayers to be comforting as more as a wish for peace for all than for a chance at religious indoctrination.

[RKP5637]

166. I didn't listen to them closely, but I thought they seemed pretty neutral, anyway, I thought similar,

and I'm not religious at all.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

52. "When the Tao is absent, ritual arises." Lao-Tse

[libtodeath]

54. I quit listening to fairy tales long ago so will never believe in a sky daddy but

am thankfull no matter that it was president Obama today taking the oath and not a repuke.
That is all that mattered to me today.

[nadinbrzezinski]

55. Yup

To me this is the last place to pick a fight.

[Arugula Latte]

134. Who's picking a fight?

I don't think there's anything wrong with people pointing out there was way too much religious overtone. What is wrong with people expressing that opinion? We're happy to see Obama inaugurated again, but I don't see the harm in stating the opinion that they should not have put so much emphasis on religion. It's not like we're storming the Inauguration waving guns and telling them to stop.

[nadinbrzezinski]

149. Perhaps I read a different DU

Bemoaning all that religion and faerie dust. For the record, I am as non religious as they come. But I ain't gonna complaint of a ceremony that has religious elements in it...whatever.

I happen to get they come from history. Changing this could mean a hot war. I am willing to bet we elect an agnostic or worst (from the RW point of view) an Atheist, "so help me god," a Bible and an invocation will be present.

[Taverner]

59. As an Atheist I didn't mind...

President Obama is a Christian, so it's no surprise

[just1voice]

61. Separation of Church and State isn't "bemoaning"

I'd explain the reasons why it exists but that would involve "history".

[NCTraveler]

93. The President is allowed to publicly recognize his faith.

Where ever and whenever he would like. In no way did he interfere with the separation of church and state today.

[Warren Stupidity]

95. Only if you view an inauguration as a private event.

As a public event, it is as wrong as prayer at a school assembly.

[NCTraveler]

104. No it is not. Obama can state his Christian beliefs freely. nt.

[nadinbrzezinski]

117. I know why it exists.

Speaking of history has the US fought something like the Guerra de Reforma and I missed it? Oh wait, that was Mexico. This is why in Mexico it is absolute.

[LiberalElite]

62. Are we allowed to have personal opinions on DU?

It doesn't seem that way sometimes.

[Arugula Latte]

402. You're supposed to run them by nadinbrzezinski first

so you can be informed whether it's okay to proceed. Then nadinbrzezinski will let you know if you have a point or whether you should just shut the fuck up because something is traditional and you're not allowed to say jack about it on a liberal discussion board.

[MicaelS]

65. Excellent post, agree 100%.

And I'm an agnostic. The best part is this:

Oh and yes, atheists are and can be their own worst enemies. Serious.

[Carolina]

68. K&R

[madrchsod]

69. it is obama`s vision of america based on his belief

if that vision includes his beliefs based on his faith so be it. history will decide if those beliefs were strong enough to change the hearts and minds who oppose him.

we should be remembering this day for the rest of our lives instead criticizing his belief in faith.

[patrice]

71. There's more than one variety of delicate flower out there, the meare presence of different flowers

throws them either into a swoon, or a cold sweat of fear, or hysteria about being attacked by _________.

why don't we call all of that crap what it is, nadinbrzezinski, base building, corporate personhood is trolling the internets for little followers to repeat their memes, no thinking about history, no contradiction allowed, or you won't be allowed into whatever little clique they've got going and you wouldn't want that now, would you?

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/01/20/far-right-poses-as-much-danger-to-the-u-s-as-radical-islam/

One of the core issues with the extreme right is that while they espouse individual freedom and like to try and spread fear regarding the government’s activities, they also seem to believe in a type of authoritarianism—one of the very things they profess to loathe in government—that includes a strong resistance to authority from what they view as “outgroups,” namely blacks and women, unions, and more.

... which resistance to authority is generally conceived as anything with which one disagrees and hence identifies itself in reactionary positions that are slavery in their inability to create anything that isn't a reaction in some way to the "other" -ness of everything else.

[Demo_Chris]

75. Times change, people evolve, and a shout-out to ignorance is no longer needed or appropriate

[patrice]

81. ... and disrespect will earn you nothing but association with others who are disrespectful too. &

One consistent trait of disrespect is that it co-relates highly with ignorance, so it is also not really and honestly rational either.

[Demo_Chris]

142. Should I also pretend Palin is not ignorant, or is that a truth it is okay to say?

[patrice]

180. Is Palin at the inauguration today? Weren't you referring to thousands of people who like to pray

at an inauguration? Most of whom you don't know, so you don't know whether they are ignorant or not.

Granted there are ignorant religious fools, but that doesn't mean that everyone who believes is ignorant, nor a fool. Rationalism is, afterall, only a relatively recent development in human cognition compared to the total span of our existence on Earth, so what WAS all of that other "stuff"? Like Christianity, for whatever crap has been hung on it for whatever charlatans, spells and talismans and such, does that mean that it was/is 100% invalid?

Emanuel Kant came to something that others would call the teachings of Christ, or the will of "God", or the single commandment of the New Testament, to love. Completely by reason, he deducted as close to an absolute truth as it is possible to get: ""Act so that the maxim [determining motive of the will] may be capable of becoming a universal law for all rational beings." Whether your label for that is "the Categorical Imperative" or "the will of God" the truth that it represents is still valid.

I'm a little sensitive to this fad to bash spirituality and theology. Honest rationalists will recognize that this over-steps what limits and therefore defines them as rational. They know it is not rational to say: A is B; A is also Z, therefore Z is also B. Andrea is British, Andrea is also a Zionist, therefore all British are Zionists. Or, Patrice is ignorant about mathematics; Patrice is also a "fallen" Catholic, therefore all Catholics are ignorant of mathematics.

I'm sorry if I missed something and you were talking about Sarah Palin, whom I loathe.

[Warren Stupidity]

78. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

Further important decisions came in the 1960s, during the Warren Court era. One of the Court's most controversial decisions came in Engel v. Vitale in 1962. The case involved the mandatory daily recitation by public school officials of a prayer written by the New York Board of Regents, which read "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country". The Supreme Court deemed it unconstitutional and struck it down, with Justice Black writing "it is no part of the official business of government to compose official prayers for any group of American people to recite as part of a religious program carried out by the Government." The reading of the Lord's Prayer or of the Bible in the classroom of a public school by the teacher was ruled unconstitutional in 1963. The ruling did not apply to parochial or private schools in general. The decision has been met with both criticism and praise. Many social conservatives are critical of the court's reasoning, including the late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. Conversely, the ACLU and other civil libertarian groups hailed the court's decision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_clause

[NCTraveler]

97. Not sure why your bold part matters.

"it is no part of the official business of government to compose official prayers for any group of American people to recite as part of a religious program carried out by the Government."

What official prayer of the government was a group of the American people forced to recite as a part of a religious program.

[Warren Stupidity]

103. it clearly lays out the rule: no prayers in government functions.

Is it a government function? yes? no prayers.

[NCTraveler]

106. What you are saying is not accurate.

"Further important decisions came in the 1960s, during the Warren Court era. One of the Court's most controversial decisions came in Engel v. Vitale in 1962. The case involved the mandatory daily recitation by public school officials of a prayer written by the New York Board of Regents, which read "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country". The Supreme Court deemed it unconstitutional and struck it down, with Justice Black writing "it is no part of the official business of government to compose official prayers for any group of American people to recite as part of a religious program carried out by the Government." The reading of the Lord's Prayer or of the Bible in the classroom of a public school by the teacher was ruled unconstitutional in 1963. The ruling did not apply to parochial or private schools in general. The decision has been met with both criticism and praise. Many social conservatives are critical of the court's reasoning, including the late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. Conversely, the ACLU and other civil libertarian groups hailed the court's decision."

And is not backed up by your reference.

[jeff47]

203. Are you claiming private/parochial schools are government functions? (nt)

[NCTraveler]

327. Don't think your reply was meant for me. Nt

[jeff47]

329. No, it was.

You quoted stuff showing prayer in public school is banned, but prayer in private or parochial schools is legal. Then you said this quote showed the previous poster was wrong saying prayer was forbidden at government functions.

That's confusing. So I asked for clarification.

[NCTraveler]

331. The poster was wrong.

Prayer is not forbidden at government functions. The quote, that I pulled from their post, in no way says that a prayer cannot be done at the inauguration.

[jeff47]

336. Except your quote says it's only legal at private or parochial schools.

which aren't government functions.

I'm not saying prayer at the inauguration is necessarily illegal, since it doesn't require participation like prayer in school. But your argument appears to not be talking about legal prayer at government functions.

[NCTraveler]

380. I am not sure why, but I am still not following you.

The poster attempted to make the point that the quoted piece claims "it clearly lays out the rule: no prayers in government functions." It does no such thing. Even you noted differences. I think that is why I am not following. It seemed like you were disagreeing with me, while at the same time agreeing with me.

"I'm not saying prayer at the inauguration is necessarily illegal" Agree, it's not unconstitutional.

"it doesn't require participation like prayer in school" Exactly. A major difference from the statement posted by Warren.

"But your argument appears to not be talking about legal prayer at government functions." I don't know where you are getting this from. I have read back and my argument was simple and very clear. The quoted piece has nothing to do with an event like the inauguration. Not does the quote state what the poster claims it states. "it clearly lays out the rule: no prayers in government functions."

I think you read things into my argument that just aren't there.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

79. I'm an Atheist....

...and I say it's like believing in spells.

But I'm not going to have a spell over it.

[GoneOffShore]

80. I'll go with the tradition stuff but not your last sentence.

Let's just substitute: Gays, Blacks, Hispanics, union members, the 99%, Asians, Italians, the Irish, Poles, Muslims, Jews, Palestinians, etc. for atheists.

So no - we're not going to NOT comment on something that we don't see as inclusive, despite the trappings.

[RKP5637]

83. Tradition. Good word, that summed up my feelings in one word. I let the religious

stuff slide off my back, because lots of people have rights too. And a lot of it's pomp and circumstance. This one sounded like a lot of them I've heard with respect to religion. I do think this was the most inclusive one I've ever heard, that everyone was being reached out too. At least it seemed that way to me.

[whatchamacallit]

84. Divine was there???

[zappaman]

90. Now that would truly be a miracle! n/t

[rhett o rick]

183. Not the correct Devine.

This is Devine

[whatchamacallit]

214. Lol! n/t

[PossumSqueezins]

85. Bible...Schmible

Where was the Quran and the Kenyan flag??

[bvar22]

101. Got me!

Thanks for the laugh.

[nadinbrzezinski]

118. ^^^____^^^^ winah

[riverbendviewgal]

87. I liked the inauguration.

I am not a religious person. There was nothing said or sung that I objected..

It is the RW hateful religious talk that I can not stand.. There was none of that on the platform today. Just love and hope and respect.

[AlbertCat]

89. the presence of the divine in the inauguration

There was no the presence of the divine in the inauguration. Because it is a myth. There was only lip service to ancient superstitions.

So who wants a government and/or president who depends on the supernatural? No one. Not even the religious.

It's time to stop the charade.

[nadinbrzezinski]

125. In plain English, so you get it.

This is not the place to pick that battle.

Is that plain enough to you?

You want to pick that battle...start at your local city council.

[AlbertCat]

222. Is that plain enough to you?

Is this plain enough for you?

Prayers are useless anywhere.... especially in government. And don't tell me what to do or where I should pick a battle.

This is no place for arrogant crap like your post. Got it?

[nadinbrzezinski]

224. Have fun stormin' that castle

Don Quixote!

[AlbertCat]

226. Have fun stormin' that castle

Oh please....get a grip....

This is a message board, not a policy meeting. There is no castle.

Hyperbole much? to go with your arrogant "plain English" crap.

[nadinbrzezinski]

229. Hi...see you are annoyed

Well, here are two suggestions if I annoy you so much

You can trash the thread, easy peachy...

Better yet, you don't have to read what I post. Yup, you can ignore posters here.

Just tryin' to be helpful and stuff.

[zappaman]

244. "You can trash the thread, easy peachy..."

Please leave the innocent fruit out of this.

The correct phrase is "easy peasy".


It comes from a 1970's british TV commercial for Lemon Squeezy detergent. They were with a little girl who points out dirty greasy dishes to an adult (mom or relative) and then this adult produces Lemon Squeezy and they clean the dishes quickly. At the end of the commercial the girl says "Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy".

Today it is a silly way to state something was or will be very easy.



If you want to be taken seriously as a know-it-all, you are going to have to try harder...

[AlbertCat]

363. troll

[nadinbrzezinski]

365. Now this is what I call a funny

You are calling me a troll? Hilarious. Hysterical.

[marions ghost]

407. Nancy Reagan's astrologer directed the country

--since then, I don't think I've seen anyone "depending on the supernatural..."

Bill Clinton and George Bush both strike me as non-religious (no matter how sincere they try to look).

Obama clearly finds support and inspiration in the church. And after all it was HIS inauguration. When an atheist runs for president, let them change it. I'd be fine with that.

Do you think Obama GOVERNS according to the supernatural? Really?--what evidence do we have for that?

Relax--I don't think life will be harder for atheists under Obama. Religious freedom means he can go to church and you are free not to. Be patient. You are not going to erase decades of tradition quickly in America.

[MindPilot]

91. A re-post of some anti-Atheist chain mail screed,

and it goes to the greatest page.

Next time, nadin, honey, before you post bullshit like this, please take a moment. Substitute the word "Black" or "gay" for "Atheist" and see how it reads. And try writing your own material--it is much more entertaining.

:shakes head:

[Fumesucker]

98. False equivalency: Blacks and gays have no choice in the matter, they are born that way

Atheists on the other hand can choose at any time to believe in God, it's easy if you really put your mind to it.

[MindPilot]

105. ^^^Nice!

[stupidicus]

99. Those facts don't change anything

nor do they undermine in any meaningful way the objections an atheist like myself might have to excessive god talk in the public square from our elected secular leaders.

I don't know if this was the case or not, since I have yet to watch or read it, I just found your parting comment pretty amusing as well as _______, thinking how could that be when at worst, such objections merely get the dander of the religious up who could care less about our objections to and distaste for such, and provides some around here a high horse they think we should never saddle, save under penatly of some admonition or worse.

Those types are the atheists worst enemy, but I find neither of them particularly threatening other than the damage they may do as holy warriors. Efforts to silence the atheist has a long tradition in this country too. http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/StateConstitutions.htm

I guess we atheist are the new political children who are to be seen but not heard eh?

If that's what makes us our "own worst enemies" I'd suggest you're fullofit.

I'd also say that had such objections been raised in the wake of Bush coronation, much more tolerance for it would have been seen around here. This kinda stuff imo, likely isn't generated so much by the objections raised over "god in the public square" matter itself, but who has ownership of that objected to in this instance. It's similar to though not to be confused with say, all the uproar over drone deaths during the Bush admin, but the wrath one risks from some around here when it is noted that the dem pres...

as one example

[nadinbrzezinski]

126. You have watched an inauguration, it followed the normal pattern.

That is all.

[stupidicus]

187. which again, is meaningless

I'm still waiting for you to post something any reasonably well educated atheist doesn't know about inaugurations, which is why your effort here follows the pattern I noted -- an admonition likely generated by who the criticism involved/was directed at, not over the substance of the objections from the atheists here in isolation from that.

The idea that you know something about past inaugurations in terms of their content that the average politically educated atheist -- like those around here -- doesn't, while amusing, could also be a little insulting when accompanied with the "sit down and shut-up" element that would seem to have accompanied it, as evidenced by the content and obvious intent and meaning of your final comment.

Nice lecture though, even if was common knowledge most junior high/high schoolers are likely somewhat familiar with.

[riderinthestorm]

190. While DUers don't like to admit it, telling atheists to shut up is more common than you'd think

It usually occurs during graduation season with the graduation prayers. Atheists are told its just a "little prayer", that they're being "too sensitive", it "no big deal" etc. etc.

But obviously this inauguration has struck a similar nerve.

Honestly, I really wasn't terribly fussed at the inaugural ceremony and the overt religiosity having learned to tune that shit out long ago. And the first threads making mention of it got lukewarm support from me.

But now? Here we are again, back at the "atheists should just shut up about it already" meme again... "Tradition" being used as an excuse for bigotry if you ask me.



Sucks.

[stupidicus]

274. that sums it up nicely

I try not to make a federal case out of it either, but what struck me here is that there seems to be an expectation (demand really) that the atheist stay silent when they have a legitimate leg to stand on. If some wanna complain about a Tebow-like effort on the part of BHO as a secular politician, they are perfectly entitled to as a separation of Church and State matter, whether it's a constitutional violation or not.

Methinks you're right on the bigotry angle, and the aforementioned should be remembered when those that react to the objections spew the "well, it's you that's being intolerant" line. While objections and intolerance may well be inextricably intertwined, it is their intolerance that took the form that it did here that is moored to mud, and that rests solely as far as I can tell, on their total inability to tolerate even minor criticisms of BHO of this type.

Had it been Bush the atheists here were criticizing for the same offense, nary a word would have been uttered I say. That more than anything else is what exposes the shaky foundation this BS was built on, and explains why they're shaking their fists at those that objected with the "you're own worst enemy" talk.

I have to tune it out all the time, particularly as a sports fan. I never however, hear them thanking "god" or his son for seeing to it that they lost. Apparently lessons in humility aren't covered, or something "thanks" is given for...lol

[nadinbrzezinski]

191. Which is

Introduction of principals
Invocation
Oath
Speech (hey it was short)
Retirement.

They added the songs and anthems

Nothing special or different from any other inaugural.

But hey it grates you, have at it.

As an atheist I will not join you in this fight...go at it. Have fun storming that castle.

[stupidicus]

294. I agree, rightwingnuts don't have a monopoly on the ability to exaggerate

and raising objections or criticisms out of a few does not a case for "storming that castle" make -- outta anyone.

What's particularly amusing about this exaggeration, is that you seem to wanna make a fed case outta the comments of a few obscure posters (given there's really no evidence for anything else --which is not in evidence beyond one post as far as I can tell with a lot of dissent from reponders - or even evidence that anybody has proposed a "storming of the castle&quot while denying that those that don't want and that object to a Tebow-like quantity (assuming that is the case) have no case at all in this country where religion is to be kept outta the public square as much as possible by our secular leaders.

I still haven't seen or read the thing yet, so it's not that which is "grating" me, which anyone with the expected reading comp and deconstruction skills expected of anyone here attempting to "debate" an issue could and would discern from my comments to this point. It's your "sit down and shut up" message that is grating, and at this point I guess we can also add that just because inaugurals have followed that template/structure in the past, doesn't mean that the content of it is etched in stone, and that the day can never arrive where the "man in the sky" stuff can be left in the churches where it belongs, as opposed to being a part of political events.

But by all means, keep dodging. Had the objections been raised over a Bush or Romney affair of like kind, you'd likely have been right there objecting as well or at least stayed silent, as opposed to offering the spiritied effort to chastise atheists here now.

This isn't about what they did in objecting so much as who it was they found guilty of the figurative crime, and it's doubtful that there's anyone here not on your bandwagon that sees it differently.

You're your own worst enemy for making that so clear.

WHat you really seem to be advocating for here, is for NO evolution in our society or its norms, kinda like BHO was on the LGBT issue just a few years ago.

Gee, what happened with that, and do you expect it to happen on this issue from the silent like they and their supporters weren't?

Apparently so. Thanks for making this clear for the readers. Rightwingnuts aren't the only ones that serve as the best witnesses for their own prosecution either.

[nadinbrzezinski]

296. Good bye

[stupidicus]

300. thanks for tacitly conceding the validity of my observations and accompanying remarks

I get that a lot around here.

I find it highly amusing.

It's not otherwise entertaining though, given the lack of any real challenge from the opposition it indicates.

[riderinthestorm]

311. Belated welcome to DU!

Actually being on ignore list at some point is practically a rite of passage.

[stupidicus]

342. thanks

I have 8 from the "star" posters the last time I looked, and for much the same reason/s that should be evident here.

they either can't take what they so thoughtlessly dished out, or the frustration stemming from a vigorous and rigorous
assault on what they foolishly thought was unassailable.

I don't mind being invisible to them the next time they screw up...lol

It leaves everything I post intact and wholly unrebutted that way.

[zappaman]

370. Welcome to the best "iggy" list on DU

We are well over 100 members and growing every day!
Please join us on Tuesday night for the all you can drink cocktail hour where our famous drink, "The Know It All" is half price!
Just so you know, "The Know It All" ingredients are:
Condescension
Malapropisms
Dismissal
and Errors...lots of errors.

[DainBramaged]

100. The solution was to turn the volume off......

[LWolf]

102. I don't have a problem with including the divine.

If I have a problem, it's exactly that: I want inclusiveness.

If the divine is included, I expect it to be inclusive, not exclusive. "Divine" does not belong to one faith or world view.

If prayers and spiritual music are going to be offered up, it should be done by an inclusive interfaith council. In my opinion.

[nadinbrzezinski]

129. Well, the battle hymn is a patriotic song

And it was chosen by a Jew. Shumer is Jewish.

There are layers of historic meaning for it...including a reference to Lincoln.

[nenagh]

139. Archbishop Demetrios delivered the Benediction after the Luncheon...

I thought he was very pleased to be included... and he brought a different perspective which I appreciate.

Life is too short to be too judgemental especially when the focus of Pres Obama's campaign was inclusiveness of all colors and creeds..

It's a great day and the Obama's appear relaxed and happy. Many of Pres Obama's supporters voted in the Souls to the Polls endeavour. Glad to see their beliefs not left out of the celebration..

No one dragged out a goat to sacrifice.... Just hearing that one President kept goats though. . Beautiful day....

[mckara]

108. Please Understand, the West Has Lost the Mystery of the Metaphor

I believe people object to theocratic interpretations of Western religions more than to mythological messages. Biblical metaphors were interpreted to consolidate power in the Church and to make ordinary people, sheeple. More people would believe in Western religions if they spoke of the experience of the transcendence through the world in which we are living. Western religious orthodoxies have misled their parishioners to the point of losing credibility.

[phantom power]

109. Sounds a lot like certain "arguments" against gun control

We're a nation with a gun culture, and there's millions of gun owners, good luck trying to change that.

OK, thanks for wishing us luck. I think I'll continue to speak my mind about it all the same.

[nadinbrzezinski]

131. I love the second same false equivalency in the morning.

How many people died from mass prayer? (Now if Argot was involved you might have had a point)

[broadcaster75201]

112. The perpetuation of belief in myth is killing us

While I agree that you've got to pick your battles, religion does one thing and one thing only ... it stunts the growth of Mankind and absolutely ensure that we will not be civilized as long a it is exists.

[nadinbrzezinski]

122. This s not the place for the battle.

[Major Nikon]

133. The battle should be fought on every front

Just like every other battle worth fighting. The idea of picking your battles is nothing more than defeatism.

[nadinbrzezinski]

137. Good luck in changing a tradition

Going to Washington himself. Serious. Read descriptions of the first inaugural.

[Major Nikon]

338. I just see that as an anti-progressive argument

Obama can include whatever he wants in his inaugural address, but if he decides to include religion then there can and should be a discussion about it just like anything else he decides to include in his inaugural address. Citing that it should be there simply because it always has been is lazy reasoning. Tradition is used in many instances to justify bigotry. When you realize that a politician is better off coming out as gay as opposed to coming out as a non-believer you start to get the sense that tradition really isn't worth much. The reason the religious establishment is so effective in running people's lives is they DON'T pick their battles. They fight every one vehemently. It's sad to say that the last priminent politician to aggressively take on the religious establishment is Barry Goldwater. When the influence of organized religion is removed from politics, issues like civil rights, hate crimes, child abuse, holy wars, scientific progress, sexual health, and dozens of other issues become much more simple to solve.

[nadinbrzezinski]

343. He had the usual in any inaugural

You are go got tell me we shoud get rid of the invocation? Let's start at city councils, shall we?

[Major Nikon]

344. I'm not telling you we should get rid of anything

I'm saying there should be a conversation on the influence that organized religion has over government to the detriment of society. As yet that hasn't even started, much less anything in the action stage.

[nadinbrzezinski]

345. I think it has

And people have taken action with lawsuits. Some have even gone to SCOTUS. Like all else it is just starting.

This as also been a conversation in academia for some years.

[Major Nikon]

350. And yet nothing in the mainstream

Nothing in the news, not even on progressive shows like Rachel Maddow. No living politician dares take up that subject. Even discussion here is largely banished to the Religion group. Meanwhile the religious establishment uses our collective irrational fear of being perceived as intolerant to their advantage and furthers their oppressive agenda. No other group you can name uses their privilege to so great of an effect that all voices of opposition are banished to the political fringe. Whether you realize it or not, you're part and parcel to that effort. When even progressives tell atheists they are their own worst enemy for even daring to raise the subject, you know something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

[nadinbrzezinski]

352. The media rarely speaks of this.

It's like guns. But the place to take on ths is indeed your very local city council, where invocations are common. (And don't belong)

[Major Nikon]

357. Actually I'd prefer a more European attitude

where religion is retained for little more than ceremonial purposes. If that were the case, I could care less if someone says a prayer before a city council meeting. However, we live in a society where organized religion is allowed to legislate their dogma to the detriment of almost every single progressive cause. Rather than telling atheists they would be better off if they just shut the fuck up, it might be better if more listened. That's exactly what most of Europe did and they are far better off for it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

360. Then wait a generation

Younger generations are becoming less and less religious, to the alarm of the far right.

[Union Scribe]

346. Funny how mankind has grown just fine

since in its entire history it has never, ever been free of the beliefs you so loathe.

[greyl]

361. "in its entire history it has never, ever been free of the beliefs you so loathe"?

You don't really mean that, do you?

[Union Scribe]

373. Feel free to name any place or point in human history

where religion, metaphysics, myths and superstitions, whatever you want to call it, were not a common part of the culture.

[amuse bouche]

114. I just roll my eyes

at the magical sky fairy references. It's nonsense

[Fumesucker]

119. I for one find comfort in rolling my eyes at my nation's leaders

[amuse bouche]

194. I love this president. I camapigned for him

I teared up at his inauguration today, but I don't blindly follow. People have worshiped more than 3 K gods. Which one to pick..oh my.

To me, it's silly at best and evil at worst.Watching intelligent adults blather on about 'Santa' as their savior, is mind numbingly creepy.

If that is your deal...enjoy. I will continue to roll my eyes and hope people evolve

[People b4 profits]

130. So we should not raise a voice in protest at the over-the-top religious crap because Amerika has

always been a theocracy at its core?

I know that I was not included in this ceremony as part of this country because I am not a superstitious believer. That much is abundantly clear every time religion rears its ugly head in government.

And every time so-called Democrats here insult their supposed-comrades by telling us to shut up and stay quiet under the church bus.

By the "logic" of nb - we should not confront or disagree with anything that is not blessed from on high or cannot be achieved by snapping our fingers.
Climate change is too big, so just let it go.
The war Department is too strong - just keep giving them a blank check.
The 1% are too powerful - do not make them mad by attacking their bank account.

A great strategy if you want to sabotage any chance for progress, as hard as that might be to achieve.

[nadinbrzezinski]

135. It had no more or less prayer

Than the Carter inauguration, the first I somewhat remember. I admit, coming from a nation with strict separation of Church/State Reagan's inauguration was jarring.

You want to change this? Start at city councils all over the country, where they really don't belong, or Congress. But this...it's not the right fight.

[Not a Fan]

132. "Oh and" yes, atheists are and can be their own worst enemies. Serious."

".... atheists are and can be their own worst enemies."?

And what if they agree with you?

[nadinbrzezinski]

143. Welcome to DU

[Not a Fan]

207. Welcome

Hi back! ... I've been around for years - basically since the beginning - and used to post. Just usually lurk though. I always start my day here.

[nadinbrzezinski]

209. Welcome lurker

[Javaman]

136. As an Athiest, frankly, I could care less. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

138. Agreed, wrong place for that battle.

[Egalitarian Thug]

140. Is there some point ot this collection of logical fallacies? n/t

[MindPilot]

158. Yes. The point is to marginalize non-believers.

A not-so-subtle message to atheists to just not worry our pretty little heads about it.

[NCTraveler]

141. Could have left this part out.

"Oh and yes, atheists are and can be their own worst enemies. Serious."

[CanonRay]

144. I'm not religious and I totally agree with you.

[Fumesucker]

146. Congratulations Nadine, you have the most popular divisive thread of this inaugural afternoon

Yeah, I know those other threads talking about religion in the inauguration weren't really all that conducive to a kumbayah moment but you blew them away with your supercilious, lecturing and condescending OP.

[Egalitarian Thug]

189. SCORE! After all, that was her goal. n/t

[JoeyT]

152. Oh good. Another "Shut it, stupid minorities!" post.

"It's tradition!!!!" is the favorite rallying cry of people trying to silence a minority that makes them uncomfortable. Slavery supporters used it, Jim Crow supporters used it, all the anti-LGBT groups use it ("Pro-marriage" groups in particular love it.), White Supremacist groups use it. Tradition has never once been invoked that it wasn't to tell a minority group to STFU.

We aren't our own worst enemies. Ignorant bigots and their enablers are our worst enemies. I'm glad I could clear that up for you. You're welcome.

[nadinbrzezinski]

154. Speak as much as you want

As long as you learn to pick those battles. The place to start is not the inaugural, but your city council. Want more basic than that...the pledge.

[JoeyT]

160. Yes, except people make the exact same arguments you did against both of those.

No matter how small we go, it's always picking the wrong battles. If we insisted Christians don't have the right to burn us at the stake we'd be whined at for oppressing them and violating their first amendment rights. Especially since it's traditional to burn people at the stake.

[nadinbrzezinski]

163. Start where you will make the most difference

Your damn city council. Join te legal actions trying to kick prayers out.

I say that as an atheist. The purely ceremonial role of the inaugural really is not it. Your city council, the pledge...those are important and chiefly...significant, cultural points.

[JoeyT]

174. Yes, an atheist that makes the exact same arguments as Christians

that are trying to force prayer into schools and city council chambers.

It's weird that the people cheering this on are almost a perfect overlap with the people that thought Rick Warren was a fine man and all these stupid gays should stop bitching about Obama choosing him. And the same people that defended the choice of the SECOND preacher that hated GLBT people, who was withdrawn after GLBT people and their allies pitched a fit.

So I don't see this as a "Atheists should STFU" thread so much as a "No minority has a right to criticize Him. In His greatness and wisdom, His choices are perfect because He made them." kind of thread. The one where a minority group that dares to criticize Obama gets told they deserve whatever happens to them. I'm sure someone will deny it, to which the appropriate response is "7".

Edited to add: I agree with using references to deities, but not for the reason you stated and not for the reasons many people here give. My reason for agreeing with it is because there are a lot of people that would one hundred percent lose their ever-loving minds if it weren't there. Were I in Obama's shoes, I'd have done it too.

What I wouldn't do is tell a minority group that was offended by it that they had no right to be offended. (Obama hasn't done that, and I doubt he would. Many of his supporters will, though.)

[nadinbrzezinski]

175. Funny, prayer does not belong in public schools

I am also proof positive you do not know that the earliest public schools had prayer and bible study in them. Yup, around the 1820s and 30s, those were in New York City. This is why Christians talk of precedent and why it has to go back. This is a legal argument they Mae regularly, one the Courts point was a mistake.

But hey, whatever. As I said in the OP, atheist can be their own worst enemies. But hey, why I avoid being lumped with people who can be as dogmatic and unerring as yes, Fundies.

You know who Rosa Parks was? Did you know she was not the first woman to sit at the front of the bus? Care to ask why the NCAAP did not pick the fight the first time? There are lessons in there for you, on how you fight a battle.

[JoeyT]

195. Traditionally it was legal to murder one of my race.

Especially if we had something you wanted. (Doubly so for me, being a mongrel and all.) That goes back before the founding of the country and ended...well, if you're a corporation it still hasn't ended, they're just politer about pushing you out of the way, but the right to do it for regular people only ended in the last century or so. It was also traditional to take our children and indoctrinate them into Christianity while forbidding them from speaking their own language so they wouldn't grow up to be foul savages like their parents were.

Tradition is the diametric opposite of progress. All progress has to be clawed from the clutches of people that scream about how important tradition is. The idea that we should always do things a certain way because we've always done them this way would have us eating our rancid meat raw and sleeping in a tree so the wolves couldn't eat us.

No, I was never my own worst enemy. The hicks I grew up with that I was in constant fights with over not going to church until I finally quit/expelled from high school were my worst enemies then. People that enable that kind of stuff are my enemies now. (Not you or anyone on DU. That's all on Republicans.)

Basically my argument is "Fuck tradition and fuck precedent. He had to do it to keep a bunch of people from going nuts and that's fine. I'd have done it too.". Hrm. I wonder if invoking deities so people won't go nuts has become a tradition too?

[nadinbrzezinski]

196. And my point is that this battle is not picked

With the inauguration. It is picked where it leads to cultural changes. Even the abolitionists, especially the abolitionists, understood this.

Have a good day...

I am getting a head ache from doing this.



Oh and where you pick the real battle, that is real work.

[jeff47]

198. When, exactly, should this battle be picked?

A couple weeks from now when you'll tell us "It's done. Get over it?"

[riderinthestorm]

185. In post 51, Nadin tells us that ceremonies are NOT the place to pick a battle. At least now atheists

get to start somewhere according to the evolution of this thread....

So I guess that's progress?!

[MindPilot]

173. There are hundreds of pending lawsuits over prayer at the municipal level.

In hundreds of different communities that "battle" is already being fought. Dozens of lawsuits have been filed to secularize the pledge and the money. And yes lawsuits have been filed to remove the church service from the Inauguration. Real people are out there doing real activism every day. Anything else you need explained?

[Demo_Chris]

156. Well said!

[Number23]

201. Atheists are minorities?

[jeff47]

208. Do you have another term for 20% of the population? (nt)

[Number23]

211. How about calling them "20% of the population"?

The term "minority" doesn't have anything to do with one's beliefs. If that were the case, Jehova's Witnesses would be considered as such.

[jeff47]

217. Minority has no skin color requirement.

To be a minority, you just have to be less than 1/2 the population.

Jehova's Witnesses are quite outside mainstream Christiandom, and so are frequently considered a minority. Much like Mormons. That isn't true of most other sects of Christianity, because most of them are quite similar. Thus Baptists, Methodists and Catholics aren't considered minorities.

"Minority" has no skin color requirement. Though people with certain skin colors are minorities.

[Number23]

219. Skin color is only one component of being a minority

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minority_group

Feagin (1984) [3] states that a minority group has five characteristics: (1) suffering discrimination and subordination, (2) physical and/or cultural traits that set them apart, and which are disapproved by the dominant group, (3) a shared sense of collective identity and common burdens, (4) socially shared rules about who belongs and who does not determine minority status, and (5) tendency to marry within the group.

I don't think that atheists apply as minorities. Though I'm sure that individual atheists have faced discrimination, there is little documented evidence of systemic (institutionalized) discrimination against atheists as opposed to women and people of color etc.

[jeff47]

234. You don't think it applies when all 5 of your quoted criteria apply?

First, you are confusing the concept of a protected minority with minority in general. But let's go with your misunderstanding anyway.

1) You gonna pretend prayer in school, nativity scenes, "under God" plastered everywhere, and a host of other lawsuits don't or didn't happen? You gonna pretend people don't get fired for being atheists? (I have). There are polls asking, "would you vote for a president who is a ______?". In such polls, atheist does worse than any non-felon. For example, "gay" beats "atheist" by 15%.

2) Atheists don't go to church. Nor do they pray. And sometimes, we point out that forcing us to pray isn't something for us to just "get over". That's different cultural traits that sets us apart, and is disapproved by the dominant group.

3) While not all atheists belong to a group, there are many atheist groups.

4) Who belongs: People who don't believe in God. Who does not: People who believe in God.

5) Atheists tend to marry atheists. Just like members of religions tend to marry within their religion.

Though I'm sure that individual atheists have faced discrimination, there is little documented evidence of systemic (institutionalized) discrimination against atheists

Seriously? How, exactly, did you make this statement without instantly realizing it was false? Never heard of 'school prayer' or a host of other lawsuits that reached the SCOTUS?

But back to your original error: discrimination is only a criteria for legal protection of a minority. The minority exists regardless of discrimination.

[Number23]

238. Wow. Truly a case of someone seeing what they want to see

School prayer may infringe on an atheists' ability to not be confronted with religion, but NO WHERE have atheists been denied rights as per the laws of this country.

Blacks have been denied the right to vote, own housing, hell even READ. Women have been denied the right to vote. Gays have been denied the right to marry. Arabs (regardless of religion) and Hispanics -- minority groups because of physical and cultural characteristics -- face immeasurable times more discrimination in terms of employment and housing than atheists. There is not one single RIGHT that has been SYSTEMATICALLY (again, institutionalized within laws) denied to atheists. And the fact that you have to bring in polls (POLLS!!) shows me that you probably know all of this already.

I thought showing you the five criteria would be enlightening, but somehow you have concluded that ALL FIVE relate to atheists. I would have conceded that there have been individual instances of 1 and 3 happening, but I don't see how a reasonable person can conclude that atheists have endured all five.

Again, wow.

[jeff47]

262. Perhaps when you manage to figure out that your first sentence is completely contradictory

you might start understanding this.

Our Constitution enumerates the right of freedom of religion - the government can not favor any religion. It's a right, and it's denied by the very school prayer issue you deride.

There is not one single RIGHT that has been SYSTEMATICALLY (again, institutionalized within laws) denied to atheists.

As long as you don't think there's any rights being discussed in that whole 'first amendment' thing.

And the fact that you have to bring in polls (POLLS!!) shows me that you probably know all of this already.

Public opinion polls, shockingly enough, show public opinion. When discussing if a minority is discriminated against by the general public, the opinion of the general public is quite helpful.

I thought showing you the five criteria would be enlightening, but somehow you have concluded that ALL FIVE relate to atheists.

Yeah, and I noticed you didn't manage to refute any of them. You just decided to fly off the handle. So what, specifically, is wrong with those 5 responses?

I would have conceded that there have been individual instances of 1 and 3 happening, but I don't see how a reasonable person can conclude that atheists have endured all five.

And I haven't personally seen anyone discriminate against a black man - just hasn't happened in my personal life. Yet I don't think I'm so special that I have seen everything.

[Number23]

284. The three of you doing the "atheists are minorities" argument are something

You are operating solely on emotion and are desperately trying to project that on to me. I'm not emotional in the least. I just think this entire line of conversation is bizarre and I am going to treat this in the same vein as Republicans who compare some discrimination they've faced to what blacks endured in the Jim Crow South.

If you have to quote polls (POLLS!!!!!) to bolster your belief that you have been discriminated against, THAT SAYS IT ALL. And the fact that you don't see that it says it all, SAYS IT ALL.

I personally believe that atheists have faced discrimination and are an underrepresented group in politics. But your "because we are small in number that makes us a minority" goes against every credible definition, historical and present, of what a minority is.

And to top all of this off, the fact that you end your ridiculous rant with:

And I haven't personally seen anyone discriminate against a black man - just hasn't happened in my personal life.

says EVERYTHING I need to know about you and your beliefs and perceptions and what you think a cogent and respectful conversation is. We're done here.

[jeff47]

315. If that was true, you wouldn't have so much trouble answering the question

What, exactly, is wrong with those 5 responses above?

I'll happily keep asking.

You are operating solely on emotion and are desperately trying to project that on to me. I'm not emotional in the least.

If this was true, you wouldn't have so much trouble answering simple questions.

If you have to quote polls (POLLS!!!!!) to bolster your belief that you have been discriminated against, THAT SAYS IT ALL.

So you're operating under the illusion that blacks were viewed favorably in public opinion polls during the Jim Crow era?

You've yet to demonstrate any reason why a public opinion poll is a poor way to measure public opinion. And since discrimination is very tied to public opinion, it's quite relevant.

I personally believe that atheists have faced discrimination and are an underrepresented group in politics. But your "because we are small in number that makes us a minority" goes against every credible definition, historical and present, of what a minority is.

Except for any definitions you've quoted.

And to top all of this off, the fact that you end your ridiculous rant with:

And I haven't personally seen anyone discriminate against a black man - just hasn't happened in my personal life.


says EVERYTHING I need to know about you and your beliefs and perceptions and what you think a cogent and respectful conversation is.

That would be relevant if I was arguing discrimination against blacks didn't happen. But I'm not. Instead, you're saying because you haven't seen discrimination against atheists, it doesn't happen.

The fact that you rail against such a position is extremely amusing. Especially when you keep insisting that you're so unemotional.

[Major Nikon]

362. Your own definition betrays your reasoning

Furthermore, had you bothered to get past the definition from your own cite, you might have found this...

Religious minorities

...

A 2006 study suggests that atheists constitute a religious minority in the United States, with researchers concluding: "Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in 'sharing their vision of American society.' Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry."[10]

[Number23]

369. "suggests"

Thanks.

[Major Nikon]

376. Which "suggests" your opinion is very poorly supported

By your own cite, no less.

[Number23]

377. If you believe that one, yes ONE, study conducted in 2006

Which says that atheists MAY be religious minorities makes the case, then I can understand why that one bit of the Wikipedia info is so critical to you. If that is all it takes for you to be convinced, then I am by no means the one with the "poorly supported" argument.

Atheists have been around for thousands of years. According to Wiki, one -- yes, that is ONE -- study conducted more than six years ago "suggests" that they are a religious minority is hardly conclusive to anyone that's not already trying really, really hard to be convinced by something.

[Major Nikon]

378. I'm already convinced

As a non-believer I have to live with the attitudes and bigotry of believers who feel superior to non-believers.

You're the one trying to convince me otherwise and you are doing a very poor job of it. I can cite numerous studies (yes, more than just "ONE&quot . The reason I pointed to the "ONE" study was it could be found on the very same place you claimed supported your assertion that atheists weren't a minority. I can also cite numerous polls going back 40 years that show atheists are the most despised and distrusted people in America. The only thing you appear able to cite is your own opinion and a wiki page which says exactly the opposite of what you're claiming.

[Number23]

387. I posted the link because of the five criteria that is used in academic circles to define

a minority. There is perhaps one that applies to atheists and that's the one about discrimination.

And I'm not trying to convince you of anything. You leapt in after the conversation ended hours ago. I've said that I don't believe that atheists qualify as minorities in the historical and present definition of the term and my link bolsters that belief.

The fact that there is one item that says that ONE study suggests that they might, possibly, could be religious minorities does nothing but prove my point. On that same page there is a plethora of information that states unequivocally that women, people of color and gays qualify as minorities. That you cling so desperately to one extraordinarily tenuous and inconclusive line leaves no doubt that you are "already convinced."

[Major Nikon]

388. All five applied

This has already been explained to you more than once. Even if this wasn't so (and it is) the five criteria you listed are hardly all inclusive because women most certainly are a minority and your criteria 2, 4, and 5 don't apply to them even though you admit yourself that women are a minority.

I highly doubt you even read the University of Minnesota study before you summarily dismissed it as 'suggestion' (as if any study does anything more). I also explained to you that it wasn't the only one out there, which you apparently ignored because you are still claiming that's the only evidence out there (it isn't, by far).

Obviously you are trying to convince someone of something because you keep repeating things ad nauseum which have already been well debunked by myself and others. I never questioned that women, people of color, or the LGBT community was anything other than minority. Why you would offer that as somehow a contradiction of anything I claimed is anyone's guess. However, if I wanted to play by your rules and dismiss relevant evidence for no good reason while offering none in support of my own assertions, it's hard to imagine how you could prove anyone is a minority. Believe whatever you want to believe. Everyone has an opinion. Some are just better supported and more relevant. I'm not going to try to convince you of anything either as obviously your mind was well made up before you made your first post. My only goal was to debunk obvious errors. I'm quite satisfied this has been accomplished.

Cheers!

[Number23]

390. One, possibly two of the criteria applied

No one has debunked anything. And the fact that you and your one friend think that all five criteria apply including the one about sharing similar physical and cultural traits is a sign of your own desperation, not mine. So is atheism a culture now, instead of a belief? Exactly how far are you going to move those goal posts before you call it quits?

Yes, the only thing you've proven is the depths that some people will go to prove (mostly to themselves) that they have been disenfranchised. Yes, cheers indeed. See ya!

[Major Nikon]

392. That's your opinion which you have not supported with anything other than subterfuge

Atheism most certainly is a culture, as much as anything else is a culture. Pretending it's not does not make it so and frankly I find the suggestion subliterate.

The goalposts were yours, not mine. Even if you could somehow support your assertion that atheists don't meet your criteria (and you haven't), the definition you provided for a minority group is certainly not the only academic one out there. The problem you run into when wiki is your only reference is you miss out on quite a bit. I also pointed out that women would most certainly not meet your own criteria, which demonstrates your definition is far from absolute.

2) the dominate group doesn't disapprove of the cultural and/or physical characteristics of women. Definition not met.
5) Women don't tend to marry each other. Definition not met.

Rather than deal with that flaw in your argument, you simply ignored it. Diversion noted. You also summarily ignored this from your own reference, "Cultural diversity definitions can be as controversial as diversity projects and initiatives."

Sociologists and other fully literate people routinely refer to atheists as a minorities. You could see for yourself in the following links, but given your propensity to pretend relevant facts don't exist leads me to believe you won't.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201205/atheists-the-last-minority-get-civil-rights
http://www1.umn.edu/news/news-releases/2006/UR_RELEASE_MIG_2816.html
http://www.publicaffairs.ubc.ca/2011/11/30/ubc-study-explores-distrust-of-atheists-by-believers/
http://books.google.com/books?id=Sxd-zmTsyyMC&dq=A+Sociological+Study+of+Atheism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pR3_UIHdJoTs2QWgsIGQDg&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-04-29/opinions/35231017_1_atheists-religious-states-ban-on-religious-tests
http://asr.sagepub.com/content/71/2/211.abstract
http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199588961.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199588961-e-018
http://theweek.com/article/index/226625/the-rise-of-atheism-in-america
http://www.psmag.com/culture/distrust-powers-anti-atheist-prejudice-37784/
http://diverseeducation.com/article/5780/
http://digitalcommons.olin.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1019&context=ahs_capstone_2009
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/apr/15/scientific-caution-atheism-debate
http://www.science20.com/science_20/blog/atheists_minority_its_okay_stereotype-78571
http://www.alternet.org/story/151241/10_scariest_states_to_be_an_atheist

Cheers!

[Number23]

393. So atheism is now a culture, not a belief

A culture founded in support of particular beliefs sounds a hell of a lot like a religion to me.

And as my link shows that minority status has nothing to do with numbers and is in effect pertains to political power/clout which would most definitely put women in that criteria.

Your comment about the second criteria:

2) the dominate group doesn't disapprove of the cultural and/or physical characteristics of women. Definition not met.

says everything that needs to be said and explains your mindset more than any of the other drivel you've typed much as your little friends' comment about "never seeing a black man be discriminated against" said about his.

I even mentioned in another post that in South Africa, though whites would be the minority (to use your laughably unsophisticated definition of the word) in terms of numbers, by every ACADEMIC definition of the word minority, they would not be considered minorities. But hey, I can understand why you'd choose to believe otherwise. You've run yourself in so many circles that I'm not surprised you're a bit lost and dizzy.

And it absolutely boggles my mind that you honestly believe that your links saying that the public distrusts atheists means anything regarding acquiring GENUINE minority status in this country. And even your links saying that atheists are a minority are full of anecdotal information and it's all about the public "not liking" atheists, not ONE WORD about being denied rights. Alot of people don't like Congress either and they represent a small portion of the population too. Does that make Congress a minority now too?

Go up thread. Someone posted a link of states that don't allow atheists to hold public office. That one post is worth all 50 of yours in this thread as that is something that comes close to detailing actual discrimination which comes a hell of a lot closer to identifying minority status than anything you've posted, your numerous cited polls (POLLS!!!!!) notwithstanding.

So bored with this now.

[Major Nikon]

395. It seems the more you get backed into a corner, the snarkier you get

A culture founded in support of particular beliefs sounds a hell of a lot like a religion to me.

It's not, so it's anyone's guess what you are trying to say here.

And as my link shows that minority status has nothing to do with numbers and is in effect pertains to political power/clout which would most definitely put women in that criteria.

I never claimed women aren't a minority group. I'm saying your definition, if strictly adhered to as you seem to think it should be, would specifically exclude women as a minority group. Was this not clear enough?

Your comment about the second criteria:

2) the dominate group doesn't disapprove of the cultural and/or physical characteristics of women. Definition not met.

says everything that needs to be said and explains your mindset more than any of the other drivel you've typed much as your little friends' comment about "never seeing a black man be discriminated against" said about his.

I didn't find an argument there anywhere. Just your opinion which I place no value on. Apparently you can't address #2 and you completely ignored #5, as if I wouldn't notice.

I even mentioned in another post that in South Africa, though whites would be the minority (to use your laughably unsophisticated definition of the word) in terms of numbers, by every ACADEMIC definition of the word minority, they would not be considered minorities. But hey, I can understand why you'd choose to believe otherwise. You've run yourself in so many circles that I'm not surprised you're a bit lost and dizzy.

I didn't define the term. You did. I've never mentioned anything other than your definition in this entire thread. So if you think it's laughable and unsophisticated, you don't have far to go for blame.

And it absolutely boggles my mind that you honestly believe that your links saying that the public distrusts atheists means anything regarding acquiring GENUINE minority status in this country. And even your links saying that atheists are a minority are full of anecdotal information and it's all about the public "not liking" atheists, not ONE WORD about being denied rights. Alot of people don't like Congress either and they represent a small portion of the population too. Does that make Congress a minority now too?

I never claimed my links demonstrated public distrust of atheists. You can go back and read what I actually claimed and argue from that basis if you like. I find your strawman tactic of pretending I claimed something I never did and arguing from that basis quite dishonest. I also never claimed qualification of a minority group requires a "small portion of the population too." So you managed to work in two strawmen in one paragraph here. Furthermore whatever evidence I've presented is head and shoulders above what you've offered which is nothing more than a wiki page that says exactly the opposite of your claim. Everything else is simply your opinion based on a definition that you can't even reconcile with other minority groups.

Go up thread. Someone posted a link of states that don't allow atheists to hold public office. That one post is worth all 50 of yours in this thread as that is something that comes close to detailing actual discrimination which comes a hell of a lot closer to identifying minority status than anything you've posted, your numerous cited polls (POLLS!!!!!) notwithstanding.

You never disputed atheists weren't discriminated against. Why should I waste time arguing something you've already conceded?

So bored with this now.

It might be more interesting if you could actually discuss a topic without subterfuge, logical fallacies, and condescension in lieu of reason.

[Number23]

396. So bored with this. The five criteria say it all

I never claimed women aren't a minority group. I'm saying your definition, if strictly adhered to as you seem to think it should be, would specifically exclude women as a minority group. Was this not clear enough?

Do you even read what you write? By my OWN DEFINITION supported by my OWN LINK, women are considered minorities beyond all doubt. This is easily the stupidest conversation I have ever had.

You are speaking with riddles. You have no point. There is not one shred of credible evidence to support your view. The best you have ever been able to come up with is "well, women must not be minorities either" and "read these 18 polls that say how disliked atheists are. That MUST make us a minority."

This is beyond boring. You have no point and no evidence. I've gotten about 6 PM's from people laughing their asses off at your responses. You have not convinced anyone -- beyond YOURSELF. You have no point and NO EVIDENCE. Done.

[Major Nikon]

398. So what exactly is your argument?

Once again you have simply ignored my points even though I took the time to address each one of yours. If you can't afford me the same consideration I'm giving your arguments, I'm not really sure why you persist. You might as well just say, I'm right, you're wrong, nah, nah, nah. It adds the same value to the discussion.

Do you even read what you write? By my OWN DEFINITION supported by my OWN LINK, women are considered minorities beyond all doubt. This is easily the stupidest conversation I have ever had.

Then how does #5 apply? If you can't explain this, then there's no reason to believe your statement is correct. It's that simple really. The claim that I'm saying women aren't a minority is strawman which I have already covered. You're simply going around in circles.

You are speaking with riddles. You have no point. There is not one shred of credible evidence to support your view. The best you have ever been able to come up with is "well, women must not be minorities either" and "read these 18 polls that say how disliked atheists are. That MUST make us a minority."

I could care less how many PMs you get. If those people can't articulate their reasons publicly, there's no reason to suspect their arguments hold any more water than yours. If you have to resort to condescension to make your arguments, that reflects poorly on you, not me. I've already explained to you what those links were for, twice and twice you have pretended I claimed something else. That's strawman. That's what it looks like. It's intellectual dishonesty. It doesn't work on me. I'm simply going to point out your obvious and now almost certainly intentional error. The evidence I provided was that lots of people from academia, relevant professions, and the media routinely refer to atheists as minorities. That is evidence. That's what it looks like. Pretending it doesn't exist doesn't fly. You have yet to even address that fact so one can only assume you have absolutely no answer for it. And where is your evidence exactly? I have yet to see it.

You have not explained how atheists don't meet all five of the criterion you supplied for your own definition. The best you've even attempted is to discount one by claiming atheism isn't a culture which is completely ridiculous.

I'm completely convinced you're convinced you're right. That doesn't mean I'm wrong. If you can't lay out your argument logically and address each of your criteria with reason and evidence, then your argument has little to no value. Strawman, subterfuge, and condescension doesn't work on me and I'm simply going to point out your obvious errors. I suggest you try another tactic.

[Number23]

404. You don't even know what strawmen or subterfuge are

Which explains why you have no idea what a minority is.

Here is another set of criteria: http://academic.udayton.edu/race/01race/minor01.htm

Characteristics of a Minority Group

Distinguishing physical or cultural traits, e.g. skin color or language

Unequal Treatment and Less Power over their lives

Involuntary membership in the group (no personal choice)

Awareness of subordination and strong sense of group solidarity

High In-group Marriage


If you can look at those five criteria and believe that ALL FIVE apply to atheists, then I can understand beyond all doubt why this tedious, pointless conversation has gone on as long as it has. I'm sure you'll be along any second now to tell me once again how atheism is a culture (LORD, have mercy) and not a belief (and surely that explains why my comment that a culture formed on (non)spiritual beliefs sounds like a religion to me flew right over your head). And then you'll tell me how you entered into this belief entirely involuntarily and how once again all five criteria apply to atheists blah blah blah, no matter how entirely ridiculous and in desperate need of perspective and a history lesson it makes you look.

I began this conversation by saying that I don't believe that atheists qualify as minorities. Thank you for proving my point, although totally unwittingly, over and over and over and over again. By every definition that I've found of what a minority is, atheists do not apply.

Now you can continue to sputter and spout, and post the most absurd things but at this point, you are talking to yourself. Have a nice life.

[Major Nikon]

405. You still haven't made an argument

All you've done is listed a set of criteria and then effectively said, 'there is its, that's why you're wrong'. All that says is that it's wrong by your opinion (which you have not even begun to support). I don't consider your opinion authoritative or even of much value. So if you can't articulate why you believe atheists aren't a minority, you haven't made an argument. Try actually making an argument and explaining why you don't think those things apply and people might start to take you more seriously. It's already been explained to you how the previous set of criteria you provided was met. The idea that "minority group" has some kind of concrete definition as you pretend is preposterous in the first place. All sorts of definitions exist both in colloquial and scholarly circles. Even the two definitions you provided don't match each other and if you had bothered to read a bit farther from your latest link you might have discovered this...

women demonstrate four out of five characteristics of minority status. There are no in-group marriages

In your last post you were quite sure women met all five of your stated criteria. Once again your own references prove you have little knowledge of the subject matter or the ability to digest it.

Once again you resort to condescension in lieu of argument. All that really does is demonstrate how weak your opinion was all along. I could really care less if you respond or not. I've already said my only objective was to point out your obvious errors.

[Warren Stupidity]

236. Physical OR cultural traits. Secularism is a cultural trait. Definition applies.

Note also the language of the 1964 civil rights act:
"without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

Because in fact discrimination against religious minorities, including atheists, is a reality.

[Number23]

239. The Civil Rights Act doesn't define what is and is not a minority

Just what are civil rights.

And no one has said or is saying that discrimination against members of religions doesn't happen. That has never been the thrust of this conversation, no matter how many of you decide you need to pile on right now.

[JoeyT]

216. What percentage of the population are atheists?

Even if we broaden the term to agnostics, nones, non-religious, etc we're looking at what...15% of the population at best.

The short answer is: Yes, atheists are a minority. It doesn't seem like it in major cities, but the wrong areas are downright scary.

[Number23]

221. Being a minority is not only about being a small member or group of a population

In South Africa, there are fewer whites than blacks but they are not a minority.

Feagin (1984) [3] states that a minority group has five characteristics: (1) suffering discrimination and subordination, (2) physical and/or cultural traits that set them apart, and which are disapproved by the dominant group, (3) a shared sense of collective identity and common burdens, (4) socially shared rules about who belongs and who does not determine minority status, and (5) tendency to marry within the group.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minority_group

[JoeyT]

254. Which of those don't atheists meet?

I grew up a biracial atheist kid in the rural south. The trouble I got from the racists absolutely paled in comparison to what I got from religious people for refusing to go out and pray at the flag pole and refusing to go to church.

Atheists don't have a physical characteristic that sets them apart, but neither do LGBT people. Do you claim they aren't an oppressed minority?

[Number23]

270. Wow. You've outdone yourself

I thought the entire conversation was bizarre but now we've gotten to the mindlessly idiotic.

Now you've launched the "but what about gay people" defense as if what gays have endured has ANYTHING to do what atheists have. That's usually the sign of someone who's acknowledged they're betting on a losing end of a battle.

Good luck with... whatever you're trying to do here. Looks like you're going to need it.

[JoeyT]

290. I've outdone myself?

Someone demands the majority group be allowed to define not only what a minority is, but if it classifies as a minority?

I guess we should let white guys define what racism is, if we're going to let Christians insist atheists don't face oppression.

I notice you didn't actually address my point, other than to pull outrage out of your ass and declare victory. I kind of figured that was going to happen. I even gave you the benefit of the doubt and didn't laugh at you over googling "minority" until you found a definition you thought *might* let you exclude atheists.

I realize it's uncomfortable to acknowledge that your group is privileged, which is why there are a bunch of "How dare you say I'm a privileged white man, I've blah blah blah!!!" threads every time it gets brought up. Refusing to acknowledge privilege doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[Number23]

292. I don't need to Google what a minority is. I AM a minority

I am a black woman. There ain't one DAMN THING you can say to me about being a minority. I brought that definition in in an (I see now completely futile) effort to try to educate you and your tiny group of friends spouting nonsense about things you couldn't possibly comprehend.

And if you think that as an atheist white man, I somehow as a black woman have any "privilege" over you, you just prove exactly why that Wikipedia link was so desperately needed.

And this is not about defining what "racism" or discrimination is. This is about defining WHAT IS A MINORITY. The fact that you are so hysterical right now lets me know you don't get it and likely never will hence the REPEATED need to change the subject.

[Fumesucker]

302. You are the one shouting, that normally indicated "hysteria"

[Number23]

306. You again? You should rename yourself The Interjector

I'd ask you to put me on ignore but Good Grief, it is so obvious that you live for this stuff and this is probably the only way you can get people to respond to you.

I am typing. How you can discern "shouting" from typing (and not even all caps typing) is beyond me. If it were just about anyone else, I'd ask what you were talking about. But you... well, who cares?

[Fumesucker]

308. Online typing caps is considered shouting, I'm sure you know that by now

In fact I know very well how to get a lot of responses, here's my recipe.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1240208988

Unlike the OP of this thread though I choose not to do that.

[JoeyT]

303. Atheist white man?

Where did you get that? Did you even read what I wrote? I grew up a biracial atheist in the south. Biracial white men are few and far between, unless you think there are multiple races of white.

I wasn't hysterical before, and I'm not hysterical now. (I hate that word. I'm just confused. I'm not sure who you're arguing with, because it isn't me. It's almost like you had a preconceived notion of what an atheist was and automatically assumed that's what I was, even though what I wrote was the exact opposite. Man, I wish there was a word to describe that. That seems like it would be useful.

[Number23]

310. You started the argument. My first entry was to ask you were atheists minorities

You and jeffwhatever took off. This is obviously something you guys fight about alot so anytime anyone asks it's like setting off a powder keg. I have never seen atheists (and I know several) refer to themselves as minorities and so I asked about it. I was genuinely interested.

I am weary and put off by this entire discussion now. And adding insult to injury, the ever so tiring and tiresome Fumeseeker has just decided to put in his two (make that negative two) cents so I'm done now.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm done.

[JoeyT]

318. We likely disagree less than it would seem.

Atheists aren't racial minorities, no. And in general they don't get the same kind of stuff as racial minorities, or at least the stuff they face is what's on the low end of the scale for racial minorities and LGBT people.

Being an atheist can get you fired or keep you from being hired, it might even get you punched. Being a racial or gender minority can get you drug behind a truck, tied to a post and beaten to death, or burned alive, to name a few from recent memory. All in addition to keeping you from being hired.

Anti-atheist hate crime legislation isn't real high on my list of priorities. Not only is it not real high on my list of priorities, I'd never even thought the phrase until I typed those words.

I've had the same argument we were having and been arguing it from your end before, too. I don't take issue with "Atheist = minority" or "Atheists can be oppressed". I take lots of issue with "Atheists are as oppressed as <race> <sexuality>".

[Number23]

320. Too bad cooler heads couldn't have prevailed in the beginning because I'm pretty much done now

We'll have to try again another day because my interest in this topic right now is in the very high negatives.

I didn't read this particular post from you but I did read the one before and I saw where you identified yourself as bi-racial. I apologize for calling you a white man. Since you didn't identify which race(s) you were halves of I just assumed you must look (and thus be treated as) white which I shouldn't have.

[bowens43]

157. Gods are mans worst invention

Trying to pass off mythology as truth does only harm. It's very sad that so many cling to this nonsense.

[nadinbrzezinski]

161. But the Inaugural is not the place to fight that fight

The first Inaugural had some spirited debate...first amendment and all that. Jefferson was not happy.

In the end they decided to leave that alone, part of the public sphere. We have had two other times IMO it could have changed...civil war and New Deal.

Right now it is not one of them. It could be one of many possible sparks fora hot war.

You want to pick that fight... Start with your city council, the pledge is also a good point, and Bellamy did not have god anywhere in it.

[Demo_Chris]

170. The battle has to be won on the ground before it can go to Washington

I am not surprised, offended, or disappointed that President Obama (and everyone else) felt compelled to mention God. They pretty much have to today, but if we want that to change in the future we need to speak up every time it comes up.

[nadinbrzezinski]

172. You risk the child who cried wolf syndrome.

[Festivito]

162. That's a lot of adverbs on adjectives, subject changes, and condescension you're gonna get.

I especially liked absolutely and utterly appalled because I cannot figure out which adverb is strongest.

To the logical atheists, I wish you well. The rest, I hope there is wellness in your future.

[nadinbrzezinski]

164. My apologies my good sir, for I wrote English

Not American. (Now that is condescension)

[BlueStreak]

165. Enjoy that nice straw man

I have heard coverage all day and I have not one word of what you are complaining about.

If you look hard, I'm sure you can find an atheist that will point out the stupidity of lacing our official speeches with incantations to the supernatural when we ought to be taking responsibility for our actions here on earth. But you would have to really go out of your way to find that.

Straw wan arguments are BS.

[nadinbrzezinski]

167. Alas my good sir

We are reading a different blogging site called DU...I ain't talking of the ceremony, but you knew that. Would you like some wine with the straw?

[Duppers]

168. this atheist agrees with you

100%

I recognize the need to honor traditions and to not alienated the majority, even though
I disagree with the homage to superstitions. I'll honor that need and shall not criticize.

[JohnnyRingo]

169. I'm a non-believer, and I don't mind.

As long as the government doesn't make me personally swear devotion to a superior power, we'll get along just fine.

I can spend God entrusted money with the best of them too, but I'm not so insecure in my beliefs that I feel I'm taking a religious vow everytime I buy something.

I'm sorry if some here are making a big deal about it, and I don't want to get any of that on me from a broad brush stroke.

[nadinbrzezinski]

171. Yup, it's about some.

We need that fight. But there are more significant places than. Money is another one f them. That 1950s tradition gotta go.

[alarimer]

176. This is officially a secular country.

We have no official religion and all religion should be banned from the public sphere for that reason.

Traditions must be destroyed. Nothing good comes from leaning on tradition at the expense of progress in a more secular direction.

[nadinbrzezinski]

177. A few nations have fought civil wars over that point.

The fight should be fought...the inaugural is not the place to start...serious.

[longship]

182. To those lamely justifying turning the inauguration into a fucking church service

What I am reading is nothing but a bunch of non sequiturs.

It doesn't matter how many presidents prayed or had prayers said at their inaugurations.

It fucking does not matter how many people in the US are Christians, or Jews, or Moslems, or Buddhists, or atheists. What matters is that we are a country with all of them. That is what all of you who bow down on your knees whenever President Obama invokes God are forgetting. you hear and see validation in your own belief, and that makes you feel really good.

I feel sorry for you when you look to an elected official for validation. If, in 2016 for instance, if a Buddhist were elected president, would you embrace that, too? Or, maybe he or she really was a Moslem? Would you embrace a Jew or a Moslem or a Seventh Day Adventist who postponed his or her inaugural because it happened on a Saturday the same way that presidential inaugurations have been postponed because they've happened on the Christian sabbath, Sunday?

I see nothing but hypocrisy here, the only solution to which is to cast off the religious veil from our country's most important sacrament -- so to speak. It is by law a secular event. Since the first, people have attempted to turn into precisely what the founding of our nation stood against, that God gave somebody the right to lead us. If you disagree, read again that treasonous document signed during the summer of 1776 which, at its core, rejected any such divine right.

So wrap your conscience in the comforting blanket of god, but it has no place, and no purpose, in our president's inauguration. That's what set the US apart from the rest.

How silly it is to not see this. How naive it is to not be uncomfortable about it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

186. Well, this had no more or less God than

The Carter inaugural, which I remember, distantly

The order of it is the same, from records, as the Washington Inaugural. They did have that discussion, those founders did. But the order, and the invocation are the same as the First President. So I guess Washington had a church service.



I know some would prefer the Mexican inauguration, no invocations, no mentions of god, just an oath. Care for the few civil wars that preceded that?

[longship]

192. Jesus! (So to speak)

Talk about non sequiturs!

Every thing you wrote was irrelevant to the Constitutional inauguration of the US president.

If I had my way it would take place as it did yesterday -- a Sunday, the sabbath to some, but not so to many others -- with just the family and an official administrator. If there were prayers, it would be a private matter, if the official prompted "...so help me god" that also would be a private matter.

Maybe I would have a party or two, but the one thing I would not do is use an inauguration to impose my religiosity on the country. If you do not understand that this is wrong in the US, I don't know if there is much hope for you. Let's start with the fact that the official inauguration was not held yesterday because it happened on the Christian sabbath -- and only on the Christian sabbath.

I rest my case.

[nadinbrzezinski]

193. The Mexican model works too

Taken in the Well of the Senate, go home...maybe a speech. It is a work day.

Alas, this is a civic holiday in the US. Jesus on a stick, really.

[longship]

199. I am really sorry, Nadine.

I agree with you on many things, and have been a huge fanboy of your posts for many years here on DU.

But, as one who sees the mixing of religion and governance for what harm it has given our planet, and continues to do so, I cannot in good conscience agree with such sentiments as expressed in your OP.

Here, I cannot support you.

However, as always, I will continue to support you where I can, as I see you as a considerable benefit to the DU community. But not on this.

I am sorry. This country is being torn apart by religious intrusion into politics, as has always happened. I can no longer stand aside while this is apologized for.

I would suggest that the only reason that Obama does it is to pull a rope-a-dope on the religious right. However, I think that Barack Obama is religious, an attribute for which I do not judge him, but one that I fervently wish he would keep to himself. I really do not care what the president believes; I care what he does. That's all that matters to me.

But the inauguration is not a freaking church service.

As always,

[nadinbrzezinski]

202. You want to change it

Start by changing the culture.

1.- remove "in god we trust" from money, a relic of the Cold War

2.- Remove "god" from the Pledge, another creation of the Cold War.

3.- Remove prayers and invocations from city Councils on up...including Congress

4.- keep religion out of public school.

Removing invocations from the inaugural will take a lot of changes well before you can do it in the Inaugural, the US s in theory a secular country. In practice it really is not. Any other method you are facing a civil war.

But you start with the first two, where there is clear precedent. Look, you tell me the damage. I come from a country with strict separation of church state...really...it took three major civil wars to do it. So sorry if I prefer the generational aproach to the bullet riddled one.

Now if we end up in a civil war, and your side wins, time to do a few radical changes...

[longship]

212. Small steps, my dear friend.

You cannot eat the whole elephant in one swallow. It has to be consumed a spoonful at a time, hopefully with yummy sauce.

I agree. But the little skirmishes you cite are also part of the bigger battle. Some I agree with, others not so. As an atheist, I also have to be pragmatic. What works?

I really like what the LGBT community has done. They have to be the model, as they will no doubt be utimately successful, just as MLK Jr and his agenda.

Cultural changes take a generation or many generations. What we all need to realize is that we fight these battles not for us, but for our progeny. We can give them a better world. But it takes a lot of work, and it takes time to change such inbred culture.

I would be proud to be standing beside you, my friend.

[nadinbrzezinski]

223. Why up thread I gave the example of Rosa Parks.

She was not the first to sit at the front of the bus. The NCAAP knew that test cases need perfect plaintiffs.

People need to be mindful, and screaming every four years...does not help.

That said, the Battle Hymn of the Republic was chosen for far more than it's mention of God. It is steeped in both the abolitionist movement and the Civil War...and a direct link to POTUS's favorite President, nope not Reagan...Lincoln. Reagan is up there, but truly, this President had a lot of references to Lincoln in the inaugural. To the point I was waiting for that famous line, "with malice towards none."


Suffice it to say Shumer, a Jew, chose it as the head of the committee is also a direct link to the Civil Rights movement. This is when the children of many holocaust survivors marched along side African Americans and registered people during that fateful Freedom Summer.

I love trying to devise why things are chosen in the few things that change from inaugural to inaugural. No choice is accidental. None. And that goes also for who gives what.

[Coyotl]

288. ^^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^^^ +1000000000000000

[diabeticman]

200. Just a note of fact: The Oath orginally did not contain "SO HELP ME GOD" that was an add on by

George Washington.

[riderinthestorm]

204. Oh that's all historical and stuff...

FWIW, I'm finding the argument that we must cling to these religious "traditions" because they're, well, traditional so it can't be critiqued or commented on, I'm thinking that this argument is antithetical to our history.

[nadinbrzezinski]

205. It's been there ever since, right?

[jeff47]

210. Actually, no. It's still not there.

The fact that it's ok to shit on part of the population by re-inserting it doesn't suddenly make it appear in the Constitution.

[riderinthestorm]

213. Uh, NO, its NOT in the Constitution!

""I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

No, its not.

[RedCappedBandit]

220. Same sort of logic used to justify the right wing's stance on gay marriage, etc.

nonsense, in other words.

[nadinbrzezinski]

225. I recommend you read how that battle has been fought

Suffice it to say, none started by a frontal attack.

[Fumesucker]

233. A comment on a discussion board is a "frontal attack"?

Any lower and that bar would be underground.

[riderinthestorm]

259. Really. Atheists are treated to some of the shittiest push back, even on DU. This is a discussion bd

Even saying one is "disappointed' in the religiosity means atheists are "militant", on a "frontal attack", aren't respecting "tradition", are "their own worst enemies" (for presumably making ANY comment)... and on and on and on.

Its interesting that its all out here for others to see so in the future there's no questions when it comes up again (which there will be that contingent of posters who conveeeniently miss this thread).

[Arugula Latte]

276. I agree. It's ridiculous over-reaction.

Us typing an opinion on a supposedly liberal discussion board is militant. Right. Got it.

[Union Scribe]

349. I wonder why that is.

It's almost like people don't fancy being told they're idiots for their beliefs. How odd.

[riderinthestorm]

386. Nobody's been told they're idiots for their beliefs, except atheists who've expressed an OPINION

that this inauguration has a lot of religious stuff.

And been told to STFU.

I already know why that is so please, no need to "scold" me or any of the rest of us for our purported non-crimes, except of course maybe you'd like to jump on Nadine's bandwagon and scold us for our "crime" of speaking out about how much religion and religious rituals have infected our public sphere.

[Kalidurga]

227. I have no problem with the presence of the Divine at the inauguration.

First off her bangs are fabulous. Secondly it would have looked very strange if the wife of the President hadn't been in attendance.

[nadinbrzezinski]

230. ^^^__^^^ next thread winah.

[demosincebirth]

231. I would say, " get over it!"

[Deep13]

245. Well, the imagined presence of the divine. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

246. Just know this is not the place for that fight

Albeit an "easy one."

[Deep13]

252. Not fighting. Just telling the truth. nt

[amuse bouche]

257. Says who...the divine?

[nadinbrzezinski]

261. What divine? Sorry if the usage of language more in step

With the first inaugural confused you. In plain vernacular English. Good luck with a frontal attack.

[amuse bouche]

263. Like the NRA

you, or 'the divine' keep saying this is not the time for this fight

Just wanted to make sure who was giving the orders

[nadinbrzezinski]

269. Oh you misunderstand.

When you are told this is not the time for a frontal attack, that does not mean this is not the time to fight.

To use your (third person same day, impressive) same false equivalency, you think you will ban gun ownership in this country?

So you join the battle where you can have a real effect, (removing in god we trust from money and pledge, keeping religion out of school, fighting to remove invocations from city councils every where...) the inaugural is not it. You think it is, Don Quixote, here is your lance, giants are just over the hill.

[amuse bouche]

282. No I didn't misunderstand.

I don't think I will ban weapons of death or sky fairies but I will continue to express my opinion that it could be so. To have this be a truly progressive country would be fab

P.S. Your whining and poutrage doesn't change my mind an iota

[nadinbrzezinski]

285. I suggest you trash the thread

And ignore the poster.

FYI, since you are incapable of having a rational discussion, this reeks of irony, welcome to *my* ignore list. Good day.

[amuse bouche]

312. Lol

Looks like you can't help yourself.

FYI ...there is no having a rational discussion with magical thinkers because magical thinking is not rational

[Arugula Latte]

273. Funny how it never, ever is the place for that fight.

We're told that all the time.

Even an atheist billboard in an urban setting gets cries of "inappropriate!" and "militant!" here on DU -- a so-called liberal discussion board. Yet church signs signs that say non-believers will burn and the like seem to be just fine and dandy with these very same people.

[nadinbrzezinski]

283. That *WAS* a good place

In fact, the billboards on busses are purfeect too.

[Phillip McCleod]

278. just...... whatever dude.

[Coyotl]

286. That delusion "presence of the divine" will give way to reason with maturity

but meanwhile delusion is its own worst enemy.

[nadinbrzezinski]

287. Fight it where you can have an effect

You know where the real work is...your local city council for example.

The inaugural, it's a frontal assault you will lose.

[Laochtine]

293. I find it endearing

That the god people need to call upon it so much, if it keeps them from killing I'm all for it.

[Evoman]

297. No matter what "battle" atheists pick, it's never the right battle.

Seriously. If it's something big like the inauguration, then it's too big and we should start smaller. If it's something small, then apparently it's not important enough and we should protest something larger. No matter how intrusive the religious are, we are told that it's tradition and that we should stop complaining.

Hell, we can't even write books or perform speeches without being told we are as bad as the religious fundies. Because apparently holding conferences or putting up billboards make us as bad as people who put their religion into laws, have committed murders, and ae looking to take over the country.

And we atheists are our own worst enemies...specifically stockholm syndrome atheists who bend over for the religious and ask for more.

[nadinbrzezinski]

299. I have no issues on battles

To take in god we trust from money, or the pledge. We do not need religion in schools. Have at it in the cultural sphere, by all means go at it with boards and all that. Frontal attacks, on the other hand, are guaranteed to fail. This is such an attack.

In other words...be strategic about it.

[Evoman]

305. Frontal attacks don't work? Strategic?

Don't think so. I don't know if, historically, that's how it works. You want change, you attack on all fronts. You MAKE the mother fucking traditionalists fight you tooth and nail on every front. You even fight battles you know you won't win. You are never fighting for yourself....because you are right, it won't change anything right now. But you put up enough of a fuss, over generations, you will win....you have to make yourself visible, you have to make people at least acknowledge you (even if they hate you or will persecute you even more).

Black people and gay people didn't "pick their battles". They fought, even when they lost. Eventually things will change.

[amuse bouche]

314. Oh dear

you make too much sense. That won't go over well

[nadinbrzezinski]

322. Yup, why the civil right movement

Had to wait for perfect cases...and LGBT needed the same...

And those are just recent examples.

Try to take invocations out of inaugurals and see how far you get. I just not just double dare you, but triple dare you. I won't cry over getting that movement sent back a few generations.

There are days...

ad infinitum

[Evoman]

324. Honestly, I could care less about your inaugurals.

Last edited Tue Jan 22, 2013, 12:04 AM - Edit history (2)

I'm not American. As far as I'm concerned, especially when I read gun threads and religious threads, your country is basically a lost cause.

Civil rights waited for the perfect cases? According to whom? I'm sure their opponents didn't think so.

on edit:removed phrase Uncle Tom because it was found offensive. I bow, in this case, to my opponent

[nadinbrzezinski]

325. So why post about it?

Really?

If you really don't give a rip, neither do I.

Don't bother answering. This infantile response leads you straight to the ignore list. And I made the mistake of thinking you wanted a discussion.

And Uncle Tom is a very creative insult. I hope you realize just how bad it is. If I still alerted, I would. Good bye.

[Evoman]

337. Geez, no need to get offended. My response is not infantile.

You basically start a thread that's intentionally offensive to atheist, and basically asking for a flame war (trolling), and then you ignore me when I play your game?

And why am I here if I really don't care? Ego, pure and simple. I know when I'm right, and I like to respond when I'm right. And I think deep down you know it. That's why it's so easy to ignore me. You are all ego too.

On edit: feel free to alert. I've never had a post hidden, and I'm not afraid of it. If you feel I stepped over the line (and I am not personally calling you an Uncle Tom so relax), then the fair and just thing to do is alert. I should not be able to step over the line of this community, although I don't think I did. That's up to the community, however.

[amuse bouche]

328. Yup

Gun humpers and religious loons are the biggest problem, preventing this country from becoming progressive

[Union Scribe]

347. Lol

Not only is it never the right battle, but you never wage it well. Look at your confederates in this thread. Seething loathing for billions of other people's beliefs is really the way you want to go about things? Calling them all names? Maybe you lot should scrape some money together and hire a PR team.

[Evoman]

356. Well, what would you do if you were atheist and felt excluded and marginalized?

What steps would you take, especially since the group you belong to, despite being a minority, isn't unified? Hell, we have enough atheists hating on us...

[Union Scribe]

358. Everyone is excluded from something.

When my President speaks about black history, I am not being spoken to or of. When women speak of their history I am not included in that. When he talks about faith, you apparently feel excluded from that.

Your mistake is feeling like you should always be a part of what is being spoken of. None of us are always included. Not all rings overlap. But many do, and why not just be okay with that?

[Evoman]

364. A good response to prejudice is to just accept it?

You do understand that when we talk about exclusion, we just don't mean being left out one conversation, right? I've heard from some atheists here are treated by their government and religious civilians, especially in very religious states. I've read about people getting kicked out of their family, excluded from things like city councils, and being treated like dirt.

If you don't understand the plight of all minority groups, including atheists, I'm going to assume that your privilege is blinding you.

[Union Scribe]

374. Yes, that's exactly what I said.

There is little use in talking to someone who will pull arrows toward their chest even when none are fired. Martyrs are not good conversationalists.

[Evoman]

375. Are you saying that that's what I'm doing?

I don't understand why you say that. Honestly, I'm not American and in my country, I've never felt persecuted as such (although I have heard ugly things about atheists. My fiancees grandpa even said that he didn't care what religion his grandaughters married into, as long as their husbands believed in god).

I'm not pretending to be a martyr. I do have concerns for the ugliness that some of the atheists in the states and around the world have faced. That you, and presumably other religious people, don't see it at all is disconcerting. And that you just dismiss me and call me a bad conversationalist for bringing it up is eye opening.

I'm not concerned for myself. I can take care of myself and I doubt there are any religious people around me who can make me a martyr, even if I was actively persecuted.

[Phillip McCleod]

367. man, evoman, that was *right on*

never the right battle even when we are just trying to be allies in common cause. why can't some believing liberals figure that out?

to believers every atheist "battle" is small in comparison to this reputed "God" individual

[Nye Bevan]

368. If a public school forced students to recite the Lords Prayer, knock yourself out.

But "the Battle Hymn of the Republic" sung on Inauguration Day? Just let it slide, please.

[kdmorris]

301. Ah, yes... it's tradition, so we shouldn't even discuss it

what you insultingly called "bemoaning".

You know what else is tradition? "Heterosexual Marriage"

To those same people who feel that it's un-American to even discuss how we do an inaugaration without praying, marriage is reserved for men and women - period.

Guess all the people that disagree with them should sit down and shut up too, and just learn why things are done like that... because, you know, sitting down and shutting up has changed exactly nothing in the history of the world.

I guess you feel that marriage equality is the right thing to do are their own worst enemies, too?

Just as an aside - why do you feel that it's YOUR place to tell us all to shut up about it and just accept it? Are you an expert on this, too? Why should we not even be allowed to have the discussion? It's not like there was a storming of the stage by a bunch of atheists to stop the prayers... it's just a discussion and we have every right to discuss it if we like. You don't get to be the ones to tell us to shut up and accept it.

[amuse bouche]

316. It's hilarious

that the poster who started the thread, doesn't want anyone to discuss it

I guess we are just supposed to absorb the lecture and sit down

[kdmorris]

319. And shut up

Don't forget to shut up

[amuse bouche]

326. Well that goes without saying

This is one of the weirdest threads I've seen in a long time

There is a great hash tag on twitter called #thingsthegodlysay. It's run by a genius atheist

The best thing on twitter

[Arugula Latte]

401. Yep.

As if tradition is always a good thing. I can think of plenty of awful traditions.

And, what the hell? We're not allowed to say that we're "disappointed" with the religious overkill? Just discussing it is enough to bring down a shitstorm of condemnation from the holier than thous.

The condescension is thick.

[cherish44]

332. I find some atheists just as annoying as religious fanatics

Just shut up about religion. Even if you're arguing againt it, you're still talking about religion. I'd rather talk about my cat pooping out a tapeworm than religion.

[Fumesucker]

334. And yet here you are clicking on a thread about religion

Funny how that works, innit?

[cherish44]

381. I tried to start a thread about my cat's tapeworm and it sunk like a stone

[Union Scribe]

348. I think threads like this are ample enough proof of what you say. nt

[JI7]

355. so do i , and i'm an atheist

[nadinbrzezinski]

366. Yup

I know.

[Brickbat]

335. It's like you've never seen "Fiddler on the Roof" or something.

[ladjf]

354. "the presence of the divine in the inauguration" presumes that religious activities are

synonymous with the definition of "divine" which I don't believe the case.

[appleannie1]

382. We have separation of state because we have freedom of religion. They go hand in hand.

We are a country with many different forms of worship. Most of them believe in a god or gods or some form of divine power, so to speak of a divine power during a patriotic event is just a reflection of the country. It is not a slur against non believers because they too have an equal place in our society and are free to believe as they choose.

[SpartanDem]

384. I'm not the least bit religious, but level of twisting of knickers

is silly. Especially the "outrage" over singing the Battle Hymn in the context of MLK Day.

[nadinbrzezinski]

385. Yup

[Capt. Obvious]

389. "Mexico, fought a few bloody civil wars over it"

I tried to call Mexico and couldn't get through.

Now I know what happened.

[nadinbrzezinski]

391. Well, you could try reading

The Historia General de Mexico, by El Colegio de Mexico. Pay special attention to the Guerra de Reforma that ended in 1857 and the French Intervention that paralleled the American Civil War.

[Capt. Obvious]

399. Burn

[nadinbrzezinski]

400. Well, good bye.

Last edited Wed Jan 23, 2013, 12:56 PM - Edit history (1)

[Capt. Obvious]

403. God bye to you too

have fun storming the Mexican consulate.

[Egalitarian Thug]

394. Here we are again, the majority telling the minority to fuck off, you can't change it anyway.

It's no big deal, the back of the bus arrives at the same stop as the front, so sit down and shut up.

[redgreenandblue]

397. Ah, but the "divine" probably wasn't present and maybe doesn't even exist.

Which is essentially the point

[sylvi]

409. Has anyone suggested bringing suit against the administration

Has anyone suggested bringing suit against the administration for violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?

If not, then there is no "battle" being waged here, save the battle of ideas regarding the place of religiosity, or lack thereof, in government functions and ritual. The inauguration is as valid a subject of discussion on that point as any other ceremony, whether it be the swearing in of other government officials, prayers before Congress, invocations at school functions, or what have you. As far as I'm concerned it is a valid discussion and a political discussion board is an appropriate venue. I see no reason that people of good intention should be admonished otherwise.

While I personally have no problem with the President's words, I have nothing against those who do expressing their views in a respectful way and being allowed to voice their own concerns and ideas without being made to feel patronized or belittled.