Are buildings of worship on base nondenominational and opened to all to use?

[TheNoNamedOne]

I am not 100% sure, but are the buildings on base used for worship nondenominational so that all faiths can worship and meet for fellowship on designated days and times, or do they have separate buildings for each religion?

Do all people who profess a faith get to have the right to use those buildings? Or is it a kinda tyranny of the masses over the minority, "Tough sh:t, only 10 people in your religion so you can't use the building."

Is that it? Is that how it is run?

Would Atheists, Freethinkers, Wiccans, Satan worshippers, Pastafarians etc... be permitted to reserve a worship structure on base for a few hours a week just as other mainstream religions are permitted to do, so that they too can reaffirm their beliefs, and have fellowship with others?

Don't you think they should?

Just curious.

[P_chan]

I wouldn't know. I haven't stepped foot inside any religious buildings on base. However, I'm fairly certain that they are probably geared more towards christianity. Now you sparked my interest! I'm tempted to go to every chapel on base and see if a big jesus on a big cross is in every church.

They should have a church for Pastafarians! Can I get a RAmen from all those who agree with me?

[Asshat]

Atheists, Freethinkers, Wiccans, Satan worshippers and Pastafarians are prejudicial to good order and discipline. :)

There is a really cool bumper sticker I've seen which says; "Our God is the Real God" (Kadena Chapel)

[TheNoNamedOne]

They should have a church for Pastafarians! Can I get a RAmen from all those who agree with me?

Certainly.

RAmen, brother.

[okisteve]

They should have a church for Pastafarians! Can I get a RAmen from all those who agree with me?Udon take that stuff seriously, do you?

[Asshat]

Udon take that stuff seriously, do you?

steve, you do realize how difficult this would become with most of the pasta and noodles coming in Italian names!

Sorry to "elbow" my way into the conversation!

[okisteve]

Haha. It's nice you can buy good Italian pasta here though.

While you're around, have you ever used any of the more exotic Japanese vinegars? I couldn't read the label but I bought some black vinegar and just tasted it earlier - really nice. A little like balsamic but not as sweet. Not as powerful as Chinese black vinegar either. I was thinking it would go well with some beef and shiitake I need to cook tonight.

[Jrocka83]

Yes, the bas chapel are open to all. On foster they have everything from muslim services to Jewsish services. on Kadena you can find wiccan services.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Yes, the bas chapel are open to all. On foster they have everything from muslim services to Jewsish services. on Kadena you can find wiccan services.

Could a Pastafarian group meet there as well? How about Satanic worshippers?

[Jrocka83]

Could a Pastafarian group meet there as well? How about Satanic worshippers?

Yep, but I think satinist would prefer some other place.. They seem to be allergic to the presnce of holy people.

[socalheart]

The base chapels are equal opportunity holy-rollers, but the chaplains I've spoken to have never had a self-proclaimed Satanist approach them to use chapel facilities. heh.


Pastafarians... ramen... udon... elbow... :rolleyes: y'all make childbirth seem less painful after those puns. :p

[TheNoNamedOne]

...but the chaplains I've spoken to have never had a self-proclaimed Satanist approach them to use chapel facilities. heh.

It would be nice if Atheists and more Pasafarians could come out in the open more and organize and demand their share of time to use the buildings and set up lawn displays in front of them like Christians do with nativity displays.

Do the chaples set up nativity scenes on the lawns outside of them? Shouldn't Pastafarians, Atheists, or Satanic worshipers be permitted to set up their "nativity scenes" side by side with the Christians?

I don't see why not.

[Jrocka83]

It would be nice if Atheists and more Pasafarians could come out in the open more and organize and demand their share of time to use the buildings and set up lawn displays in front of them like Christians do with nativity displays.

Do the chaples set up nativity scenes on the lawns outside of them? Shouldn't Pastafarians, Atheists, or Satanic worshipers be permitted to set up their "nativity scenes" side by side with the Christians?

I don't see why not.

Do you have a problem with Nativity scenes..? just go tell the chapel they effend you, and take it off the lawn.? DO you seriously think that the chapel would allow a freaking image of a flying speggetti monster outside the chapel.. or better yet, lets put a statue of Satan on base anywhere period... uh, smart one... yeah..

[P_chan]

Do you have a problem with Nativity scenes..? just go tell the chapel they effend you, and take it off the lawn.? DO you seriously think that the chapel would allow a freaking image of a flying speggetti monster outside the chapel.. or better yet, lets put a statue of Satan on base anywhere period... uh, smart one... yeah..

Hey! Don't hate on my religion! I'm not in here saying "Oh why do they need a freakin' over sized bloody guy on two sticks in the church." or "Why do they need a freakin' barn yard scene in front of the church.".

I think what TP is trying to say is that if the church on base is truly non-bias to all religions, then they shouldn't have a problem letting some satanist or pastafarians wanting to use the church for their functions or requesting their religious symbols be put on display.

[Jrocka83]

Hey! Don't hate on my religion! I'm not in here saying "Oh why do they need a freakin' over sized bloody guy on two sticks in the church." or "Why do they need a freakin' barn yard scene in front of the church.".

I think what TP is trying to say is that if the church on base is truly non-bias to all religions, then they shouldn't have a problem letting some satanist or pastafarians wanting to use the church for their functions or requesting their religious symbols be put on display.

I have no problem with your religion. If you want to worship a bowl speghetti thats fine with me.. have a free frawl..:thumbup1:

[dk]

It would be nice if Atheists and more Pasafarians could come out in the open more and organize and demand their share of time to use the buildings and set up lawn displays in front of them like Christians do with nativity displays.
I thought athiests weren't religious. Why would they need to use a building set aside for religious purposes? I can understand the need for other religions, but why athiests? If we're going to take this route, why not allow kids to play on the Kadena runway one day a week?

[P_chan]

I have no problem with your religion. If you want to worship a bowl speghetti thats fine with me.. have a free frawl..:thumbup1:Your tone obviously contradicts your true feelings.

Oh and what's so wrong with satanism? Have you ever actually looked into it? Go look up LeVeyan Satanism, a few of their beliefs make sense. Such as rule number 11 of the Eleven Satanic Rules Of Earth:

When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask them to stop. If they do not stop, destroy them.

Sure the whole "destroy them" part is a little crazy but the basic concept of respecting others is right on:thumbup:.

[dk]

When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask them to stop. If they do not stop, destroy them.
Woah! I like that! :D

[P_chan]

Woah! I like that! :D

Exactly:thumbup:

[TheNoNamedOne]

I thought athiests weren't religious. Why would they need to use a building set aside for religious purposes?

Fellowship.

To discuss ways of deconverting religionists from belief in the supernatural to accepting that the natural is all that there is.

If religionists are going to be proactive in turning people on to them and then using that power in numbers to creep into government with laws benefitting them, it would behoove the nonreligious to organize against that if they would like to keep their secular society, or try to rollback the gains religion has already imposed onto society.

Infrastructure, such as a place to meet is important for organizing and getting boots on the ground.

[dk]

Hey, well, maybe athiests can use a building that's not already set aside for religious purposes! A completely secular place! Like a Starbucks! Wow!

I like how you skipped over the part about playing on the runway--another place set aside for a certain task.

[Jrocka83]

Your tone obviously contradicts your true feelings.

Oh and what's so wrong with satanism? Have you ever actually looked into it? Go look up LeVeyan Satanism, a few of their beliefs make sense. Such as rule number 11 of the Eleven Satanic Rules Of Earth:

When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask them to stop. If they do not stop, destroy them.

Sure the whole "destroy them" part is a little crazy but the basic concept of respecting others is right on:thumbup:.

Your, right... I just absolutley hate meatballs. I can't stand them..:w00t:

[P_chan]

Your, right... I just absolutley hate meatballs. I can't stand them..:w00t:

Your funny!

[TheNoNamedOne]

Hey, well, maybe athiests can use a building that's not already set aside for religious purposes! A completely secular place! Like a Starbucks! Wow!

Good point. Then perhaps Atheists need to just announce their Atheism is their religion to get around that technicality. After all, people keep trying to tag them with the term anyways.

Looks like we will get those religious places to worship after all.

But still, there are the Pastafarians, which seem to have many Atheists members jumping in and out of declaring that their religion.

I like how you skipped over the part about playing on the runway.

I do that to non-sequiturs.

[Bones]

As posted by TP:

Good point. Then perhaps Atheists need to just announce their Atheism is their religion to get around that technicality. After all, people keep trying to tag them with the term anyways.

Come on, why would anyone care?.

NBTP

[okisteve]

Good point.

I do that to non-sequiturs.

Are my eyes just getting tired, or would this be a good place to end this thread?

[dk]

Looks like we will get those religious places to worship after all.
Good luck with that.

My bet is that athiests will have a place in all chapels right around the time meat is outlawed worldwide. In other words, don't hold your breath.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Good luck with that.

Well, I am not leading the cause. Just posing the argument.

My bet is that athiests will have a place in all chapels right around the time meat is outlawed worldwide. In other words, don't hold your breath.

The former, as it regards government chapels, will be easier than the latter. But who likes apathy? I don't.

[dk]

Apathy plays no part in this. As an athiest, someone who doesn't believe in a god figure, I think this is a rediculous idea, and I think you'd be doing little more than making athiests look like a bunch of douchebags if this were ever to pass. Chapels have been set aside by by the government for religious purposes. Athiests are not religious. We do not have an organized religion. We expect people to be tolerant of our beliefs, yet it never ceases to amaze me how many dickish athiests I meet who want to take away the rights of other citizens by banning nativity scenes in public, banning the ten commandments in public (when really, the ten commandments AREN'T THAT BAD), banning religious people from taking office, etc, etc, yet somehow expecting to force the world to take hold of our beliefs simply because it is the more logical approach.

These are the athiests who make athiesm look bad in my opinion.

Here's a few definitions I've found of religion:

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality"
a belief in, or the worship of, a god or godsSure, you'll find text out there defining just about anything that'll contradict another definition of the same word, but these are commonly held definitions of religion. It's a belief in the supernatural. Of a god or gods. A deity. It is spiritualism.

If people want to worship Jesus, satan, the tooth fairy, the spaghetti monster, or even me, they're more than welcome. I have no problem with allowing them a public place of worship. We've got public places for all sorts of causes. If people want to be religious, fine. But if you want to pretend athiesm is a religion just so we can have access to a house of worship, all I can say is... :rolleyes:

This isn't apathy. This is something called tolerance. Something you seem to have issues with, yet you expect it of those who read your posts. By some standards, chapels on base are public buildings, but they are buildings run by the military, so they are not fully public. This forum also, is more or less public, but it is also run by JU. Perhaps you're right and we should make athiesm a religion. Then I could reciprocate the intolerance by banning the discussion of all religion whatsoever! Lets ban the display of nativity scenes in public and the discussion of anything related to religion (or the lack of) on these forums! Science H. Logic!

[Fonze]

I thought athiests weren't religious. Why would they need to use a building set aside for religious purposes? I can understand the need for other religions, but why athiests? If we're going to take this route, why not allow kids to play on the Kadena runway one day a week?

Exactly dk. thats why i see two atheist. the ones that dont belive so they dont talk about it or aknowledge it and the reatards that want to start atheist churches or "talk groups". I believe every religion should be allowed to use it except satanist cause that kind of goes against religions view of evil, but hey they could always flip a dumpster over and have services there.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Apathy plays no part in this. As an athiest, someone who doesn't believe in a god figure, I think this is a rediculous idea, and I think you'd be doing little more than making athiests look like a bunch of douchebags if this were ever to pass. Chapels have been set aside by by the government for religious purposes. Athiests are not religious.

Some Atheists are known to often backslide into believing in The Flying Spaghetti Monster. At least let FSM congregate with equal access into these structures as they try to keep from backsliding again.

Though, I am not sure why you feel it is ok for tax dollars to be spent on builidings explicitly for a theistic belief and not on an atheistic belief. Perhaps you don't and feel both are equally deserving. However, why waste funds building separate structures when one could easily serve them all?

You may think it makes atheists look like douchebags, and I would agree that most theistic believers would agree with you, but I am also sure there are many atheists who feel they are fully right in demanding an equal access to the structures supported by tax dollars.

We do not have an organized religion. We expect people to be tolerant of our beliefs, yet it never ceases to amaze me how many dickish athiests I meet who want to take away the rights of other citizens by banning nativity scenes in public, banning the ten commandments in public (when really, the ten commandments AREN'T THAT BAD), banning religious people from taking office, etc, etc, yet somehow expecting to force the world to take hold of our beliefs simply because it is the more logical approach.

Whoa! Where is it stated there is a right to set up nativity scenes and ten commandments in public spaces, dk? These are perfect examples of what is being more and more decided in court trying to distinguish what our framers of our Constitution had in mind when they set forth the idea of Separation of Church and State. Just because that has been ignored for many years, does not mean that it should be left to continue.

btw, are their suites going forth, or have gone forth, on trying to ban religious people from taking office? Perhaps you have read something I have not and I would love to read that if you have a link to one or two stories like that.

I also am not sure by what you mean by "expecting to force the world to take hold of our beliefs..." How are we forcing them to take hold of our beliefs? I don't think that is the same thing as convincing judges and juries that government should be secular and that it should not promote religion. I mean, how can we force them to believe what we believe? Convince? Yes. Force? No. I just don't see it. But I am will to admit to it again if you can show an example or two.

The mind is a hard thing to force to believe something, I would rather think.

These are the athiests who make athiesm look bad in my opinion.

Well, if atheists are forcing people to believe things, then I would think they would make atheists look bad, too. But I haven't seen that in the U.S. I also do not think that atheists honoring the idea of separation of church and state and fighting to keep that does not make atheism look bad. But it is an interestng thought, for I think if those atheists exist, I think they are sorely outnumbered by theists that make theism look much worse.

But if you want to pretend athiesm is a religion just so we can have access to a house of worship, all I can say is... :rolleyes:

It is only with my own rolleyes that I would accept atheism as a religion merely because; when one states they are an atheist and against religion, theists will smugly counter "Atheism is a religion, too." We've already seen this even here on this forum, and it happens often as a theist's way of trying to deflect scrutiny away from religion.

This isn't apathy.

When I referred to your apathy, it is that underlying feeling you send out that since it is so far in the future it is meaningless to expect it to matter. That attitude comes across quite clear from you on the point, dk. Like you are snickering at it.

This is something called tolerance. Something you seem to have issues with, yet you expect it of those who read your posts.

Where have I shown intolerance in not letting people believe what they wish if they wish to continue believing that? Have I suggested outlawing churches or bibles? ON the contrary. If anything, what I have said is that there should be a clear separation of church and state, and if tax funds are going to be used for promoting the belief and worship of something that could come at the expense of secularism, then it is only fair that those groups wanting to keep the marginalizing of secularism from occurring because of that group, then they should be permitted to have the same infrastructure to do so. What is wrong with that?

Please quote some hideous intolerance against religion I have stated. I will be quick to recant it if it is intolerance as you say it is. Demanding equal recourses is no way intolerant. If anything it is demanding inclusiveness.

By some standards, chapels on base are public buildings, but they are buildings run by the military, so they are not fully public. This forum also, is more or less public, but it is also run by JU.

The two are completely different. While JU holds itself out to the public, its existence is not by what it can demand of its members in the form of taxes to create the forums. Keyword being "demand." Not to mention a few other things. While military chapels are restricted by their very nature of being on military bases, they are still wholey funded by tax payers money after demand of taxes to be paid and collected.

Perhaps you're right and we should make athiesm a religion.

Again, religion as a label to atheism is hoisted upon it by theists. They are the ones that err often on this point. I have already explained this above as well as theism pushing into secularism and the point of separation of church and state.

Then I could reciprocate the intolerance by banning the discussion of all religion whatsoever! Lets ban the display of nativity scenes in public and the discussion of anything related to religion (or the lack of) on these forums! Science H. Logic!

There is no intolerance on the part of atheists. Do you think the judge that ruled that the 10 Commandments (or whatever nativity scenes have ever been ordered removed) be removed from the courthouse did so because intolerance was cited as the principle that allowed him to make his decision? I don't think it was that simple, dk.

btw, what does the "H." stand for?

[dk]

Science H. Logic = Jesus H. Christ

I'll post more later.

[Bones]

As quoted by TP:

There is no intolerance on the part of atheists.

If there isn't, why are you so actively focused on trying to ridicule those people who believe in something that you do not believe in?

If you do not believe in anything, then it stands to reason that you could hold your meetings at any place of your choice. Those places have also been paid for by tax paying citizens. Shopping malls, the corner store, the local bar, etc...

I would go so far as to say that you are " intolerant ", of every discussion that you have held, and with almost any poster who does not believe in the same things as you do. And you try to hide your "intolerances" with your smug replies.

NBTP

[dk]

Exactly dk. thats why i see two atheist. the ones that dont belive so they dont talk about it or aknowledge it and the reatards that want to start atheist churches or "talk groups". I believe every religion should be allowed to use it except satanist cause that kind of goes against religions view of evil, but hey they could always flip a dumpster over and have services there.
I don't think this is a fair way of looking at it. From your reasoning, there can only be two types of Christians:

Those who believe, so they don't talk about it or acknowledge it
And retards that want to start talk groups or bible studies in public places such as starbucks.If athiests want to get together and discuss their beliefs, fine. I simply don't like it when athiests decide that it should no longer be permissable for people to publically display their nativity scenes. I'm fine with the teaching of creation being taken out of public schooling. I'm fine with people being skeptical of political leaders who use religion to drive the masses. What I'm not fine with are people so hell bent against religion, they feel that they should be the deciding voices for America even though athiesm probably only makes up less than half of all Americans. Prove me wrong statistically if I'm wrong.

Newsflash for athiests (myself included, but this isn't news to me): Athiests are not the only American tax payers. All tax payers pay for things they support. All tax payers pay for things they do not support. If a large percentage of Americans are religious, and some of the funding for these buildings comes from tax payer money, so ******* what. These same tax payers are paying for issues you believe in as well.

Allowing someone the right to have a chapel should be a minor grievance. Allowing US citizens to have the right to exercise their religion in public should be acceptable. And granted that a large percentage of US citizens are religious, if they decide that tax payer dollars should be spent on religion, so be it. You won't find me complaining, and I seriously wonder if TP even pays US taxes or even has any issue with this other than principal.

[P_chan]

Your, right... I just absolutley hate meatballs. I can't stand them..:w00t:

Oh and at least there is a beer volcano where I'm going after death.:D

[dk]

Oh and at least there is a beer volcano where I'm going after death.:D
Wait, what? Where? I wanna go. :(

I envision my death will be like that white flash when you turn off the TV. :p

[P_chan]

All you have to do is give me a RAmen and praise the Spaghedeity, and you too can partake in the beer volcano in the next life.

I like your tv comment, good comparison. Since I don't believe in god, people often ask me what I think will happen to me once I die. I always ask them "do you remember anything before you were born? Because that is exactly how death will be like."

[dk]

All you have to do is give me a RAmen and praise the Spaghedeity, and you too can partake in the beer volcano in the next life.
I can give you ramen, but I can't give you a RAmen or praise the Spaghedeity as I always thought that thing was retarded. :p

I'd rather worship the crap growing on my mouse! All hail keyboard and mouse crap! :D

[P_chan]

I can give you ramen, but I can't give you a RAmen or praise the Spaghedeity as I always thought that thing was retarded. :p

I'd rather worship the crap growing on my mouse! All hail keyboard and mouse crap! :D

But you'll miss out on the stripper factory too!:D

[Fonze]

I don't think this is a fair way of looking at it. From your reasoning, there can only be two types of Christians:

Those who believe, so they don't talk about it or acknowledge it
And retards that want to start talk groups or bible studies in public places such as starbucks.If athiests want to get together and discuss their beliefs, fine. I simply don't like it when athiests decide that it should no longer be permissable for people to publically display their nativity scenes. I'm fine with the teaching of creation being taken out of public schooling. I'm fine with people being skeptical of political leaders who use religion to drive the masses. What I'm not fine with are people so hell bent against religion, they feel that they should be the deciding voices for America even though athiesm probably only makes up less than half of all Americans. Prove me wrong statistically if I'm wrong.

Newsflash for athiests (myself included, but this isn't news to me): Athiests are not the only American tax payers. All tax payers pay for things they support. All tax payers pay for things they do not support. If a large percentage of Americans are religious, and some of the funding for these buildings comes from tax payer money, so ******* what. These same tax payers are paying for issues you believe in as well.

Allowing someone the right to have a chapel should be a minor grievance. Allowing US citizens to have the right to exercise their religion in public should be acceptable. And granted that a large percentage of US citizens are religious, if they decide that tax payer dollars should be spent on religion, so be it. You won't find me complaining, and I seriously wonder if TP even pays US taxes or even has any issue with this other than principal.

Very well put dk. I also think i saw a poll or something that said that 87% of americans consider themselves Christian. So your right to say if they want religion than let them have it to a point.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Wait, what? Where? I wanna go. :(

I envision my death will be like that white flash when you turn off the TV. :p

In the afterlife of The Flying Spaghetti monster heaven is a place where volcanos spit out beer and there are strippers.

Hell is the same way only that the beer is stale and all the strippers have VD.

That is the fact straight from the Gospel of The Flying Spaghetti Monster. It says it right there in the Good Book.

RAmen.

[dk]

In the afterlife of The Flying Spaghetti monster heaven is a place where volcanos spit out beer and there are strippers.

Hell is the same way only that the beer is stale and all the strippers have VD.

That is the fact straight from the Gospel of The Flying Spaghetti Monster. It says it right there in the Good Book.

RAmen.
Oh my science! P_chan wasn't making that up?!!! :eek:

[TheNoNamedOne]

Oh my science! P_chan wasn't making that up?!!! :eek:

Of course not. All you have to do is have faith that it is True, and then it is True.

Beer and strippers in heaven. -- Sounds almost too good to be true, huh?

[dk]

Of course not. All you have to do is have faith that it is True, and then it is True.

Beer and strippers in heaven. -- Sounds almost too good to be true, huh?
But... there's beer and strippers on Earth! :eek:

And the internet. And pron!

[TheNoNamedOne]

If athiests want to get together and discuss their beliefs, fine. I simply don't like it when athiests decide that it should no longer be permissable for people to publically display their nativity scenes.

I don't think they have ever fought against the right of people to publicly display their religious symbols on their own private property in a public manner, have they? A drive through any U.S. neighborhood during Christmas and one will see many nativity scenes on house lawns that no atheist org (to my recollection) has ever tried to get removed.

I'm fine with the teaching of creation being taken out of public schooling. I'm fine with people being skeptical of political leaders who use religion to drive the masses. What I'm not fine with are people so hell bent against religion, they feel that they should be the deciding voices for America even though athiesm probably only makes up less than half of all Americans. Prove me wrong statistically if I'm wrong.

Newsflash for athiests (myself included, but this isn't news to me): Athiests are not the only American tax payers. All tax payers pay for things they support. All tax payers pay for things they do not support. If a large percentage of Americans are religious, and some of the funding for these buildings comes from tax payer money, so ******* what. These same tax payers are paying for issues you believe in as well.

Wait, let me get this straight, you are fine with a public school not having religious creationism brought into it, but you are fine with religious symbols being brought onto and set up on public government property? Then you go on to talk about tax payers should be having a right to get their fair share of imposing of their religious beliefs due to their demographic make-up, but yet you think the public classroom should be off limits but not the public square.

Why should the classroom be off limits and not public property? I am just curious how you are basing this decision on. It looks inconsistent with your point about tax payers related to demographics. If 85% of the population are Christian and they are paying taxes, then according to your tax payer model then why shouldn't Christians get to decide a good part of the curiculum in accordance to their religion?

My answer is the more parsimonious one and what should be a non-arbitrary position of Separation of Church and State without having to make special excuses for this or that reason or special interest. But, I am curious as to what your answer is.

Allowing someone the right to have a chapel should be a minor grievance.

Certainly, and if they see value in having that since our forefathers set this country up with a clear separation of church and state, then they should be willing to pay for and erect it themselves with their own funds.

Allowing US citizens to have the right to exercise their religion in public should be acceptable.

How has it been suggested that their right to do so be rescinded?

And granted that a large percentage of US citizens are religious, if they decide that tax payer dollars should be spent on religion, so be it.

No, it is not "so be it" -- unless the Constitution is tampered with, and I am not against using the rules of Congress to ammend the Constitution, but until that is done, then it should not be a majority poll over the minority. If court precedents and ammendments change that, then fine, but now it definitely is not a a case of "so be it" and hence atheist should not be maligned just for trying to keep the country in accordance with the Constitution and what our Founding Fathers had in mind when creating the separation of religion and state.

You won't find me complaining, and I seriously wonder if TP even pays US taxes or even has any issue with this other than principal.

Yes, I pay taxes, and of course it is one of principal.

[P_chan]

Oh my science! P_chan wasn't making that up?!!! :eek:

What you thought I was lying?

Ahh but does beer flow from volcanoes and is there a stripper factory constantly churning out strippers?

[dk]

Wait, let me get this straight, you are fine with a public school not having religious creationism brought into it, but you are fine with religious symbols being brought onto and set up on public government property? Then you go on to talk about tax payers should be having a right to get their fair share of imposing of their religious beliefs due to their demographic make-up, but yet you think the public classroom should be off limits but not the public square.

Why should the classroom be off limits and not public property? I am just curious how you are basing this decision on. It looks inconsistent with your point about tax payers related to demographics. If 85% of the population are Christian and they are paying taxes, then according to your tax payer model then why shouldn't Christians get to decide a good part of the curiculum in accordance to their religion?

My answer is the more parsimonious one and what should be a non-arbitrary position of Separation of Church and State without having to make special excuses for this or that reason or special interest. But, I am curious as to what your answer is.
The reason I'm against creationism being taught in public schools yet not against religious icons being shown on public ground is because there are only few hours available to teach science to children throughout the day. That is, unless you're all for a science class spending eight weeks just on sharing the pros and cons of all the different creation theories. Does this sound like something you'd like to see happen? Honestly, how many creation stories are there? Should we do them all? Evolution has been accepted by the majority of scientists and has even been accepted as a tool used by God by some Christians and probably other religions. It makes sense with the science of our times. Why spend six weeks or more going over every single possible creation scenario ever? Evolution isn't perfect, but it's the best we have right now.

There's a lot more land than there is time.

If the Christians, the pagans, the mormons, the whatevertheywanttonamethemselves feel they are deserving of a place in public, than so be it. They should at least have the chance to debate it with the government. And also, many of these Christian icons were put up before this whole debate over church and state even hit the mainstream and as such, in my opinion, have staying value just with that.

Debate it all you want. We won't see eye to eye. I know that by now, and it's generally why I avoid getting into discussions like this with you. You claim common sense but really you're so blinded by your hatred of religion you couldn't even give a damn about the larger part of our nation having a voice in this if you had no choice. You remind me too much of the religions I ran away from sometimes in your black and white, all or nothing approach. This isn't a personal attack at you. These are just issues I have with some of your debates that positively drive me away from wanting to participate one way or the other. There are sensible ways of doing things without completely leaving one side out in the rain. However, as is the case in other issues you've brought up, with you, it's either all or nothing. It's either a total separation of church and state or nothing. With me, there is a time and a place, even when it comes to public property. If that makes you somehow feel that your logic is superior, sure, fine, I'll be sleeping just fine, probably better, knowing that it is in fact possible to give everybody a small piece of the pie.

So yes, I am for wasting my tax dollars paying for places of worship on public property. I am for wasting the tax dollars of my Christian parents to fund an "Athiests in Foxholes Vietnam Shrine" if the option ever was brought up. I am for the mormons having a statue of Joseph Smith on public property. Yes, I am for taking the teaching of creationism out of schools. It may sound two-sided, but it is sensible IN MY OPINION after having thought over the options.

But go ahead and disagree.

Ah, oh, the points I made about your intolerance, I'll post a follow up on that a little later unless someone else wants to go ahead and post links. I seem to remember you having a problem with the idea of electing politicians whose decision making is affected by religion. When in actuality, ALL OF OUR decision making is affected by a great number of factors including religion, family, morals, ethics, money, goals for the future, and mistakes of the past. On that point, I honestly could care less if you were brought up athiest, Christian, mormon, pastafarian, whatever. If your ethical values line up with those who are able to bring you to power and you are able to do the job, screw your history. Screw your religion. Religion may affect your decision making processes, but so will a great number of other factors. If you have a problem with electing politicians simply because of their religious background, I suppose it's no different from me having a problem electing a politician who is active with PETA. It's not a religion thing. It's a disagreement on issues, and it shouldn't be blamed on religion.

Forgive me if I'm mixing you up with someone else here.

[dk]

The base chapels are equal opportunity holy-rollers, but the chaplains I've spoken to have never had a self-proclaimed Satanist approach them to use chapel facilities. heh.

It would be nice if Atheists and more Pasafarians could come out in the open more and organize and demand their share of time to use the buildings and set up lawn displays in front of them like Christians do with nativity displays.
Wasn't JEDI declared an actual religion? If pastafarian is registered and accepted as an actual religion, then fine. :)

What are the steps to declare a religion anyway?

[kombu_kid]

A lot of good points being made here, and I'd like to throw in my two cents.

First, like it or not, there is strength in numbers as it relates to public policy and politics and how we "draw the line" as far as what's allowable in public school, use of tax money, putting "In God We Trust" on our currency etc. The atheists like to proclaim "separation of church and state", but I truly believe that they use it in a very "blown up" sort of way, whereas I believe it was meant that our government will not establish a particular religion for the people. Removing "In God We Trust" from our currency is a far ways from that. But I'm sure we can argue 'til we're blue in the face about that, though.

And reading some people's arguments here, mostly TP's, I am absolutely positively convinced that these "goals" of a total secular society and government, are but a stepping stone to a higher agenda to completely ban anything related to God, religious figures, any public display of a belief in a higher power, and allowing religious education of our children. I read a lot of threads that have to do with "Do you have a right to....". Is there such a big jump to conclude that the mere display of a nativity scene, where the public can see it, "sends the wrong message" to our children....yada, yada, yada.

Using a logical approach to many different things in life, you can always justify outlawing religion, based on how G.W. was supposedly "told" by God to attack another country, the number of dead people in the name of religion etc. You can also use a logical argument that we're wasting taxpayer money on buildings for religious services, but how many thousands have found comfort and peace in time of trouble from religion? How many have "turned their life around" from a belief in a higher power, a spiritual element to this life we live?

One last thing: I say be careful to those who would so readily accept the removal of religion or any religious element to our society, because it will be replaced by a new "religion" from man. Except.... when we replace the 10 Commandments by laws from man, the rules will constantly change......man is fickle. Gaia, AR, and man-made global warming come to mind.

Now, if the 10 Commandments were to be pryed away from the grip of the public.....would it be SO UNBELIEVABLE that murdering another person would suddenly be so wrong? Imagine hearing this: "murder is now still a crime, however, it is now punishable by a fine, in which the proceeds will go towards educating the public"....etc.

It's nice to have a compass......unless "north" is always moving....get my drift?

[dk]

The atheists like to proclaim "separation of church and state", but I truly believe that they use it in a very "blown up" sort of way, whereas I believe it was meant that our government will not establish a particular religion for the people.
This is exactly the way I have always seen it as well. When we came to America from Europe, we did not come to get away from religion. We came to get away from NOT HAVING A CHOICE in religion.

And TP, you mentioned that if religious people want places of worship, they can build them themselves. In my opinion, this is ideal, and I fully support that. At the same time, I am not against remnants of religion existing in our society as they played a large part, nor am I against remnants of religion still existing in society as they still play a large part. Hopefully that makes sense.

I am still every bit as much against organized religion as ever. But the thoughts I posted were from my core.

[DoctorP]

And TP, you mentioned that if religious people want places of worship, they can build them themselves. In my opinion, this is ideal, and I fully support that. At the same time, I am not against remnants of religion existing in our society as they played a large part, nor am I against remnants of religion still existing in society as they still play a large part. Hopefully that makes sense.

I am still every bit as much against organized religion as ever. But the thoughts I posted were from my core.

I have no problem with churches being shared for multiple purposes. But I don't understand why TP would target bases only. Look at any American town. There are probably at least 4 churches in each small town. Babtist, Methodist, Presbyterian, and perhaps a Church of Christ. (these are just the ones I can think of) This is not to mention the "segregated" churches. Now why not just build one building in each town for "worship"? Seems it would save money, bring people together, and we could use it as a big roller rink of off days!:rolleyes:

[kombu_kid]

Seems it would save money, bring people together, and we could use it as a big roller rink of off days!:rolleyes:


No.....orgies! For the satanists.:D

[TheNoNamedOne]

The reason I'm against creationism being taught in public schools yet not against religious icons being shown on public ground is because there are only few hours available to teach science to children throughout the day.

Let's face it, kids in public school science classes are not being turned into scientists with the little instruction they are given. A percent of that given over to creationism would probably not matter so much that it would not let them do fine in basic science courses when they move onto college. Of course, I don't want creationism taught in the school, but for you to say that taking a little time out to teach creationism is going to just impact so dearly on their time restraints is a specious argument at best. In fact, I am not sure if that has ever been given as a reason to resist Creationism in the science class. What IS given as the argument against it is that mysticism and supernatural explanations have no room in a class devoted to natural explanations of the world -- i.e. science. So, the time thing, like I said is specious.

That is, unless you're all for a science class spending eight weeks just on sharing the pros and cons of all the different creation theories. Does this sound like something you'd like to see happen? Honestly, how many creation stories are there? Should we do them all? Evolution has been accepted by the majority of scientists and has even been accepted as a tool used by God by some Christians and probably other religions. It makes sense with the science of our times. Why spend six weeks or more going over every single possible creation scenario ever? Evolution isn't perfect, but it's the best we have right now.

Wait, weren't you speaking to the point of demographics with taxpayers? If 85% of the U.S. is Christian, then it is not like every religion's creationist story has to be given equal time. Let Christians have 85% of the time that is set aside for Creationist stories. By the way, Christians have their scientists, too, who still do not accept evolution. Give them their demographic slice of the time based on what percentage of taxes are paid by Christian Creationists.

There's a lot more land than there is time.

I guess that depends on just where we are talking about. Inner city public space can be quite limited.

If the Christians, the pagans, the mormons, the whatevertheywanttonamethemselves feel they are deserving of a place in public, than so be it. They should at least have the chance to debate it with the government.

Indeed. That is one of the underlying points I think this thread is about -- equality.

And also, many of these Christian icons were put up before this whole debate over church and state even hit the mainstream and as such, in my opinion, have staying value just with that.

Appeal to tradition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition) is a logical fallacy. I know you will probably come back with some wise crack on me citing that, like you sometimes go off when I call you on your "prove me wrong (i.e. a negative) thing," but there it is. But if you want to rest a good part of your argument on a fallacy (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/fallacy), then be my guest. Appeal to tradition will not stand if that has been ignoring a point in the constitution or other reasoned argument without fallacies.

Debate it all you want. We won't see eye to eye. I know that by now, and it's generally why I avoid getting into discussions like this with you. You claim common sense but really you're so blinded by your hatred of religion you couldn't even give a damn about the larger part of our nation having a voice in this if you had no choice.

dk, I am not blinded by a hatred of religion. Geesh...if I were so debilitated as you make me sound, then I would probably be replying to you directly or other religionists with adhoms.

Don't confuse enjoying debate on religion with hatred. Would you accuse Richard Dawkins or Kurt Vonnegut of being blinded with hatred, and here I don't think I have ever said anything much different than either of them, and Mr. Dawkins is on the circuit discussing against it much more than myself and in much harsher terms, as well with many other rational authors. All I sense is frustration on your side and defensiveness.

Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith, I consider a capacity for it terrifying and absolutely vile. — Kurt Vonnegut

Pretty harsh, yet, I don't see it as blind hatred. Why the hyperbole in referring to me? Not accurate and surely is not necessary.

You remind me too much of the religions I ran away from sometimes in your black and white, all or nothing approach.

Separation of Church and State is black and white. Pretty simple. That is what I am arguing here, or at least equal access. No back bending reasoning of making excuses for this special interest here and then that one over there and all the tangled complexity that leads to. Sometimes thing are pretty simple and only some people want to complicate them much further than they need be.

You show me a moral dilemma and I will not be "black and white." However, some things are pretty clear, and the age of our founding fathers was known as the age of rationalism spawned from the Enlightenment that was a casting off of religious dogma. Why do you think the idea of Separation of Church and State was so important to them? They didn't mince their words and chose some very clear ones.

This isn't a personal attack at you. These are just issues I have with some of your debates that positively drive me away from wanting to participate one way or the other. There are sensible ways of doing things without completely leaving one side out in the rain. However, as is the case in other issues you've brought up, with you, it's either all or nothing.

Not true. There have been issues where I stated that I am on the fence about or am not too sure. I have offered my share of fair enough to others as well. Sorry those have gone unoticed by you, but I am not about to say out of hoping to give warm fuzzies to everyone that ALL issues are grey areas and that I believe in some things are not compromisable. If you believe everything is compromisable, then fine. Do so. I do not. I tend to choose the discussions I put forth for debate on those issues I feel are pretty absolute. I take one side of the spectrum, and it is always from the far side of the spectrum the purest version of that side is going to be aired and probably the hardest fought.

You should also know that it is not always about you and me seeing eye to eye or someone else during the course of a debate. If that happens, then fine. If not then the onlookers got to see opposing viewpoints to make a decision if they were on the fence. I debate also just to get the opportunity to hear a new argument or perspective or even debate technique.

It's either a total separation of church and state or nothing. With me, there is a time and a place, even when it comes to public property. If that makes you somehow feel that your logic is superior, sure, fine, I'll be sleeping just fine, probably better, knowing that it is in fact possible to give everybody a small piece of the pie.

And here again, I think you have misrepresented what I have said before. I have imparted that either it is Separation of Church and State OR Equal access to recourses for different groups as it pertains to theists and nontheists or whatever groups engaged in this constant dance of pushing onto one another and tugging at the population for accepting their ideas.

[dk]

Of course, I don't want creationism taught in the school, but for you to say that taking a little time out to teach creationism is going to just impact so dearly on their time restraints is a specious argument at best.
I am not merely talking about the Christian creation story. You do realize that, do you not? Let me find the science.com or whichever website it was I was checking link regarding all the different creation stories that should be taught. I'll see if I can find it tomorrow afternoon.

We're talking a minimum of a dozen religion's creationism stories. And you feel that teaching 30 kids a dozen creation stories is not going to impact their time? Or confuse the hell out of them? Are you serious?

[dk]

Don't confuse enjoying debate on religion with hatred. Would you accuse Richard Dawkins or Kurt Vonnegut of being blinded with hatred, and here I don't think I have ever said anything much different than either of them, and Mr. Dawkins is on the circuit discussing against it much more than myself and in much harsher terms, as well with many other rational authors. All I sense is frustration on your side and defensiveness.
The difference between Kurt Vonnegut and you is that he is at least sensible in his acceptance of religion, as I have posted in another thread. Vonnegut has nothing on you in terms of harshness, especially when agendas come into play. In fact, much of the approach I have taken has been learned from reading Vonnegut. Dawkins might be more harsh, but I don't pay attention to him. I somehow missed that memo. I know the name, but I haven't spent the time reading him.


Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith, I consider a capacity for it terrifying and absolutely vile. — Kurt VonnegutPretty harsh, yet, I don't see it as blind hatred. Why the hyperbole in referring to me? Not accurate and surely is not necessary.
Read timequake where he mentions his understanding, as an athiest, of his sister being a devout Christian. Then come back to me, pulling quotes at random. Thanks.

[dk]

OMFG.........

I just now found out that Kurt Vonnegut died eight months ago........

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c8/Kurt_Vonnegut_at_CWRU.jpg

To Kurt:

Rest in peace, friend. You were more of a teacher to me than most.

Say hi to Trout for me if there is another side. I'm sure you'll be there even with what you've said about god. If not, f*ck him.

[TheNoNamedOne]

I am not merely talking about the Christian creation story. You do realize that, do you not? Let me find the science.com or whichever website it was I was checking link regarding all the different creation stories that should be taught. I'll see if I can find it tomorrow afternoon.

We're talking a minimum of a dozen religion's creationism stories. And you feel that teaching 30 kids a dozen creation stories is not going to impact their time? Or confuse the hell out of them? Are you serious?

dk, I think that when Christians speak of teaching Creationism in the Science room, they are not speaking about going through the whole genesis story or even the basics of what happened on each day that Bible God was creating. No. They are usually wanting to make a few general statements that with them would give an alternative to evolutionary science.

So, it doesn't matter if you find all your stories. All they are wanting to say is something generic about a Designer (not even specifically designated Christian I would think) that willed the Universe into being without the step 1,2,3 blah blah blah and a lot of that could encompass a lot of religions. And still let's get back to your tax demographics. If 85% of the US population is Christian, and in a whole school district there is not one person from inner Mongolia who learned that the Savanah God created the world, there is no need to even mention his God. Remember, you were the one who brought up the point of if most are Christian and paying taxes then they have a right to blah blah blah. Only you placed it on space and not classroom education.

But the time restraint is still a specious argument. Again, I don't think any court cases have made that a major point for denying religion the right to teach Creationism in the classroom. Since you seem pretty attatched to that opinion, I would imagine that lawyers against Creationism in classroom have used that as a major platform. Have they?

[TheNoNamedOne]

Read timequake where he mentions his understanding, as an athiest, of his sister being a devout Christian. Then come back to me, pulling quotes at random out of context. Thanks.

It is not necessary to read Time Quake, dk. That quote is still a rather harsh one.

My whole family is Christian, too. I think I understand them just as much as he understood his sister. Not sure why you would deny me proclaiming that truth -- unless you just want to call me a liar.

Again, your hyperbole directed towards me as if I am blinded by hatred is inaccurate and quite uncalled for. But if you think that got you a point or really believe it, then fine. Do so. I won't be able to convince you otherwise.

I for one think hatred is a consuming emotion. I doubt I'd be able to discuss anything else if I were so blinded and consumed by it, but yet we see I have been able to talk on a wide array of topics without resorting to adhoms.

[dk]

dk, I think that when Christians speak of teaching Creationism in the Science room, they are not speaking about going through the whole genesis story or even the basics of what happened on each day that Bible God was creating. No. They are usually wanting to make a few general statements that with them would give an alternative to evolutionary science.

So, it doesn't matter if you find all your stories. All they are wanting to say is something generic about a Designer (not even specifically designated Christian I would think) that willed the Universe into being without the step 1,2,3 blah blah blah and a lot of that could encompass a lot of religions. And still let's get back to your tax demographics. If 85% of the US population is Christian, and in a whole school district there is not one person from inner Mongolia who learned that the Savanah God created the world, there is no need to even mention his God. Remember, you were the one who brought up the point of if most are Christian and paying taxes then they have a right to blah blah blah. Only you placed it on space and not classroom education.

But the time restraint is still a specious argument. Again, I don't think any court cases have made that a major point for denying religion the right to teach Creationism in the classroom. Since you seem pretty attatched to that opinion, I would imagine that lawyers against Creationism in classroom have used that as a major platform. Have they?
Well, it's 2am now. Let's see what the rest of our viewers have to say! I've got a 9:30am. Goodnight! Maybe tomorrow!

[dk]

It is not necessary to read Time Quake, dk. That quote is still a rather harsh one.
Which basically means, "I haven't read it, so I have no idea what you're talking about, but I thought that quote might be fitting."

It's not that harsh of a quote, and I agree with it. It doesn't mean I agree with you.

[dk]

I for one think hatred is a consuming emotion. I doubt I'd be able to discuss anything else if I were so blinded and consumed by it, but yet we see I have been able to talk on a wide array of topics without resorting to adhoms.
Who's bringing up adhoms? I don't recall calling you stupid, or even flat out saying that your logic if flawed in comparrison to mine--which you do quite often even though you FAIL to see connections on a regular basis.

And as far as you talking on a wide array of topics... Please, you post about four or five topics all the time, and the majority of them seem to be Christianity, Animal Rights, and a Vegan diet, which you usually tie into a discussion on Animal Rights. I don't hold it against you, but I wouldn't say you're the most versatile poster on the board. Most of our regulars have got you beat in that category.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Ooops. I accidentally hit the edit button above, dk. That is why your post shows an edit note. But nothing was changed.

Who's bringing up adhoms? I don't recall calling you stupid, or even flat out saying that your logic if flawed in comparrison to mine--which you do quite often even though you FAIL to see connections on a regular basis.

Above I just said that if I were blinded by hatred I would probably be resorting to adhoms. Hatred is a pretty strong emotion. Hell, I don't even think I show any frustration in my writings. How could there be blinding hatred but yet pretty calm and controlled writing on my part?

Sure, I have a dislike of religion, but blinding hatred of it? Again, hyperbole.

And as far as you talking on a wide array of topics... Please, you post about four or five topics all the time, and the majority of them seem to be Christianity, Animal Rights, and a Vegan diet, which you usually tie into a discussion on Animal Rights. I don't hold it against you, but I wouldn't say you're the most versatile poster on the board. Most of our regulars have got you beat in that category.

Of course I have a few topics I am more interested in than others (I would bet all those combined do not make up more than 50% of all my posted threads). Guilty as charged.

However, a look at my profile and threads will clearly show I have written on a pretty wide array of topics. Iraq, Reletivism, gun control, movies, Okinawa trees, bullying, Amerasians, Landmine victims, Sumo, Torture, Freedom of Speech/SouthPark/Tom Cruise, Annoying your spouse, The Arts, Monoculturalism, Population, Military culture and oddities, Smoking, Duties of photographers and writers, etc... I mean the list goes on, dk. I really cannot believe you can say I cannot speak on a wide array of issues.

Just because I have more threads on AR or religion or Veganism than any other one topic, does not in no way mean I do not and have not spoken on a wide array of other topics. What, just because I do not have 10 threads on each and every other topic?

One thing I do lack in is the backslapping Thanks button, the chit chat on gaming, and the jokes section. I lose in those categorries definitely. I'm sure you are ahead of me on those weighty topics and things.

I did not say I was the best writer or that I declared myself to have written on a wide array of areas of more than anyone else. I did not brag about that. All I said was that if I were blinded by hatred like you accused me of I would not be able to write on a wide array of other topics or not resort to ad homs. Your point above comes off as a snottish slap in the face for I had never even pitted myself against them. I was merely speaking for myself.

But, if that is your way of knocking me down for what ever reason you thought it deserved with my merely pointing out that I am not blinded by hate, then I guess you got your slap you wanted to dole out. Good boy ol' chap!

[dk]

I lied. I'm having trouble forcing myself to bed. Last post of the night, for sure.
Ooops. I accidentally hit the edit button above, dk. That is why your post shows an edit note. But nothing was changed.
I figured. No problem. Been there, done that.

Above I just said that if I were blinded by hatred I would probably be resorting to adhoms. Hatred is a pretty strong emotion. Hell, I don't even think I show any frustration in my writings. How could there be blinding hatred but yet pretty calm and controlled writing on my part?
Ah, I see. Most people would resort to adhoms, but you on the other hand are usually calm. It's not your vocabulary that shows your hatred. It's your persistance. If it were a dislike of religion, you wouldn't be half as persistant as you are.
Sure, I have a dislike of religion, but blinding hatred of it? Again, hyperbole.
Like I said above. Persistance. Eiter that, or I'm overestimating my own dislike for religion, which I highly doubt. Or perhaps we're just reacting differently from each other.

Of course I have a few topics I am more interested in than others (I would bet all those combined do not make up more than 50% of all my posted threads). Guilty as charged.

However, a look at my profile and threads will clearly show I have written on a pretty wide array of topics. Iraq, Reletivism, gun control, movies, Okinawa trees, bullying, Amerasians, Landmine victims, Sumo, Torture, Freedom of Speech/SouthPark/Tom Cruise, Annoying your spouse, The Arts, Monoculturalism, Population, Military culture and oddities, Smoking, Duties of photographers and writers, etc... I mean the list goes on, dk. I really cannot believe you can say I cannot speak on a wide array of issues.
I know you've written on a lot of topics. I've also created a lot of threads. Some I care deeply about (forum improvements) and others I really don't but still find interesting(rich Indian people). It's those topics that mean the most that I was taking into account.

But I might have missed some of your posts. Anything is possible.
Just because I have more threads on AR or religion or Veganism than any other one topic, does not in no way mean I do not and have not spoken on a wide array of other topics. What, just because I do not have 10 threads on each and every other topic?
No, but it definitely creates a map of priorities, and for as long as I have known you on the forums, those priorities start to make sense and go from simple posts to an actual agenda. I mean really, why would I even find myself in a thread discussing chapels if I didn't already understand BEFORE CLICKING IN HERE what it was you were really bringing up? You ask questions, but they're not actually questions. You push an idea through a question. It's a valid tactic. You have specific ideas in people you want to change. You shouldn't feel bad about that. I simply disagree with your overall tactics in some ways.
One thing I do lack in is the backslapping Thanks button, the chit chat on gaming, and the jokes section. I lose in those categorries definitely. I'm sure you are ahead of me on those weighty topics and things.
If you even bothered reading most of these categories--which it's obvious you don't--half the time I'm in these categories I'm busy trying to offer up some technical support for our arcade, which I generally seriously have no answer. But way to go. It's not my fault if people agree with what I have to say and don't feel like posting a one line, "Hey, I agree with you!". I don't look for approval. I never have, and I couldn't give two shits if I didn't have anyone backing me. If I want to say something, I say it. If I get thanked for it, wowee neato!

I did not say I was the best writer or that I declared myself to have written on a wide array of areas of more than anyone else. I did not brag about that. All I said was that if I were blinded by hatred like you accused me of I would not be able to write on a wide array of other topics or not resort to ad homs. Your point above comes off as a snottish slap in the face for I had never even pitted myself against them. I was merely speaking for myself.
You are not fully blinded by hatred. I'll give you that. But lets count the number of religions in here you've actually questioned/tackled in individual threads. How many are Christian? How many are buddhist? How many are pastafarian? I know, you said you post about what you know, and that's understandable, but considering the total number of threads you've created, it'd be neat to do some statistical analysis on the general and subtle topics of the threads you've created. I might even be wrong! The human mind is still a mystery! Mine might just go full attention whenever I see a thread of yours that looks dangerous! Who knows?! It might be a defense mechanism!
But, if that is your way of knocking me down for what ever reason you thought it deserved with my merely pointing out that I am not blinded by hate, then I guess you got your slap you wanted to dole out. Good boy ol' chap!
I'm not trying to knock you down. I just think it's a pretty rediculous idea for athiests to be able to reserve a chapel when we've already got starbucks.

[kombu_kid]

I for one think hatred is a consuming emotion. I doubt I'd be able to discuss anything else if I were so blinded and consumed by it......

Was Mary, Jesus's mother, a whore?

To Christians: What about former Christians who have renounced Christianity?

....But to no avail, some Christian parents shamelessly lock that viral meme onto their child's mind like a vice grip with some good ol' fashion fun at Jesus Camp:

It is sad that he left, people enjoyed his miracles. What sucks is it was over something small -- a small crucifiction, yet significant to him, but hey...he resurected himself so what's the biggy, eh?

Atheism is benign and only grows on rationality, whereas religions are a meme that are misfirings of the mind and are irrational.

To say that one cannot hate and still maintain their calm demeanor and civility is somewhat ridiculous, isn't it? Can a serial killer murder and stay calm?

[Fonze]

Damn dk you went to town. Were you on alchohol? Good to see.You've said so many things i've wanted to but in words i could have never done. You just gave me some new sigs.

[dk]

Damn dk you went to town. Were you on alchohol? Good to see.You've said so many things i've wanted to but in words i could have never done. You just gave me some new sigs.
I had a few drinks, but I wasn't drunk by any means. :p

[P_chan]

One thing I do lack in is the backslapping Thanks button, the chit chat on gaming, and the jokes section. I lose in those categorries definitely. I'm sure you are ahead of me on those weighty topics and things.

Why do you continue to bring this up? Almost like you think your "above" everyone else because you don't play video games or give thanks to users for useful posts. There is no hidden agenda for the thanks button. It doesn't define a clique, or a group of people who formed a secret alliance through the thanks feature.

I think dk summed it up fairly well. I'm fairly certain that there isn't a single member here who is out fishing for thanks. I like to help people if I can and if I get thanked for it, good for me. I do the same thing to other users, including you TP. If someone brings up a good point, posts an interesting link, funny video, or helps me with a question, I give them a thanks. IMHO it's a lot better then filling a thread up with one liner "thanks" posts.

[TheNoNamedOne]

It's not your vocabulary that shows your hatred. It's your persistance. If it were a dislike of religion, you wouldn't be half as persistant as you are.

OMG, what an argument!? Persistence is an indicator of blind hatred! LMAO!

Hey, MLK, you marching in the south and you know what, it was all your "persistence" that gave you up for blind hatred. Hey, Jack LeLain, America's first fitness guru, it was your "persistence" that let's us see your blind hatred! Hey, any of you who are "persistent", you are all just blinded by hatred, didn't ya know?

No, but it definitely creates a map of priorities, and for as long as I have known you on the forums, those priorities start to make sense and go from simple posts to an actual agenda.

Like you, I choose topics that interest me. It is clear to see that I am interested in the overall "rights" issues that society faces, and that is not just AR, but on many points related to humans as well. The rights issues category has many topics posted in there by me other than AR.

You ask questions, but they're not actually questions. You push an idea through a question. It's a valid tactic. You have specific ideas in people you want to change. You shouldn't feel bad about that. I simply disagree with your overall tactics in some ways.

Fine (http://changingminds.org/techniques/questioning/socratic_questions.htm). You are quite free to disagree with the Socratic Method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method). Maybe you just didn't know there was a name for that style.

If you even bothered reading most of these categories--which it's obvious you don't--half the time I'm in these categories I'm busy trying to offer up some technical support for our arcade, which I generally seriously have no answer.

Fine, but have I ever seriously disparaged you for where you spend your time and on what topics? I don't think I have, and I only took a jab at you here previously because you came at me with a pretty hard accusation -- which with statistics I have already shown to be wrong.

But way to go.

Yeah, way to go with being off-base with your post, too.

It's not my fault if people agree with what I have to say and don't feel like posting a one line, "Hey, I agree with you!". I don't look for approval. I never have, ...

Of course it is not your fault if people agree with you or that you are looking for approval. You need not care about that and I agree with you that you for the most part honestly do not care. I doubt though that if you created a completely different user account to post under you'd be thanked or agreed with as much in all the glowing gushing styles members sometimes heap on you. Of course I could be wrong. But it would be neat to see. But then, there would be know way to confirm that the new account member's secret identity was not leaked out with a "heads up".

You are not fully blinded by hatred. I'll give you that. ...but considering the total number of threads you've created, it'd be neat to do some statistical analysis on the general and subtle topics of the threads you've created. I might even be wrong! ...

Yes, I would say you were wrong (http://www.japanupdate.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3041).

I'm not trying to knock you down. I just think it's a pretty rediculous idea for athiests to be able to reserve a chapel when we've already got starbucks.

Sure you were trying to knock me down. I don't see how it could be taken any other way when you accuse someone of hatred, and then that person simply states they have been able to talk calmly on a wide array of topics (not at all bragging they have done so better comparatively to others), and then you come back with this out of the blue lining me up with unamed others as if I am below or beaten by them:

"I wouldn't say you're the most versatile poster on the board. Most of our regulars have got you beat in that category." -- dk

Like wtf? Of course it was an attempt at knocking me down or putting me in my place. Why else state it comparatively and that I was beaten? I only spoke of myself and not put myself above anyone with my original statement on the point of just being able to speak on a wide array of topics. I never denied anyone else could, let alone I did so having them beat. Did I?

Maybe you didn't mean to do it on purpose and it was late night, but it is a clear kockdown.

[affiredawg76]

1st Amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Once someone tells me what religion is being established by having a building called the "Base Chapel", I will be right there with you demanding a change in course.:w00t:

[Jrocka83]

Oh and at least there is a beer volcano where I'm going after death.:D

Yeah, but, you could go to hell and end up with a valcano of flat Pabst Blue Ribbon and a stripper with syphilus. And since its a valcono, the beer is more then likley hot.:barf:

[P_chan]

but it's still beer.

[mikersoft]

1st Amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Once someone tells me what religion is being established by having a building called the "Base Chapel", I will be right there with you demanding a change in course.:w00t:

Right on! The presence of a chapel on base doesn't mean the government is pushing or endorsing a particular religion. It simply means the DOD is providing services that many military members are used to having in the states.

-Mike

[Tony Stacks]

The Chapels on base are for all religons. They have a schedule and dofferent times for all the religons.

[Oki alumni]

The Chapels on base are for all religons. They have a schedule and dofferent times for all the religons.

errrrr....what times and days do the Wikkans meet? How 'bout the Atheist sect?

-Oki Alumni:old: (who just looked up the definition of "Chapel":grin1:)