” 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.

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.

Where are our manners? (*snark! snark!*)

So, substitute one drug, like Jesus or Xenu, for another.

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.

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.

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.

Remember Brown vs. the Board of Education: separate is inherently unequal. With your plan,

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.

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.