Comments on: The atheist is always wrong

By: vastleft

vastleft — Sat, 23 Jun 2007 00:21:11 +0000

umlando,

Thanks. I absolutely agree this is a form of the Stockholm Syndrome.

By: umlando

umlando — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 21:25:16 +0000

Nice post, vastleft - I just found it through C&L. I find that even people who think religion is illogical, harmful and foolish are shocked at my lack of religion. I wonder if there isn't some Stockholm Syndrome going on? Many of my relatives and associates who are most comfortable with my beliefs are also believers. They believe in mythical sky beings (my fave is the Flying Spaghetti Monster), and I beleieve there are no such. But people without a belief either way (agnostics, negative or "soft" atheists who just don't believe any particular thing) seem to be embarassed that I actively disbelieve. I've also had the amusing experience, as a high school history teacher, of teaching people their own theology in a comparative religions context. And many who attended Bible study so frequently it interfered with their homework had no clue about the actual tenets of their faith. Thanks again.

By: Marc with a C

Marc with a C — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 15:54:16 +0000

There was also a meeting of the Society of Friends in Philadelphia during the American Revolution who felt that in times of crisis, if the spirit so commanded, they could take up arms and fight in wars. This was, however, not particularly popular with the rest of the church, and so the Philadelphia Free Quakers were expelled from the rest of the convention and eventually died off.

Interestingly enough, Quakers, Mennonites, Moravians, and other peace churches were often viewed very suspiciously by the Congressional forces, who tended to see in their pacifism a de facto sympathy with the crown.

By: Betelnut

Betelnut — Sun, 17 Jun 2007 03:28:03 +0000

There were a lot of Quaker abolitionists in the 19th century. Maybe they were considered “militant”?

By: God is for Suckers! - Commentary, news, and rants on the evils and stupidity of belief in the big invisible daddy in the sky. Illuminating and watchdogging the widespread attempts to institutionalize the theocratic rule of the US. Making fun of believers

Wed, 13 Jun 2007 15:38:17 +0000

[...] So, why are articulate and well-reasoned folks like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris constantly being tarred as militants, even by humanist leaders? [...]

By: Sarge

Sarge — Sun, 10 Jun 2007 21:37:15 +0000

There was also the Butler family of Philidephia. One was a secretary of war and his son, Smedley, became commandant of the Marine Corps. He also won two medals of honor. I’m told by”Friends” from that area who are friends that neither was ever “read out” of meeting. In pre-revolutionary days the city had to supply militia, but to avoid martial language they had “associators” not militia. There was in fact a company of “Quaker Blues” many of whom fought, but they were read out of meeting. I understand most were accepted back.

By: Ourlady of Perpetual Motion

Ourlady of Perpetual Motion — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 22:14:04 +0000

I don’t care what other people believe why do they care so much what I believe [or don't believe?].

I do care when their made up ritualistic beliefs start to interfere with important things like critical thinking, personal freedom, scientific exploration and societal progress.

The religious types seem to get most annoyed when informed that they are not allowed to impose their beliefs on everyone. If it’s not just about control, why is it such a problem for them to keep it to themselves?

I won’t replace reason and understanding with faith in a magical superstition. Why is that a problem?

By: vastleft

vastleft — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 17:17:41 +0000

GG,

Well, Nixon was a militant Quaker, or at least a militaristic one.