UBC study finds believers distrust atheists as much as rapists

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by Thor

CB is CP's true cult member, its irritating to hear his words but boy its fascinating.

Full marks to CalgaryBorn for coming here to defend his position in thread after thread. He's consistently well spoken, and seldom rude.

I for one, consider the CP experience much richer for his presence.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The point is that Jefferson with the help of congress dealt with judges who he believed shouldn't be serving. Hopefully the next president will have the same courage.

The intent of the constitution was to prevent a State church rising at the federal level. Most of those 13 original colonies actually had state churches when they signed on. These were removed over time without court order because it was beyond the scope of the constitution to limit State activity. Some whinning atheists complaining about a few crosses being erected with private money would have been laughed out of court in those days.

Today liberals have filled the courts with activists who see the constitution as a document that needs to be changed to conform with their social agenda.



We and this thread has been talking about North America. Canada has a State church .

It really makes me laugh when people like you pick and choose the manner in which you want the Constitution to be interpreted. Religion = just like the founders. Guns = nothing like the founders.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

Some points.

Maybe you'll be more tolerant if you appreciate why they do it. Those folks believe it's their responsibility to go into the world and witness to unbelievers. Put it this way, if you knew something that you absolutely believed was true and that everyone would benefit (it is the most important thing ever), would you maybe want to tell others?

So when atheists feel the need to speak out from the OVERWHELMINGLY religious society they live in, because they feel their point needs to be heard as a counter to the religious position this is militant?

I don't like some of those faiths but when they come to my door I'm respectful as I thank them and close the door because I know why they're there. Try it.

Ahh thats nice, I wonder how nice you would be surrounded by atheism, door to door atheists, radio stations with nothing but atheist songs, talking points... How about all your politicians talking down towards religious people freely and openly? How about constantly living with these damn atheists in every facet of your life?

Yeah your patience would be there I'm sure, its easy to be patient when your life is one in the majority, so much suffering being like most people.

I haven't read every post carefully, but I haven't seen where anyone here has said they distrust athiests more than rapists. I think you're wrong, but think there are some very smart people here with great values in other ways. I don't distrust anyone because he/she is an athiest. Nor do I necessarily trust a Christian because of his/her faith.

Well thats good, we can disagree completely on faith issues, but I wouldn't judge you to be any worse or better than anyone else until I got to know you.

Its hard for a religious person to not do that however, because your one religion is superior and correct, the others are not. And not to mention atheists are obviously the worst of them all...

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Canada has a State church .

Oh really? I must have missed that in the hundreds of times that I've read the Constitution Act, the British North America Act, and hundreds of Charter and Division of Powers cases I've read. Of course, its not necessary to go to law school and practice law for a few years to learn that Canada has no state church. Two seconds on Wikipedia confirms it:

Section Two of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees freedom of religion. Progressively, case law has led to the overturning of specific laws that reflected religious observances (essentially Christian). Notwithstanding this, separate schools for Roman Catholics (the religious majority) are constitutionally protected and funded by taxes in some provinces. Canada's head of state, the King or Queen of Canada, is also the head of the Church of England which is part of the worldwide Anglican Communion. The Anglican Church of Canada, the Canadian "branch" of the Anglican Communion, is, however, not "established" as a state church in Canada as is the Church of England.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion#Canada

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

Maybe you'll be more tolerant if you appreciate why they do it. Those folks believe it's their responsibility to go into the world and witness to unbelievers. Put it this way, if you knew something that you absolutely believed was true and that everyone would benefit (it is the most important thing ever), would you maybe want to tell others?

I've met a few homeless people like that. Sadly, in a lot of cases it is mental illness, but nevertheless - I don't want them promoting their fantastical worldview to me or my family. Especially on my own property.

We're already all full up on crazy. Don't need any more.

You are free to go do your own thing. I'll fight tooth and nail for your ability to do that as long as you aren't harming others. But I live in a public society with public institutions, and they need to represent everyone.

There's nothing extra special about your religious beliefs. Keep them within your place of worship, until they've been fully rationalized out of existence.

How so? The believers I know live life as fully as anyone. Just because we believe in an afterlife why does that preclude from living it up. This is totally false.

The fundamental principle of most religious afterlife is that if you follow the rules, you get to go to heaven. It's a methodology based in fear - I don't like that.

It's also why you have all these groups trying so hard to deny the rights of others - those "others" (gay, abortionists, women, other faiths) aren't following the rules. The further outside the rules you are - the more alien you are. The most alien being atheists - which is why the original article states Christians trust rapists over atheists.

The fundamental reality of atheism is that this is all you get. Ever. So make the most of it, and don't think that you can pray your way out of trouble. You need to work at it yourself.

I haven't read every post carefully, but I haven't seen where anyone here has said they distrust athiests more than rapists..

The thread started with an article stating exactly that.

[Thor]

Isn't that the crux of it.

Atheists are not out there telling governments how to treat people, we fight for equal rights for gays, women, and minorities.

Often we fight against people who hold beliefs from whatever religion that go against these modern secular ideals, and we're treated as we are scum of the earth..

Glad I'm on this side, honestly, every day I see more and more reasons why faith is such a cancer on this world and why questioning everything is so much more satisfying.

Its not unusual that well over 90% of astro physicists are atheist or agnostics... The ones that understand the universe we live in to such an incredible degree have such an easy time to dismiss religion, and maybe a bit less a diety... I mean honestly all of the current religions subscribed to by believers like Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Mormonism, etc is so laughable and obviously the creation of a male dominated ignorant ancient society that its so tough to listen to people take this shi%t seriously.

Sorry, with Hitchens dying today I felt a need to be extra militant

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

atheists go to court for "small" issues like this because you have to draw the line in the sand somewhere. the US constitution is pretty clear when it comes to the seperation of church and state, if nobody stands up against small violations like this then you're just inviting more liberties to be taken by religious groups

Yah well if your concerned is with religious groups having liberties you've got a point. If your concern is these crosses would lead to a marriage of State and church you are really stretching things.

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

and as for atheists being the only ones to protest, that's complete horse####. or have you forgotten about the mass hysteria started by various christian groups when someone wanted to build a mosque in New York?

3000 people were killed in the name of Allah. Building a religious center in the ruins of that attack unto that abominable god was in very poor taste. People had reason to be offended.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Oh really? I must have missed that in the hundreds of times that I've read the Constitution Act, the British North America Act, and hundreds of Charter and Division of Powers cases I've read. Of course, its not necessary to go to law school and practice law for a few years to learn that Canada has no state church. Two seconds on Wikipedia confirms it:



Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion#Canada

The United church of Canada was formed by an act of Parliament:

http://web2.gov.mb.ca/laws/statutes/private/c20090e.php

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

3000 people were killed in the name of Allah. Building a religious center in the ruins of that attack unto that abominable god was in very poor taste. People had reason to be offended.

Those people were killed by evil followers of an evil MAN (not god)

And if you're throwing stones, how many people have been killed in the name of YOUR "abominable god"?

You really are a sad, little hate filled man. I pity you.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

3000 people were killed in the name of Allah. Building a religious center in the ruins of that attack unto that abominable god was in very poor taste. People had reason to be offended.

Please pull up a map of NYC on Google and draw a circle denoting the radius around the WTC site where you would deny Muslims the right to peacefully practice their faith because you think people would be offended.

I also find it very amusing that you refer to Allah as an "abominable god". Is it not an accepted belief that the deity of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam ( aka the "God of Abraham") is the same entity?

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The United church of Canada was formed by an act of Parliament:

http://web2.gov.mb.ca/laws/statutes/private/c20090e.php

Good grief. In no way whatsoever does that piece of Manitoba legislation grant the United Church status as the "state religion" of Canada (nor could it possibly do so, for so many reasons that I won't bother to list them here, even if it purported to do so.) Here is brief description by the Supreme Court of Canada in its decision, John Doe v. Bennett, 2004 SCC 17, of the legal effect of this sort of legislation:

11 The purpose for which ecclesiastical corporations sole like St. George's are created is to serve as a point of legal interface between the Roman Catholic Chruch and the community at the diocesan level. The Chruch is at one and the same time a spiritual presence in the community and a secular actor in the community. The task of the corporation sole is to provide a bridge between the two spheres for the diocese. On a secular level, the Chruch interacts with members of the diocesan community in a host of ways. It carries on a variety of religious, educational and social activities. It makes contracts with employees. It transports parishioners. It sponsors charitable events. It purchases and sells goods and property. To do these things, it requires a legal personality. That personality is the corporation sole. To restrict the purpose of the corporation sole to the acquisition, holding and administration of property is to capture only a portion of the purpose it is intended to serve and to artificially truncate its functions.

12 The role of the corporation sole as a legal interface between the Church and the community is set forth in the legislation creating it, An Act to Incorporate the Roman Catholic Bishop of St. George's, S.N. 1913, 3 Geo. V., c. 12. The Act, quite simply, incorporates the office of bishop, in all its aspects. It does not confine itself to the holding of property belonging to the diocese.

Perhaps its best that you leave interpretations of the US Constitution, the Canadian Constitution, and the legislation enacted pursuant to those founding documents, to lawyers and "activist judges."

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Those people were killed by evil followers of an evil MAN (not god)

And if you're throwing stones, how many people have been killed in the name of YOUR "abominable god"?

You really are a sad, little hate filled man. I pity you.

Millions have been killed in the name of my God. Most without the approval of God or sanction of scriptures. Certainly there is no mandate for Christians to kill in the name of God.

That doesn't change the inappropriateness of raising a temple unto Allah in the ashes of the 3000 lives that were killed in Allah's name and in accordance with his scriptures.

There are Arab Muslims who are still distrustful of christians because of the crusades which happened centuries ago. We are talking about something that happened 10 years ago.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

...I also find it very amusing that you refer to Allah as an "abominable god". Is it not an accepted belief that the deity of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam ( aka the "God of Abraham") is the same entity?

Only to outside observers. I am guessing and generalizing a little bit here, but subscribers to Judaism would tend to hold that "Allah" is a confused abstraction
of the true God that is really incomparable with him, and the Christian's commit blasphemy in worshiping the man Jesus. I can't say how Muslim's perceive the Jewish concept of God, but I am also fairly certain that they believe that Christians also blasphemously and inappropriately worship the man Jesus as well as the virgin Mary.

If you listen to as many Evangelical apologists as I have, you will soon discover that MANY of them are just as fervently committed to similar such distinctions: both the Jewish god and the Muslim god are deemed to be "false gods". Furthermore, such vitriol is not uncommonly extended to their own Christian brethren: Simply put, if your concept of God does not match their own, then your god is an abomination.

...or perhaps even a little closer to home:

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Spoken like a true unbeliever...

This was Calgaryborn's not-so-subtle exposé of my own 'idolatry".

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I can't say how Muslim's perceive the Jewish concept of God, but I am also fairly certain that they believe that Christians also blasphemously and inappropriately worship the man Jesus as well as the virgin Mary.

Some of my Muslim friends jokingly refer to Christians as polytheistic heathens because of their worship of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (and for latin Catholics, the Virgin Mary maybe too?) Its all good-natured ribbing of course but perhaps there is a underlying kernel of truth to the joke (as is often the case)? Perhaps one of our Muslim forumers can provide some insight?

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Has anyone looked into whether rapists trust atheists more than believers?

[MarchHare]

If you listen to as many Evangelical apologists as I have, you will soon discover that MANY of them are just as fervently committed to similar such distinctions: both the Jewish god and the Muslim god are deemed to be "false gods"

How do they rationalize that belief? The earliest Christians, including Jesus himself, were Jews. Christians didn't switch gods, they just believe Jesus to be the son of Yehweh and the messiah.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Millions have been killed in the name of my God. Most without the approval of God or sanction of scriptures. Certainly there is no mandate for Christians to kill in the name of God.

You are going to need to elaborate on the bolded section for me. As I understand the accounts of herem warfare from the Old Testament in their actual cultural and historical context, the mandate to completely obliterate every living thing in the Canaanite city-states was indeed issued by God, and championed by the Torah.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

That doesn't change the inappropriateness of raising a temple unto Allah in the ashes of the 3000 lives that were killed in Allah's name and in accordance with his scriptures.

Much like your insistence that there is no Christian mandate for Christian's to kill in God's name, I suspect that such opinions as they are derived from the Quran are a matter of interpretation. As usual, you seem to be of the opinion that the Muslim scriptures are just like the Jewish and Christian scriptures, and that their meaning and correct application is a straightforward, simple and plain matter. I know there are Muslim posters on this board, and I would be very interested to hear their take on your generalization. I suspect that they would take issue with this characterization.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

There are Arab Muslims who are still distrustful of christians because of the crusades which happened centuries ago. We are talking about something that happened 10 years ago.

Are you attempting to draw an analogy between the reaction of the population in a secular nation with that in an Arab theocracy? Do you really think that these responses are comparable?

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Good grief. In no way whatsoever does that piece of Manitoba legislation grant the United Church status as the "state religion" of Canada (nor could it possibly do so, for so many reasons that I won't bother to list them here, even if it purported to do so.) Here is brief description by the Supreme Court of Canada in its decision, John Doe v. Bennett, 2004 SCC 17, of the legal effect of this sort of legislation:



Perhaps its best that you leave interpretations of the US Constitution, the Canadian Constitution, and the legislation enacted pursuant to those founding documents, to lawyers and "activist judges."

But we haven't even discussed the Quebec act:

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

The point I've been making is that Canada has not remained separate from its religious institutions. Yes I misspoke saying we had a State church but, we do have christian denominations that were established by Parliament and others like the Catholic church who were given a province's school system.

[Thor]

TC who's the guy in your Avatar? Always wondered

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

How do they rationalize that belief? The earliest Christians, including Jesus himself, were Jews. Christians didn't switch gods, they just believe Jesus to be the son of Yehweh and the messiah.

It's complicated. But for most of these people cosmic forces often play a big part in it. Jews were "blinded" and "deceived" by forces of the devil for hundreds of years before the birth of Jesus, and so much so by this time that they were incapable of seeing the truth.

There is a long and well established history in the beliefs and writings of the early Church which promoted demonizing "the Jews". For fun, read through the four gospels in their chronological order: Mark –> Luke –> Matthew –> John, and pay close attention to how "the Jews" are portrayed in each account. You will notice that they tend to be progressively vilified.