The atheist is always wrong III
22 June 2007 by vastleft
A CBS-affiliate site in North Dakota features a post that originated at the aptly named sayanything blog, which is part of the Pajamas Media family of factually challenged web holes.
Self-described atheist Rob writes about the following lawsuit in North Dakota, brought by the Freedom from Religion Foundation:
The foundation, a group of atheists and agnostics, argues that the state’s Division of Juvenile Services and the Ward County Social Services Department should stop committing children with behavioral and emotional problems to the Dakota Boys and Girls Ranch, which, according to the ranch’s Web site, helps “children and families succeed in the name of Christ.” The ranch — actually an association that provides a variety of residential and day programs around the state — and directors of the two government agencies are named as defendants.The complaint says that “children are disciplined for refusing to participate in the spiritual aspects” of their therapy and that objectionable behavior is deemed a “corruption in the eyes of Jesus Christ.”
“This is much more troubling than other cases,” said Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the foundation, “because it is a captive audience and a vulnerable population that is unabashedly being indoctrinated in Christianity. They are being committed by the county or the state without their consent.”
So, the state requires that children knuckle under to religious brainwashing. There’s a word for that, what is it… oh, yeah: “The Taliban.”
And how does this rub ol’ Rob?
The name of the group, Freedom From Religion, is more than a little obnoxious. The constitution guarantees the freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Far too many people, including these busybody atheist groups who don’t seem to have anything better to do with their time than get the vapors over even the smallest hint of religion in government, misunderstand this. As long as, in any given issue, the government is not a) establishing a religion or favoring one over the others or b) preventing the free practice of religion by citizens there is nothing unconstitutional about religion in government.
If the state wants to contract with a religious outfit as an option for helping troubled teens that’s perfectly acceptable.
Yes, it’s the people who don’t want forcible religious indoctrination that are the busybodies, what with their obnoxious desire for freedom of belief.
He then momentarily acknowledges “a bit of merit” to the suit before immediately negating that concern.
I’m not familiar enough with with out juvenile justice system to know for sure, but I believe the Boys Ranch may be one of the only options courts/social workers have for helping troubled teens. And if that’s true, the state needs to find a second outfit to provide secular care. Because while religion isn’t necessarily a bad thing (even this atheist sees some benefits to spiritual teachings, even if only for the moral and ethics lessons), teens going through the juvenile justice process should have a secular alternative available. Because like it or not, not everyone in our population is Christian, or even religious.
Perhaps there is a secular alternative to the Dakota Boy’s Ranch here in the state (or maybe the Boy’s Ranch is capable of providing a secular program), and if that’s true I doubt this lawsuit has any merit.
In the same spirit, so to speak, then it’s OK if the state doles out forced indoctrination of Islam, Scientology, Zeusology, or Satanism, as long as there’s one secular facility somewhere.
A scan down the other stories currently on the makeupshit blog home page finds a treasure trove of truthiness, for example:
- Continued flogging of the “Nancy Pelosi is a traitor for visiting Syria” canard, somehow neglecting the fact that her visit was preceded and followed by similar visits by Republican reps who — of course — are and forever will remain America’s heroes
- A claim that a group that wants to preserve the separation of church and state is hypocritical for seeking federal money to help uphold the constitution, as if freedom from religion (oops, sorry to use that obnoxious phrase) is a form of theism
- An argument that “the Democrats have opened themselves up for a world of hurt by getting in bed with the Michael Moore anti-war types. These people are simply out of the mainstream of American politics.” Well, he’s right, as long as “mainstream” means the 26% of Americans who support the war.
There’s much more there for the scatologist to muck through, but after a while it just starts making you feel dirty, and not in a good way.
22 June 2007, on 12:44 pm
And he calles them obnoxious? Does freedom of speech mean we have to keep talking? Does freedom of the press mean they have to write about something, or that we have to read it?
And what part of:
means
I’ve gotta call Bullshit on this one. No, they didn’t make it a law, but if the kids are being sentenced to the place to be indoctrinated, they are endorsing that religion over all the others. Besides, the government doesn’t have to contract a “religious outfit” for the purpose. They could form their own secular treatment center, and probably pay less in the process.
22 June 2007, on 12:49 pm
I was so upset, that I forgot my primary reason for commenting. This guy may be a “self-described” atheist, but he’s way to apologetic.
Anyway, when will this site get a preview button? That would work wonders for my posts.
22 June 2007, on 12:56 pm
Somehow I really doubt that this “Rob” is an atheist.
Kinda sounds like a Christian posing as an atheist to sound intelligent or something. Apparently “Thou shall not bear false witness” doesn’t apply when you’re preaching about politics. Who knew?
22 June 2007, on 1:18 pm
No, Rob is in fact an atheist. Been one for some time.
I’m just not the sort of atheist who feels the need to get his knickers in a twist every time one of his fellow citizens exposes the fact that they’re religious. Nor am I the sort who feels the need to use the power of government to crush the religion of others.
I mean, seriously. You talk of the Taliban, and yet your opinions on religion are every bit as intolerant as theirs are in favor of their special brand of radical Islam.
There is nothing unconstitutional about religious displays on public property as long as a) the government doesn’t show favoritism to one religion over the other and b) nobody is denied their ability to practice religion freely.
So ultimately, this is a decision for the taxpayers. Which is all I want to see happen. I’d vote against the monument were it put to a vote, but that’s not what these dumb off-in-left-field atheists want. They want to impose their will on the majority of Fargoans who want the monument.
That’s…rather sad. Not to mention intolerant, etc.
What’s even funnier is that while these retards complain about “their” tax dollars being spent on this monument, they had no problem using other people’s tax dollars to fund their lawsuit against the city.
Talk about hypocrisy.
But I’ll guess you’ll probably be ignoring that bit of inconvenient truth, right jackass?
22 June 2007, on 1:50 pm
Rob, you definitely sound like a xian disguised as an atheist. (This sort of deception is all too common for us to be fooled very easily.)
You fail to understand the concept of separation of church and state. There is a huge difference between installing religious monuments, etc using tax dollars and using tax dollars to unhold the Constitution.
So, if the majority of the country wanted you to follow Jesus or to impose the Ten Commandments on everyone forcing them to comply or die, you would just go along with it? If the majority vote to force you to declare a religious affiliation, you would comply, declare a religion and live a lie? If the muslims become the majority and demand ALL women to wear burqas and cover themselves, you would approve of that and tell women to go along with it and passively comply? If the majority vote that it is unlawful to drink beer, you would be okay with that?
Just because the majority might want a thing, or believe in something doesn’t necessarily make it a good thing. Look at Nazi Germany, idiot.
22 June 2007, on 2:21 pm
And what if all of the thousands of religions wanted representation on government property? Our Constitutional rights would be “buried” under a mountain of “religious tolerance”.
22 June 2007, on 2:25 pm
Anyway, when will this site get a preview button? That would work wonders for my posts.
Berlzebub – Ron is going to be installing a new upgrade.
22 June 2007, on 2:33 pm
At Rob’s blog, look what commenter Chief RZ writes
But Sparkie Arbuckle has a great response:
22 June 2007, on 3:22 pm
I just had a great idea. They should build a facility for troubled teens that uses Wicca to set the kiddies straight.
Then we’ll really see how tolerant all these Christian are. I’ve noticed that they almost always get their panties in a bunch when another religious group is given the exact same privileges that they’ve enjoyed for years!
22 June 2007, on 3:41 pm
Off-topic: A really disturbing look at how Christianist doctors are refusing to deliver medical services based on their religious superstitions.
22 June 2007, on 4:09 pm
Rob,
As with most atheists, I hold that your beliefs are up to you. It’s only when you inflict them on me — as many religionists have taken to doing in recent years — that I care much about it. Until this outrageous wave of recent in-your-face religion (destroying the twin towers, faith-based government), my atheism was a private matter. Now, it seems some pushback is needed against religion-based militancy and religion-based government.
You’d think you could get more than a second sentence out before you start in with the straw-man arguments. Or not. No one’s complaining that people “expose” that they’re religious or trying to get government to “crush” religion. Do you ever wonder what would happen if you argued the topic at hand, instead of throwing up smokescreens right from the get-go?
If you don’t understand the difference between defending the proud American tradition of the separation of church and state and the Taliban, why are you wasting people’s time discussing current affairs?
Erm, that is the issue — favoritism. One might consider forcing Christianity onto wards of the state under lock-and-key to be religious favoritism. But not you.
We have a constitutional, representative democracy, not mob rule. And boy, those atheists are reliably dumb, aren’t they?
Right — atheists routinely poll as the most biased-against group in America, and they simply demand that we keep church and state separate. That makes them bigots. Makes a lot of sense.
Come to think of it, atheists aren’t just dumb, they’re “retards.” Very witty, Wilde! If there is no difference between defending the Constitution and routing government money to churches, do atheist organizations get tax-exempt status?
Oooh, “jackass.” I guess when your argument is going so strong on the merits, may as well throw in some lame invective to top it off. I didn’t ignore that “truth.” In fact, your claim is noted in my original post.
What you, sir, have on your side is blind anger and a rightwing noise machine. I hope that’s sustaining for you. Your side has had complete control of our government for several years now and has made a proper mess out of damn near everything. Time to look in the mirror and ask why you can’t make legitimate points or prioritize things that are more important than whatever power-to-the-powerful anti-humanist agendas slime off the desks of Rush Limbaugh and Grover Norquist.
22 June 2007, on 4:20 pm
(Yes, Stardust already tackled this, but I can’t help myself)
Talking in third person? (Yes, I know this was cheap, but I couldn’t help myself.)
Nor am I. Actually, I’m married to a Roman Catholic. So, there goes that fallacy. The reason FFR objects to where the children are being sent is because of the indoctrination involved.
Intolerant? When was the last time an atheist or agnostic strapped explosives to their chest and walked into a mall? When was the last time one of the godless purposefully flew a plane into a building, with passangers on board? When was the last time that an atheist said that homosexuals should be either exiled or killed? I could care less about someones religion, but, unfortunately, that sort of thinking affects us all. Since you won’t speak out against it, the rest of us have to.
How can they display any religious object, and it not show favoritism? In order to not show favoritism, they would have to show an object from every religion from the start. The best bet would be to just leave it alone, completely. Religion has no place in government.
So you favor majority rule over secularity? I thought you were an atheist. I’m sure most of them think that gay people shouldn’t adopt because all gays molest children, or what about the seeming majority opinion that evolution isn’t real. Should the Book of Genesis take the place of Bio101?
So you’re complaining that they’re using tax dollars for everyones right to freedom of (or from) religion, and to defend the Constitution? So, only those who can afford to pay for it themselves should sue the government? Think about that real hard. If the government didn’t foot the bill in cases like this, the minority populations wouldn’t have a chance in hell in winning any sort of lawsuit. Oh, I forgot. You prefer majority rule.
What bit of inconvenient truth? That everyone has a right to be heard, that the right of one is the same as the rights of many, or that it’s the governments responsibility to protect those rights? You seem to want to ignore those inconventient truths, numbnuts.
22 June 2007, on 4:31 pm
By the way, Vastleft. Good post, and I had heard, a while back, about xian doctors treatment of their patients. I’m not surprised. Excellent link, though.
By the way, I love this site. Its on my blogroll.
22 June 2007, on 4:40 pm
Maybe Rob shouldn’t wear knickers. That could be his problem right there..
22 June 2007, on 5:00 pm
Rob said:
Can I infer that you are really an atheist AND a Libertarian? That’s the only reason I can think of why an authoritarian (and GOP?) would blog from a rightist standpoint.
Aha! Another clue! He hates everything Al Gore stands for! Plus he’s prone to unwarranted name-calling. I suspect his “wight-wing wittle feelings were hurt”…
Visit the leftosphere the weekend of the Fourth of July. We’ll be laying out our reasons for objecting to, among other things, xian boot-camps. We love to Blog Against Theocracy!
22 June 2007, on 5:53 pm
I’m late reading Crooks&Liars today! I found that VL’s The atheist is always wrong and The atheist is always wrong II are both featured in Mike’s Blog Roundup, under Holy Crap! While Mike is off opening for some big rock act, Batocchio, a some-time commenter here, is covering for his absence. Thanks, Batocchio!
And congrats, VastLeft!
(*SnarkAlert!*) I’ll bet Rob never makes C&L/MBRU, unless Mike finds him to be too “wooo”…
22 June 2007, on 5:58 pm
22 June 2007, on 6:24 pm
Lol, I’d have to include myself in that camp too, though probably for different reasons.
22 June 2007, on 6:27 pm
OMFSM! It’s a trifecta! Batocchio also included a post of VL’s from CorrenteWire!
(*muttering* I wonder how much he had to pay for that?)
22 June 2007, on 7:26 pm
Naomi,
Thanks for letting me know. I was behind on my C&Ling too, and I hadn’t heard.
22 June 2007, on 8:34 pm
This shows more clearly that being an atheist means only one thing – that you do not believe in the existence of a supernatural creator of the universe. It does not imply any type of political affiliation, or strong desire for upholding individual liberty over the tyranny of the majority.
When it comes to issues of liberty, I’d rather side with the christian commenter Spanders on the NoGodBlog than I would with Rob here.
22 June 2007, on 9:29 pm
Hey, I live right on top of ND. “Those people” keep hopping over our border to buy shit. Once, one of them left a tattered copy of the state dictionary, so I happen to know for a fact that in the ND dictionary “atheist” is defined as “someone who hasn’t been to church this week.” Skip two weeks in a row and you’re automatically a Satanist.
22 June 2007, on 9:55 pm
Rob accuses atheists of wanting to impose their will on others, when really, as so many on here have already noted, atheists seek to ensure that no one’s views are imposed on anyone else, and that it is the theists that are guilty of demanding that others think as they do, or at least accept theists’ impositions on others without complaint.
This reminds me of an email exchange I had earlier today with a xian who expressed dismay at my ‘change in theology’. In my reply, I pointed out that my atheism actually represents an absence of theology, that it is not as if I switched from Christianity to Islam, say. In his response, he conceded the point. Would that Rob would demonstrate such perspicacity….
22 June 2007, on 10:05 pm
Clarification: My xian correspondent expressed disappointment at my ‘new theology’, which prompted my reply.
23 June 2007, on 12:21 am
So many great comments about Rob’s simply…”not getting it”, RE Separation of/from Church and State.
Why is it so hard for the religious delusionals to understand what Stardust laid out so eloquently. If Rob is indeed an atheist…he’s, in my opinion, got to be one of weirdest variety of atheists who’s shown up here. Maybe he’s really more of an agnostic theist?
That info in the link that vastleft posted, really ticks me off, and reminds me of just how humongous are the number of hospitals that are under, in particular, Xtian control. I’ll shorten my comment about that disturbing issue (skipping a lot of typing energy) and, for that matter EVERY aspect brought up in this post with Hitchen’s accurate and ‘zinging’ remark:
“Religion poisons EVERYTHING!”
A offbeat suggestion:
Regarding the (temporary?) lack of a preview here on GifS; I’ve commented before about using a notepad file for working up your comment. It’s not foolproof, but that technique…even WITH a preview…has occasionally saved a, rather laborious, worked over, comment from total loss from the occasional Firefox brouser crash. Sometimes saving even an apparent ‘lost’ in the comment thread posting. Be sure to ’save as’ the notepad at the outset, and when updating, etc. Notepad isn’t perfectly reliable either!
Finally, Firefox added spelling correction! So now, when I copy/paste into GifS…I can correct my foolish little spelling errors. At my age, it’s happening a lot more frequently! Of course, some words shouldn’t be corrected…you know the ones? You still have to correct some spacing gaps which happen from the transfer.
The potential dumbness of the comment, however, eludes any help from either the browser, comment ‘mechanism’…or mods?
Revenant…
RE: ‘knickers’…Wow…that word brings back, for me, the mid 1940s; when I actually wore REAL corduroy knickers (Knickerbockers) to Catlick school. I realize we’ve co-opted the word knickers from the Brits; to refer to underwear (panties!).
Just to remind myself…and any of youse guys who might remember…or you golfers?…
Foist: Knickers (as in Knickerbockers):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knickerbockers_%28clothing%29
And, of course…the more interesting (hangs out tongue)…much more common…erm…feminine (or cross dresser?) Knickers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knickers
Now, after all that depressing arguing over Xtian numbnut ignorance…doesn’t that make everybody feel better about life?…I’m referring to, of course…
UN-twisting all of our knickers? “Aaaaaaaah!…the feel of it?”
[Or maybe, perhaps: “Oy Vey…der shmeeeell of it?”
23 June 2007, on 7:15 am
Hi. A couple of comments:
1) there ARE wingnut atheists.
2) some of us are willing to pick and choose our battles. As for me, I’d settle for (AT THIS TIME) keeping religion out of our publically funded science classes and not holding hapless folks as captive audicences for secretarian public prayers and religous exercises (e. g., graduations at public schools, getting the bible read to them at court, etc.)
One other thing: I see nothing wrong with the state, say, allowing for some funding for a drug/alcohol treatment program that uses religion, so long as the kid’s parents agree to it and there are other secular alternatives available.
If that seems strange, remember that one can get federal money to attend, say The University of Notre Dame or Baylor University and other religious colleges.
It is my understanding that those sorts of programs are ok PROVIDED the institution spends a certain percentage of money on the actually education of the student and NOT on furthering a religious cause.
23 June 2007, on 7:47 am
Ollie,
Remember Brown vs. the Board of Education: separate is inherently unequal. With your plan, people who don’t want to be brainwashed will have fewer and possibly worse options than people who think it’s hunky dory.
Not to mention that funding programs whose official policy includes telling fabrications seems like a rather dubious use of taxpayer money.
23 June 2007, on 3:43 pm
Vastleft, that isn’t really “my plan”; personally I wish that we (as a society) could just be done with superstitious nonsense altogether.
But, if one wants to disinfect a large area, one should start in the areas where the germs does the most damage(in our case, science and stuff like stem cell research policy) and move on from there.
23 June 2007, on 10:34 pm
Ok so this may be off topic, or maybe iam am missing how sublime it really is?
This is a must see for all who have even a small amount of hope in the religious. I dont’.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/06/its_not_quite_we_are_the_world.php#comments
Endure as long as you can. I got to the “eat your kids” part.
24 June 2007, on 2:51 am
Rob is a good example of the diversity among atheists. He is an example that not all are intelligent and can think rationally.
Incarcerating people and indoctrinating them to “succeed in the name of Christ” is hardly a proper function of the government. It is the religious that are forcing their views on, shall we say, a captive audience.
Another problem is allowing chaplains and such to evangelize in the prisons. If some prisoner specifically requests to see a sky pilot during visiting hours, I see nothing wrong with that, but to have these guys roaming around looking for victims is intolerable.
Here is a video of magic-underwear Romney expressing a religious idea of tolerance.
http://blip.tv/skin/blipnew/cache/drudge/151254.html
“I’m convinced that the nation, that the nation does need, the nation does need to have people of different faiths but we need to have a person of faith lead the country.”
Look at the dumbass audience giving him a standing ovation. That is what we can expect from jesus freaks and other god groupies.
As to Ollie, “One other thing: I see nothing wrong with the state, say, allowing for some funding for a drug/alcohol treatment program that uses religion, so long as the kid’s parents agree to it and there are other secular alternatives available.”
So, substitute one drug, like Jesus or Xenu, for another. As Hitchens says, religion poisons everything. Why Xenu you ask? Well that post looks suspiciously like an apology for Scientology which runs several such fraudulent “treatment” programs.
24 June 2007, on 5:45 am
bernada: yep, that is pretty much it. I don’t find that bad. For example, if you hang out with those folks who, say, run very long distances (marathons or longer), you’ll find many former addicts.
I also know of this guy in a 12 step program (actually two); he believes what is in the so-called Big Book (12 steps of alcoholics anonymous) word for word.
But he is sober and leading a resonably productive life; he is certainly better off than he was before.
I’ve taken a somewhat different route (that is why I like hanging around here); I work a 12 step program but I utterly reject anything supernatural; for me to say that I believe in such stuff would be complete dishonesty.
24 June 2007, on 10:40 am
VastLeft, it appears we’ve run Rob off!
Where are our manners? (*snark! snark!*)
24 June 2007, on 8:32 pm
Ollie,
I disagree with you regarding the facilitation of an addictive mindset. Telling people who have been addicted to drugs, alcohol, etc. that it’s all right to simply find another ‘drug’, be it marathon running, long-distance cycling, or whatever (no matter how beneficial the practice might be), is also telling them that the notion of addiction is OK on a per se basis, and that the only problem concerns what ‘drug’ you use. Shouldn’t elimination of, or at least control over, an addictive approach to problem-solving be one of the primary goals of therapy?
As a personal example, while I was in my ‘frustrated xian’ phase during my twenties and early thirties, I substituted partying, and all that came with it, in place of my ‘Jesus fix’. By doing this, I was skirting my problems, not confronting them head-on and consequently resolving them.
In summary, when the government funds religious-based rehabilitative programs with our tax dollars, it’s not helping to solve the problems of others, but rather allowing people to substitute one addiction in place of another, say by becoming a ‘Jesus junkie’ rather than a heroin junkie. Reality-based programs that emphasize the honing of skills and a balanced approach to life would be far more efficacious.
30 June 2007, on 7:09 pm
No one has commented on Rob’s quote:
” Because while religion isn’t necessarily a bad thing (even this atheist sees some benefits to spiritual teachings, even if only for the moral and ethics lessons) teens going through the juvenile justice process should have a secular alternative available. Because like it or not, not everyone in our population is Christian, or even religious.”
This is why I find it difficult to believe that you are truly an atheist, Rob. You may actually believe you are one, but you have not given much consideration to this belief.
Implied in the above statement is that “moral and ethics lessons” cannot be derived from rational humanism, free of Gawd and all other superstitious allegories. While you do not come out and state this, most atheists would not try to make the above arguement. If I may be so presumptous as to argue for most atheists, I think it’s safe to say that since we consider religion to be beliefs unsupported by fact or reason, any moral and ethical lessons that one might derive from such beliefs is arguable and can be supplied as well or better by secular means, making religion irrelevent (at best) in the realm of morality. This is why we are atheists.
You argue that a secular alternative should be provided, not because it could be equally moral or ethical, but rather out of fairness to those who are not xtians. Somehow the moral benefits of a xtian based program make it OK to use tax payer dollars to fund as long as there is an “alternative.”
Maybe, out of fairness, we should have state funded programs based on the moral and ethical teachings of the church of the flying spaghetti monster, Rob.
I hate to point this out Rob, but in the real world, even if a secular alternative is provided, you are going to have a lot of youth that aren’t given a choice.
This wasn’t a program with xtian overtones; this was a program that punished those that refused to prostrate themselves to the religious teachings contained within. This should bother any free thinker, especially a self-identified atheist.
What’s wrong Rob, do you not feel that your atheist morals and ethics are sufficient for troubled youth? Why do religious beliefs even need to be a part of such a program?
As an atheist, you should realize that the FFR organization is not pushing atheist beliefs on others–they are arguing that religious beliefs should not be present in tax funded program, even if 99% of those in the program are xtian. You still have to look out for that 1% No ones right to practice religion is being stomped on by leaving religion out of such programs. Have you fallen for the religious rights straw-man: that atheist beliefs are some kind of religion?
Railing against this state funded program is not petty whining. Atheists and other free thinkers are having their hands forced, Rob. This should bother you, not as an “atheist,” but as a human being concerned with human rights.
Of course, honestly, I think we should have considered your arguement irrelevnt as soon as you pulled out the invectives. “Retards?” Really, Rob. But if we must be juvenile: I don’t shut up, I grow up, and when you talk, Rob, I throw up.