Let's be clear: It is the Atheist's First Amendment right to speak their opinion – but it is also the pilots' right to refuse to promote their message. I applaud these pilots for knowing their rights and for having the courage to stand for what they believe in.
We are so blessed to live in "one nation, under God" and it is our responsibility and our privilege to protect the rights and liberties we have been given...by Him.
Update:
On the American Atheists own website some comments were:
"The first statement can easily be read to imply "Atheism is Patriotic, Religion is Not," by a biased viewer. Point of fact: biased viewers comprise most of the intended audience. Why put it up in the first place?"
"'God-LESS America' makes it sound like we want to kick religion out of America entirely. Maybe you do, but I only want to eat my piece of the pie in [peace]."
"I don't want Jehovah's Witnesses or evangelicals at my door, and I don't want you either. You're all just annoying. Start minding your own business and leave people alone."
WND made a great point:
The American Atheists cites Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists as evidence that the Founding Fathers intended to keep religion out of government. But they don't mention the opening prayer of the very first Continental Congress in 1774.
That includes, in part:
"O Lord our Heavenly Father, high and mighty King of kings, and Lord of lords, who dost from thy throne behold all the dwellers on earth and reignest with power supreme and uncontrolled over all the Kingdoms, Empires and Governments; look down in mercy, we beseech Thee, on these our American States, who have fled to Thee from the rod of the oppressor and thrown themselves on Thy gracious protection, desiring to be henceforth dependent only on Thee. To Thee have they appealed for the righteousness of their cause; to Thee do they now look up for that countenance and support, which Thou alone canst give. Take them, therefore, Heavenly Father, under Thy nurturing care; give them wisdom in Council and valor in the field; defeat the malicious designs of our cruel adversaries; convince them of the unrighteousness of their Cause and if they persist in their sanguinary purposes, of own unerring justice, sounding in their hearts, constrain them to drop the weapons of war from their unnerved hands in the day of battle! Be Thou present, O God of wisdom, and direct the councils of this honorable assembly; enable them to settle things on the best and surest foundation. That the scene of blood may be speedily closed; that order, harmony and peace may be effectually restored, and truth and justice, religion and piety, prevail and flourish amongst the people. Preserve the health of their bodies and vigor of their minds; shower down on them and the millions they here represent, such temporal blessings as Thou seest expedient for them in this world and crown them with everlasting glory in the world to come. All this we ask in the name and through the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son and our Savior. Amen."
I must admit that I enjoyed that you had to overlook at the reason given in the linked article from the pilots was 'fear of retaliation'.
ReplyDelete“I’ve been in this business for 20 years and I’ve never run into so much resistance on people flying,” Jaye said. “I’ve had pilots who are actual atheists who said, ‘Justin, I am an atheist and I won’t fly it because I can’t wear a bulletproof vest.’”
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis is the old D.A.N manipulating information at his behalf again.
ReplyDeleteShockofGod would be so damn pround of you, D.A.N!
Dan must mean the right to gun down people who openly champion a message that conflicts with the bible.
ReplyDelete"We are so blessed to live in "one nation, under God" and it is our responsibility and our privilege to protect the rights and liberties we have been given...by Him."
ReplyDeleteIf these liberties come from God, they should be in Bible, right Dan? Otherwise how would we know they really came from God, and weren't just made up by people. Maybe we can play a little game. Take all the rights in your constitution and find Bible verse to support it.
I almost forgot, in the last thread I said: If the Christians really believed that pagan gods didn't exist the wouldn't have destroyed temples, monuments and literature honoring pagan gods. People don't fight tooth and nail against fictional beings. I guess the pagan gods are real by this logic
and you said: if the first few Commandments of our religion was to not blasphemy or worship false idols and even God instructs us to destroy false idols, we have reason to destroy said idols.
And you're absolutely right, freedom of religion is explicitly denied by your commandments. I don't know why everyone posting here is surprised that you are upset about atheist signs, your religion requires that all other beliefs be suppressed.
D.A.N,
ReplyDeleteI’m going to ask you something you mentioned in your previous post with some modifications:
Why should we adjust our standards of living to accommodate your standards of living because you (and some other christians) are hyper sensitive about atheist ads to the point of feeling offended?
Don’t tell me you don’t feel offended. How a group would make petitions demanding atheist ads to be taken down, people would vandalize atheist billboards and complain about atheist ads and their messages if they didn’t feel offended?
PS: your bible/god don’t give any rights and liberty to anyone, but the christians. Your bible is full of oppression against non believers in a very intolerant and violent way. No wonder why you are against freedom of speech/expression to those who don't believe/follow your god/religion.
Ignoring the blatant manipulation of context, I wonder if Dan The Debunked would be QQing persecution waaaah! if those signs instead contained scripture...
ReplyDelete"Let's be clear: It is the Atheist's First Amendment right to speak their opinion – but it is also the pilots' right to refuse to promote their message."
ReplyDeleteAgreed. The pilots don't have to take AA's money if they don't want to. They're a private enterprise.
But let's not pretend this is a case of tyrannical atheists approaching them and saying "fly our propoganda or suffer the consequences!" and the brave, patriotic, god-fearing pilots responding with "I'll never do your bidding, evil ones! In the name of the Founding Fathers I banish you! Return from whence thou came!" and the atheists vanishing in a burst of hell-fire.
This is a case of atheists going to the pilots and saying "I'll pay your usual rates if, in exchange, you'll fly a relatively innoffensive banner for us" and the pilots responding with either a) “I’m not going to hell flying that sign.” or b) "I'd love to fly the sign, but extremist religous terrorists scare the hell out of me, so I have to decline."
Ah, it's good to see Bushes "War on Terror" was so effective.
Nothing to add...except that "Under god" was added in the 1950's Dan!
ReplyDeleteIt appears the pilots refused to fly for reasons of fear, not religious belief, as is implied by D.A.N.
ReplyDeleteOne has to wonder: how real can a faith be if truth must constantly be manipulated to defend it?
how real can a faith be if truth must constantly be manipulated to defend it?
ReplyDeleteOnly Dan can answer this, and sadly, he's the one most likely to answer it dishonestly.
"Only Dan"? Like he's the only liar for jebus out there? What about every single creationist/IDiot who keeps getting caught bullshitting? Like those idiots at the Dover trial?
ReplyDeleteOr that David Barton fellow? And on and on...
Though it is nice that Dan got caught lying again. I'm saving this page just in case he edits it later.
Reynold responded to something I wrote, with: "Only Dan"? Like he's the only liar for jebus out there?
ReplyDeleteI meant "in the context of this discussion". Dan's the only one who truly knows if he's deceiving people (including himself) about his intentions. Seems pretty obvious to me, but honestly, Dan could simply be exceptionally stupid, and I'd mistake that for deception.
But yes, plenty of fundumbentalists do the same thing.
@Whateverman,
ReplyDeleteIf D.A.N knows how much he is deceiving and dishonest he will deny it until the end of times...
Everytime we caught him on a lie he denied it, he didn't adress the issue, he kept coming with the same old song "how lying is wrong in our worldview" and other non sense arguments in an attempt to divert us; he comes with lame excuses that we interpreted him wrong, he didn't mean to say what he said and he changes/eats his own words.
I think he can't even tell what is a lie and what is truth anymore.
Reynold,
ReplyDelete>>I'm saving this page just in case he edits it later.
Saying that I edit pages is a LIE itself. At least we view each other on the same plane from now on.
Hey Dan, when are you going to show where your God mentioned these rights and liberties. Freedom of speech, where is it in the Bible? Freedom of press, where is it? Are any of your supposed God given rights anywhere in the Bible? We're still waiting.
ReplyDeleteTo take a page from your playbook, Dan...I never actually said that you DO that, I said that I'd save the page JUST IN CASE you decided to.
ReplyDeleteJust as you dodge what you say by pointing out that it was only an "accusatory" question, I figure I'd pull a "Dan-ism" and play the word twist game myself.
Hey Dan...why the silence on the comment that Bathtub made in the first comment of this post about the real reason why they wouldn't fly that banner?
ReplyDeleteWhy no comment on the fact that it was only in the 50's that the phrase "under god" was added?
Reynold,
ReplyDelete>>why the silence on the comment that Bathtub made in the first comment of this post about the real reason why they wouldn't fly that banner?
I thought it was obvious that I addressed the points already. I clarified with a "Let's be clear" point.
Also,
"Jaye said. “I’ve had pilots who are actual atheists who said..."
An Atheist putting Christians in a bad light? No way!!! You do understand that it was a fallacious argument. (hasty generalization) Does it really need to be respected enough to respond to? No, its obvious.
Reynold,
ReplyDeleteMissed the other question.
>>Why no comment on the fact that it was only in the 50's that the phrase "under god" was added?
That was a mere clarification, after the fact. The SOURCE of the rights were spelled out in the VERY BEGINNING. Was that wrong to clarify the blessing and rights source?
Bullshit. "mere clarification"? Over what, 200 years after the fact? Are you joking?
ReplyDeleteNow where is this "very beginning" you're talking about? Where is your god in the constitution, which lays out your rights?
Dan. Where exactly in Let's be clear: It is the Atheist's First Amendment right to speak their opinion – but it is also the pilots' right to refuse to promote their message. I applaud these pilots for knowing their rights and for having the courage to stand for what they believe in. do you even HINT at the real reason they didn't fly it?
ReplyDeleteGood grief. You "applaud" those pilots for "having courage" to not fly the banners because some were too afraid of getting death threats from you fundy fucks?
Reynold,
ReplyDelete>>do you even HINT at the real reason they didn't fly it?
The real reason for who? That Atheist who said that? I don't understand. Is it your claim that ALL the pilots concurred with that quoted Atheist? If so, please reveal that "evidence". Otherwise your argument breaks down from there.
You said "because some were too afraid" but that is vague as to how many. The ONE quote form a single Atheist said that, sure. Does that mean ALL felt the same way, or in the context? Where is the evidence for that claim Reynold? I will not let you duck away from this one. Out with it.
D.A.N,
ReplyDelete>> The real reason for who? That Atheist who said that? I don't understand. Is it your claim that ALL the pilots concurred with that quoted Atheist? If so, please reveal that "evidence". Otherwise your argument breaks down from there.
First: it wasn’t one atheist alone who said it. It was atheists; plural. Jaye summed up in one sentence why some atheist pilots didn’t want to fly with atheist ads.
Quote (highlight made by me) “I’ve been in this business for 20 years and I’ve never run into so much resistance on people flying,” Jaye said. “I’ve had pilots who are actual atheists who said, ‘Justin, I am an atheist and I won’t fly it because I can’t wear a bulletproof vest.’”
Second: according to what the article showed the real reason why some pilots showed resistance to fly with atheist ads was fear. One pilot feared hell; his fear was unjustified, but it’s not our problem if he feared some imaginary punishment.
Other pilots refused to fly because they feared death threats. If someone tells me (or even tells you) they won’t do something because they can’t wear a bulletproof vest, what would you think that means? That person fears for his/her life, obviously.
In the article, the reporter didn’t mention one single pilot that said directly the reason why he refused to fly with an atheist ad it’s “because I’m a christian and those signs go against my faith.” .
But – again – you saw what you wanted to see and interpreted information the way you wanted by distorting the words said in the entire article. That attitude of yours shows how you’re full of bullshit, D.A.N. But – of course – you’re going to deny it and act all hypocritical by accusing us of doing what you do the most: manipulating the truth at your behalf.
>> You said "because some were too afraid" but that is vague as to how many.
The article wasn’t vague, but – of course- you just ignored that, right?
Quote (highlight made by me): “Justin Jaye of Fly Signs Aerial Advertising, who is orchestrating the flights for American Atheists, said out of the 85 people in the country who fly these sign-pulling planes only about 17 have agreed to fly the messages.”
Michelle,
ReplyDelete>>The article wasn’t vague, but – of course- you just ignored that, right?
*sigh. Is it your claim that ALL 68 felt this way? If so where is the evidence for that? Or is it just ANOTHER bare assertion injected by you?
"Justin, I am an atheist" is one comment.
“I’m not going to hell flying that sign.” is another.
Can you decipher which camp the remaining 66 pilots side with, with just those comments? Or are you going to provide EVIDENCE as to the break down? Your hostile attitude towards me, and Christians in general, is very obvious and noted but are you here to provide anything of value for the conversation?
Since you ignored my other two comments its safe to assume there is no Biblical support for any of your "God given" rights. You are, of course, still welcome to try and find some support for these rights in the Bible, but until you do so, we'll assume there is none. This leads to a number of interesting conclusions.
ReplyDelete1. It seems the only requirements for a right to be God given, is that a bunch of guys said it comes from God. If there's more to it than that, let me know. If it is the only requirement than I have some new God given rights to add.
2. Why exactly did God wait thousands of years for these rights to be important. He could have given these rights to Moses on the mountain, or Jesus himself could have taught these rights, but for some reason God waited until the Enlightenment before he decided they were important. How interesting.
3. The Bible is an incomplete guide to morality. If you want to condemn someone for violating your freedom of speech, or any other right, you must rely on something other than the Bible to support your position.
D.A.N
ReplyDelete>> Can you decipher which camp the remaining 66 pilots side with, with just those comments? Or are you going to provide EVIDENCE as to the break down? Your hostile attitude towards me, and Christians in general, is very obvious and noted but are you here to provide anything of value for the conversation?
I don’t know because it wasn’t mentioned in the article the position of the other pilots. The same way you don’t know their position either (unless you are all knowing like your god). You claimed (as you understood) in this post the reason why those pilots refused to fly with atheist banners was because they stood up for what they believe in. We pointed out to you that the reason most pilots refused to fly with atheist banners was fear, not for their beliefs. Everything I said was based on what was mentioned in the article. I didn’t make stuff up, hid information and interpreted what the article said in my own way like you did.
How do you know what they believe in or not? All of those pilots are christians? If so, how do you know? Where’s your evidence of that? Do you mind providing me one?
I’m not hostile to christians in general; they have the right/freedom to believe in whatever they want; christian pilots have all the right/freedom in the world to refuse to fly with atheist banners because it goes against their faith.
The reason why I was hostile to you is because I caught on your lies, called you out in your bullshit many times and you still continued with your dishonest and hypocrisy. My hostility to you had nothing to do with your religious beliefs. It had to do with you being an asshole.
But – seriously – what is wrong with the religious community in Texas that atheists pilots refuse to fly with atheist banners because they fear for their lives? Do you think is justifiable to religious Texans making death threats against pilots because they are atheists?
You are the one who’s hostile to atheists when you don’t agree with our freedom of speech/freedom of expression and you use the bible (which endorses oppression towards non believers and believers from different religions) to justify your prejudice/bigotry. You are hostiles to atheists when you think atheist ads are offensive to you and to your god/religion. It’s obvious you can’t separate things.
When atheist organizations put atheist ads and banners they do it to create awareness towards atheism in order to make atheists more acceptable in society; when we criticize your religion and your god we are not criticizing christians in the personal level. We are just showing our positions. If you and some religious people feel personally offended by our opposing ideas it’s because you don’t know how to deal very well with critics towards your system belief and you act like your religion is above everything and everyone and therefore is immune to criticism.
Do you think I feel offended by critics made towards atheism? No, because I know is a critic towards my ideological position, not to me in the personal level (besides, most of those critics are fallacies. How am I supposed to feel offended by fallacies?). I don’t devote my entire life to atheism just like you do to christianity. I don’t act like atheism is immune to criticism just because I’m an atheist. Atheist is just a part of my identity; it’s not all I am.
D.A.N, you should stop with all the bullshit, the tantrums, the butthurts and grow a thicker skin for goodness’ sake!
Michelle,
ReplyDelete>>Everything I said was based on what was mentioned in the article.
So did I.
>>I didn’t make stuff up, hid information and interpreted what the article said in my own way like you did.
You're a liar then. You're also annoying. Thank you for testing my resolve for patience for the lost. :7)
>>The reason why I was hostile to you is because I caught on your lies, called you out in your bullshit many times and you still continued with your dishonest and hypocrisy.
Well none of that is true or evidenced. I have discussed ad nauseum about the perceived misrepresentations that you called lies. You DON'T accept any of it! You deny, deny, deny, what a real shocker from an Atheist who denies a Creator. *pshaw
>>My hostility to you had nothing to do with your religious beliefs.
Who are you trying to convince, me or you?
>>It had to do with you being an asshole.
Well, at least we can agree on some things. Whew, I was beginning to worry.
>>But – seriously – what is wrong with the religious community in Texas that atheists pilots refuse to fly with atheist banners because they fear for their lives?
Fallacious argument much? Are you serious!!!! Because someone says it, it MUST be true? No dramatic Atheists exist at all? I am certain that Atheist does not wear a bullet proof vest just because he is an Atheist, afraid of Christians. I bet your life on it. If that is the case though, you wonder why we say the Atheist worldview is reduced to the absurd? *pshaw deux
>>You are the one who’s hostile to atheists when you don’t agree with our freedom of speech/freedom of expression and you use the bible (which endorses oppression towards non believers and believers from different religions) to justify your prejudice/bigotry.
You are a LIAR! The burden to prove that bare assertion is totally on you. Otherwise retract it. Wow, I think my patience is beginning to wane. Remember, as a believer of free speech, I invite all to my BBQ and good conversation, but I also reserve the right to kick people out for their actions. Keep calling me a liar, while lying and you will find no full stomach and no sauce on your face. You're the only one testing me so hard. Stop the baseless accusations.
I have a fantastic idea! Here is the deal. I will title a post called "I am a liar, presumably" and, as an open forum, you can state your case and show the evidence. It will be your milk crate for all to see here. Of course, I will act as the 'heckler' to your "preaching" in an attempt to defend my position and counter. But, it will be there for all to know and if you make a solid case, I will certainly concede, unlike the real hecklers to the preachers. Then, after that, you agree to leave this blog for all of eternity and all subsequent comments of yours will be placed into spam. Otherwise, not one more baseless claim that I am a liar. Its starting to really bug me. Michelle, do you agree to my terms? Pretty please, say yes!
>>besides, most of those critics are fallacies. How am I supposed to feel offended by fallacies?
You keep bringing up logical fallacies as if you thought logic was absolute. I would ask you to try to be more consistent with your professed worldview, but rather I urge you to repent of it.
>>If you and some religious people feel personally offended by our opposing ideas it’s because you don’t know how to deal very well with critics towards your system belief and you act like your religion is above everything and everyone and therefore is immune to criticism.
Your entire 'Argumentum Verbosium' comments are a straw man. You're so annoying. Don't be afraid, please say yes.
D.A.N,
ReplyDelete>> Me: Everything I said was based on what was mentioned in the article.
D.A.N: So did I.
No, it wasn’t! You ASSUMED those pilots refused to fly with atheist banners because they were standing up for their faith when that was even mentioned in the article. The reason why some pilots refused to fly with atheist banners was FEAR (of hell and getting death threats from religious extremists). But you chose to ignore that and - again - gave your own interpretation of the facts.
>> Well none of that is true or evidenced. I have discussed ad nauseum about the perceived misrepresentations that you called lies. You DON'T accept any of it!
Do I have to quote every single misinterpretation you gave towards my arguments and Reynold’s arguments?
>> You deny, deny, deny, what a real shocker from an Atheist who denies a Creator.
I have to believe in a supernatural/divine creator in order to deny him. News flash! I don’t believe in any supernatural/divine entities!
According to your “logic”, you are denying all the hindu gods for not believing in them.
>> Me: My hostility to you had nothing to do with your religious beliefs.
D.A.N: Who are you trying to convince, me or you?
I’m not trying to convince you, D.A.N.
I just pointed out the real reason of my hostility towards you (because you were lying and acting hypocritical); if you believe me or not, I don’t care; it’s not my problem.
>> Fallacious argument much? Are you serious!!!! Because someone says it, it MUST be true? No dramatic Atheists exist at all? I am certain that Atheist does not wear a bullet proof vest just because he is an Atheist, afraid of Christians.
Sure! People use bulletproof vest because is the newest fashion trend according to Anna Wintour!
>> You are a LIAR! The burden to prove that bare assertion is totally on you. Otherwise retract it.
Based on what you said in some of your comments you only agree with freedom of speech when it’s about christians spreading their beliefs. Even the bible you follow is a perfect example of oppression against those who don’t believe/follow your god and religion!
The fact some Christian groups making petitions to take down atheist ads, people vandalizing atheist billboards are forms of shutting us up and keeping us from spreading our ideas and opinions.
Name one atheist organization that made petitions to take religious billboards down? In that rapture thing we criticized that non sense baloney and the batshit crazy Harold Camping for taking advantage of gullible people but in any way we demanded to take those pro-rapture signs down. Atheist organizations and atheists in general felt offended by those rapture billboards? No!
In my opinion, it was even better let those signs for everyone to see that nothing would happen in may 21st and to see Harold Camping making a huge effort on his backpedaling.
D.A.N. said...
ReplyDeleteReynold,
>>do you even HINT at the real reason they didn't fly it?
The real reason for who? That Atheist who said that? I don't understand. Is it your claim that ALL the pilots concurred with that quoted Atheist? If so, please reveal that "evidence". Otherwise your argument breaks down from there.
You said "because some were too afraid" but that is vague as to how many. The ONE quote form a single Atheist said that, sure.
Read the quote, Dan! Here. Let me help you.
"I've been in this business for 20 years and I've never run into so much resistance on people flying," Jaye said. "I've had pilots who are actual atheists who said, 'Justin, I am an atheist and I won't fly it because I can't wear a bulletproof vest.'"
Here's another quote from the original CNN article:
Jaye said while some feared for their lives, others feared for their marriages. He had one pilot say his wife would divorce him if he made the flight.
So it's established that it was a plurality of pilots who didn't fly the banner, not out of the "courage" of their convictions as Dan dishonestly says, but out of fear.
Does that mean ALL felt the same way, or in the context? Where is the evidence for that claim Reynold?
Read the blood article Dan. I quoted the parts that show you right above!
I will not let you duck away from this one. Out with it.
I've nothing to duck away from, you bullshit artist. You're the one who made the claim in your post about "these pilots" having "courage" to "stand for what they believe in".
According to the article, it was just ONE GUY!
Red Calvert, a pilot and president of Pro-Air Enterprises in Indianapolis, said his reasons to decline the flight were based on his personal beliefs.
It's YOU who has to back up what you say Dan.
By the way, others here have challenged you over and over again to show just how we got our rights from biblegod.
You keep dodging them. List the verses that give us the rights that the constitution gives. Put up or shut up. (for once)
The article only had one guy do it for the reason that YOU claimed. That didn't stop you from implying that it was the "courage" of the pilots in general who acted that way.
ReplyDeleteYet you jump on my back?
I remember putting up a comment to the effect that "under god" being in the Pledge was like China calling itself the "People's Republic." Now, maybe blogger ate it. But if it just got thrown in spam, Dan has been back enough to have released it.
ReplyDeleteOkay, I have to admit to a mistake here. I remembered posting the comment. But it was to a different thread. Somehow, I just wasn't noticing it there either.
ReplyDeleteMaybe it's because I'm English and we don't get taught your constitution in our schools but I have to say I wasn't aware that it provided the right to "not be offended".
ReplyDeleteWhere exactly does it grant you this right Dan?
The Christian God grants Dan the right to not have to tolerate non-Christian stuff.
ReplyDeleteOf course, Dan tolerates it as long as it benefits him to do so - which makes him a hypocrite.
freddies_dead,
ReplyDelete>>Where exactly does it grant you this right Dan?
You are confusing the Brazilian Constitution with ours. In Brazil its against the law to offend someone. apparently they are allowed to sue anyone that does so. Just ask Michelle. Here, its almost mandatory. Crosses, Commandments, and Creator are very offensive to the lost apparently. Its understandable.
:7)
D.A.N,
ReplyDeleteIt's not the offense itself. People here are not sued for calling each other "idiots", "stupid", whatever.
What we have here is the crime of discrimination, hate crime and slander.
Our constitution says we have the freedom of speech. But if someone uses that freedom to spread prejudice, incite hate and violence against someone or a social group it fits the punishable crime of discrimination, hate crime and incitation of violence/murder.
If someone uses that freedom of speech to make false assumptions (like saying "all atheists are responsible for the most violent crimes in Brazil" or " all christians are responsible for hate crimes against the LGBT community where there's no evidence that back those claims up) fits the punishable crime of slander.
If it wasn't for those laws punishing discriminatory and hateful messages against other people, hell (figurative language) would break loose and everyone would have the right to incite hate and violence against those they simply don't like.
Now, if people want to spread billboards with passages from the bible, religious propaganda about the rapture, putting billboards where it says “There’s a god” or something similar that would never be taken down because some douchebag (atheist or not) thinks is offensive.
In Porto Alegre in the state of Rio Grande do Sul, an atheist organization made a campaign where there will be some bus driving around with atheist ads for a 4 week period. So far nobody complained or demanded those ads to be taken down. Those signs say:
- “We are all atheists with somebody else’s god”. (with images from a Egyptian god/Egyptian myth; a Hindu god/Hindu myth and Jesus/Palestinian myth)
- “Religion doesn’t define character” (there shows a picture of Charles Chaplin who was an atheist and Hitler who was a christian)
- “Faith doesn’t give answers, only impedes questions” (showing a guy in a prison cell holding a bible).
There will be some people offended about those messages…probably. They don’t have to agree with those ads, but our constitution give us the right to spread atheist ads in order to create awareness towards it the same way religious organizations have the right to spread religious messages.
Those messages are not inciting prejudice, hate and discrimination against religious people. If they were name calling or inciting hate and violence against religious people I would agree with those ads being taken down and that atheist organization to be sued for discrimination and – depending on the content of the message – for hate crime.
Freedom of speech here works both ways. The belief system or ideological positions are not criteria for allowing or prohibiting someone to spread their ideas as you think it is.
Crosses, commandments and your creator are not offensive to me in anyway. But the freedom of believing and not believing are equal for everyone, not only for christians. The reason why I’m against crosses and christian symbols in public buildings is not because I’m offended by your Jesus and by what a cross means. Since our constitution says our country is secular, and also says all religions and all ideologies are to be treated equally so put the symbols of religions (Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Wicca, Satanism, etc) and from non religious ideologies such as the symbol of atheism, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, The Flying Spaguetti Monster, etc, or put no symbols at all.
Michelle,
ReplyDelete>>If someone uses that freedom of speech to make false assumptions (like saying "all atheists are responsible for the most violent crimes in Brazil" or " all christians are responsible for hate crimes against the LGBT community where there's no evidence that back those claims up) fits the punishable crime of slander.
Its hilarious that you do not see this contradiction. IF, big IF, you have slander laws then you DO NOT have FREE speech. Do you not get this yet?
BTW, Atheists are responsible for the most violent crimes in Brazil. Because it doesn't matter what happens before, during, or after life according to the Atheists. All bets are off. IF people KNEW God they would not have committed such crimes. Hell is a good deterrent for such hatred towards fellow men. That is why bad behavior is rampant in Brazil. Prostitution, child prostitution, and sex tourism. Drug trade, human trafficking, and slavery in the sugarcane plantations are ALL because people do not believe there is a God, the Great Judge, to do anything to them. They all know that Brazil has corruption of public officials that rarely results in criminal prosecution directly, due to confusing laws. Its wild and corrupt. All because of the Atheists.
You see, I can hold that view and speak about it at length without worry of the slander police. Why? Because I live in America. I can have ANY viewpoint about anyone. Right or wrong. We are indeed free. That is because America is blessed. We're the best.
D.A.N,
ReplyDeleteThere’s no contradiction in there, D.A.N. We have the freedom of speech, but some people abuse that right to spread hateful and discriminatory messages against others. Some people abuse that right to incite violence against other people.
I can say whatever I want, but – for example, if I put on Facebook, Twitter, in billboard, in an article, wherever that immigrants are lazy, they are taking our jobs, they are responsible for all the violent crimes and they have to be killed no matter what, that’s not freedom of speech…that’s pure prejudice, hate, slander and bigotry.
WE also have freedom of religion and ideology. But it doesn’t mean the person can do whatever they want in the name of their religion or ideology.
Some years ago a couple of JW took their daughter to the hospital because she was anemic. The only way to save her life was blood transfusion; her parents didn’t allow the doctor to do the blood transfusion because their religion didn’t allow it. They even threatened to sue the hospital and the doctor if they did the procedure. The result: the girl died and her parents were accused of homicide by neglect. It had something to do with their religious beliefs? Not directly. They were accused because they had no right o freedom to exercise their religion? No. But their actions conflicted with another laws that guarantees a child the right to life, good health and medical care and their parents denied that to their own child. The life of their daughter could’ve been saved if they allowed a simple and safe procedure to be done. They put their religious faith over their daughter’s life. Now, do you consider the hospital were oppressing and persecuting the JW parents for giving more importance to the girl’s life than their religious beliefs?
That’s how laws work here. You have the freedom to express whatever you want; but if you use that freedom to express hate against someone or a social group it enters in conflict with laws the protect brazilian citizens against discrimination, hate crime and incitation of violence (depending of the content of the message)
(continues)
(cont)
ReplyDelete>> BTW, Atheists are responsible for the most violent crimes in Brazil. Because it doesn't matter what happens before, during, or after life according to the Atheists.
What proof you have of that? Did you ever come here or lived in Brazil to make a research about violent crimes in Brazil? No, you didn’t. If you accuse atheism of being the main cause of violent crimes you better have some concrete evidence other than your personal bias to back this up. You are falsely assuming that nothing keeps them from committing crimes because their morality doesn’t come from your god/your bible. The reason why I don’t go out there killing people is because I have a conscience, I have a sense of morality and empathy. I don’t like to see people getting hurt for whatever reason.
The high rates of violence here is – mostly – thanks to the traffic of drugs. Is traffic of drugs are exclusively linked with atheism? All drug dealers and the politicians who are in the middle of drug traffic, guns traffic and prostitution schemes are atheists?
Considering that according to the census made in Brazil a few years ago more than 90% of the brazilian population are christians, then most drug dealers, corrupted politicians, dirty cops, pimps, pedophiles, thieves, murderers, owner of slaves in the cotton farms are christians. Do they do all those crimes because they are christians? No, they do it because they have a pretty twisted sense of morality, they have no scruples, they have no respect towards human beings, they don’t care about anyone.
The same people – that according to you – are role models for morality are the ones taking advantage of gullible people by demanding them to pay 30% of their salary to “Jesus”; are the ones being accused by the FBI for entering USA with more 50.000 dollars undeclared hidden in the bible besides being accused in Brazil for money laundry and fraudulent misrepresentation; are the ones teaching pastors during a barbecue in a fancy house how to take as money as they can from the followers during evangelical cults with the excuse “Jesus is not going to cure them” if they don’t give their money. Are the pedophile catholic priests atheists? They rape children because they don’t have god in their hearts? The catholic church covering up the sexual abuses committed by their priests is very god/christian-like (being sarcastic)
Now, don’t forget your bible/god incites and condones slavery, infanticide, death by stoning (of homosexuals, rebellious children, non believers, men who masturbate, etc), mass murder, genocide, rape, abortion, incest, oppression towards non believers, the killing of homosexuals, consider women to be lesser beings, human sacrifice, animal sacrifice…the list goes on…
Since you use your bible as guide for moral conduct and your god is always loving and righteous even though he incites all those despicable acts mentioned above, you are not exactly against. I am against all that and I thankful that I’m not accountable to your god/bible. Because if I did I would be just like you: an immoral, intolerant and a bigot person who thinks freedom of speech is only valid for those who think like you.
Maybe do a little research on slander laws before making a statement Dan.
ReplyDeleteAmerica does have slander and libel laws, you moron. A bit harder to prosecute in America compared to most other countries, but they exist. So either you retract the statement, "IF, big IF, you have slander laws then you DO NOT have FREE speech." or you admit America does not have free speech.
"We're the best."
That is probably the funniest thing in in the whole thread. Patting yourself on the back and saying how great you are isn't going to change how the world views you. If its the contest for greatest debt than I guess America really is the greatest, by a huge margin. Enjoy your rapidly deteriorating wealth and freedom, no need to concern yourself with little things like, the future, or Chinese debt collectors, or overburdened military.
"BTW, Atheists are responsible for the most violent crimes in Brazil. Because it doesn't matter what happens before, during, or after life according to the Atheists."
ReplyDeleteWow. How on earth did you manage to pull that out of there, Dan? In fact, how did you get it up there in the first place? It must have been quite painful.
Where's your statistics that atheists are responsible for more and more violent crimes in Brazil? Because the statistics I've seen tell quite a different story:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11fig/fig2.jpg
http://s3.hubimg.com/u/4910914_f520.jpg
(from a google image search for "religousity vs crime")
Dan: Put up or shut up. I've shown you my stats, where's yours? You must have them, since you're so emphatically "not a liar" and Michelle is completely wrong about you. Amirite?
Michelle,
ReplyDelete>>The same people – that according to you – are role models for morality are the ones taking advantage of gullible people by demanding them to pay 30% of their salary to “Jesus”; are the ones being accused by the FBI for entering USA with more 50.000 dollars undeclared hidden in the bible besides being accused in Brazil for money laundry and fraudulent misrepresentation; are the ones teaching pastors during a barbecue in a fancy house how to take as money as they can from the followers during evangelical cults with the excuse “Jesus is not going to cure them” if they don’t give their money...
Wow that was slanderous, I will be contacting Brazilian authorities. Shame on you.
And by the way Dan: as of 2009 Brazil is more religous than the US.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Importance_of_religion_by_country
Brazil: 86.5% say religon is important in their lives.
US: 65% say religon is important in their lives.
Australia: 32%
And the nightmarishly terrifying non-religous countries, where god is forgotton and violent crime runs rampant? Norway, Denmark and Sweden and Estonia. Sccaaaaarrryyy.
And apropos of nothing, for comparison, the most recent murder rates, also on wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_murder_rate#Country_subdivisions
Brazil: 25.0
Estonia: 6.1
US: 5.0
Australia: 1.3
Norway: 0.60
Denmark: 0.85
Sweden: 0.89
Hmmm...
Quasar,
ReplyDelete>>It must have been quite painful.
It was actually. The point is that being a liar is illegal in Brazil. Not here.
>>Put up or shut up. I've shown you my stats, where's yours?
Under who's authority does it say that there MUST be stats? Yours?
Michelle,
ReplyDelete>>Because if I did I would be just like you: an immoral, intolerant and a bigot person who thinks freedom of speech is only valid for those who think like you.
Wait THAT was slanderous, to me. I will be contacting Brazilian authorities. Tisk, tisk.
Yet you are fully OK with ATAH to squelch the opinion of a man. Your hypocrisy is rich. I am done with you.
Quasar,
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't matter what the stats say because all Atheists are liars, weak, and cowards that say that they are afraid of big bad Christians and wear bullet proof vests and such. You can cry about it all you want. You can provide skewed data if you wish. That will never change the fact that all Atheists are cowards and deserve their due reward.
I hope you're getting my point by now.
MaxFF,
ReplyDelete>>That is probably the funniest thing in in the whole thread.
Did you notice the link in "That is because America is blessed."?
>>If its the contest for greatest debt than I guess America really is the greatest, by a huge margin.
See? You get it. We do all things great! We are pioneers.
>>Enjoy your rapidly deteriorating wealth and freedom, no need to concern yourself with little things like, the future, or Chinese debt collectors, or overburdened military.
Why do you think we are building our military so rapidly? Because of those Chinese debt collectors.
You're all just mad that we built up these repackaged sub prime mortgage securities, and then resold them to these unsuspecting countries and burned the globe for huge buckets of cash. America is the best. We have this 'humanist' thingy locked down. I am sure you would agree. Go humans! America rules!
"I hope you're getting my point by now."
ReplyDeleteOh yes.
I am indeed. Very much so.
So I'm going to pick up my lying, weak, cowardly ass, pack up my totally skewed data from such obviously pro-atheist sites as wikipedia and google image search, and go off to live the rest of my life as best I can, after which I will get my deserved due reward and be tortured in hell forever by your god.
I'm very disappointed, Dan. "Reality doesn't matter because [insult insult hateful insult] I hope you get my point". You're literally denying truth because it conflicts with your vitriolic hatred of a minority group of which I am a member. That's not healthy.
I hate to leave you to such a horrible, sadistic delusion, but it's clear that at this point any attempt by myself to defend my beliefs is interpreted by you as an attack on yours. And so, without any better option, I leave.
Best of luck getting over your overwhelming hatred of atheists, Dan.
Qu
MaxFF,
ReplyDeleteI did read the link you provided.
>>or you admit America does not have free speech.
Well I concede to this point. We are not free by any stretch.
Now to Quasar,
The whole "Atheists are responsible for the most violent crimes in Brazil." was to make a point that I can say anything in my country but see now that just may not be the case. Its not how I actually feel, i was making a point. Times are changing when the Constitution is no longer valid though.
So look out Atheists who wish to attack our God and His followers. You may end up in jail under defamation laws. Sad really.
D.A.N,
ReplyDelete>> Me: The same people – that according to you – are role models for morality are the ones taking advantage of gullible people by demanding them to pay 30% of their salary to “Jesus”; are the ones being accused by the FBI for entering USA with more 50.000 dollars undeclared hidden in the bible besides being accused in Brazil for money laundry and fraudulent misrepresentation; are the ones teaching pastors during a barbecue in a fancy house how to take as money as they can from the followers during evangelical cults with the excuse “Jesus is not going to cure them” if they don’t give their money...
D.A.N: Wow that was slanderous, I will be contacting Brazilian authorities. Shame on you.
It’s not slander. If you doubt me, look for the name Bispa Sônia Hernandes and you will see. The FBI arrested her and her husband because they denied having more than US$ 10.000,00 dollars with them (that is the maximum amount of money someone can declare before entering US) when in fact Bispa Sônia decided to use your holy dearest book as a wallet by hiding US$56.000, 00 in it so she wouldn’t have to declare the money in Customs.
In Brazil Bispa Sônia, her husband and more three people from her church had their prison declared by the Public Ministry of Sao Paulo because they didn’t go to court in any of the audiences as demanded by the judge through a subpoena to face the charges of money laundry and fraudulent misrepresentations against them.
If you know a little of portuguese go on You tube and look for Silas Malafaia and it will have a video of him increasing the value of the tithe of 10% to 30% and telling people if they don’t have money to pay the church they ask relatives, friends, whoever for a loan in order to pay the church.
Look on Youtube for Bispo Edir Macedo. There will be a video there when he teaches other pastors from his church how to convince gullible people to giver their hard earned money to “Jesus”.
>> So look out Atheists who wish to attack our God and His followers. You may end up in jail under defamation laws. Sad really.
So we are “attacking god and his followers” by simply not believing in your god? You consider we are under defamation laws by simply putting our faces out there and creating awareness towards atheism? Really?
We are not attacking your religion by simply putting atheist billboards, atheist ads and banners. We are only trying to create awareness towards atheism and to have social acceptance. Is that wrong now? We are exercising the right guaranteed by the constitution to spread our ideas. We are not doing any defamation against anyone who is religious by simply saying “people can be good without god” or “religion doesn’t define character”. You can ask any lawyer if atheists exercising their freedom of speech by putting awareness messages are considered defamation against “god” and his followers.
PS1: you didn’t bring me any evidence, statistics, studies, etc, that proves without a shadow of doubt atheists are responsible for all the violent crimes in Brazil. If you do have, show it to me. If you don’t, shut up. And you are officially committing the crime of slander and defamation against brazilian atheists. But since I’m a good person and I don’t hold any grudge towards you, I won’t sue you. ; )
PS2: Dude, you’ve been watching too much of Fox “News”
It appears I may have missed a cue and taken seriously that which was not meant to be taken seriously.
ReplyDeleteA tip, though, Dan: if you're going to use satire, either use views you are known not to hold, or else exaggerate it beyond what is easily believable. As it was, you expressed a view that was very easily to reconcile with your existing belief structure (because you do, in fact, hold the view that atheists are morally unbound heathens etc. etc), in a way that did not make it at all clear you were exaggerating or expressing a view at odds with your own.
Quasar,
ReplyDeleteBrazil is the biggest catholic country in the world, but the numbers of evangelicals are increasing for the last few years.
As I pointed out to D.A.N, the reason violent crimes rates are increasing have nothing to do with atheism (or religion for that matter); it has to do with the drug traficking that is also linked with piracy, prostitution, guns trafficking, robberies, kidnapping, homicides, etc.
The other reason that contributes for the increase of violence in my country is impunity. The legal system in Brazil take too easy on people in some cases, specially when they are underaged or are first-time offenders.
There are some laws in US I agree with: judging a minor as an adult depending on the severity of the crime he committed; punishing in more severe way first-time offenders and stop getting people off the hook because they have money and/or are famous celebrities. And - of course - punishing properly corrupted politicians, specially those involved in drug traficking, prostitution schemes, etc.
D.A.N. said...
ReplyDeletefreddies_dead,
>>Where exactly does it grant you this right Dan?
You are confusing the Brazilian Constitution with ours.
I suppose it's possible, I know very little of the Brazilian constitution.
In Brazil its against the law to offend someone. apparently they are allowed to sue anyone that does so.
Are you sure about that? Can you point me to the relevant source for this law?
Just ask Michelle.
But I asked you...
Here, its almost mandatory. Crosses, Commandments, and Creator are very offensive to the lost apparently. Its understandable.
:7)
Oh, it was all meant to be a joke ... it would have been easier to just admit you don't have that right.
"Times are changing when the Constitution is no longer valid though."
ReplyDeleteSo when exactly was the constitution valid? If you actually read that link I posted, you would see that defamation laws have been in force longer than the constitution. If you hold the position that defamation laws violate free speech, then free speech never existed in America. This isn't a recent attack on the constitution its been law for a long time, and its shocking you weren't aware of it until I posted it.
DAN, you and your ilk are no better than any other conspiracy theorists - you make ludicrous, evidence free assertions, and claim that those who disagree are trying to 'silence' you, whilst making ridiculous threats *against* those how point out how bonkers your claims are.
ReplyDeleteIt's truly pathetic, and makes your religion look extremely foolish.
It's clear that Dan's not interested in sincere conversation. Please do what I do:
ReplyDeleteIgnore what he says.
Alex,
ReplyDelete>>It's truly pathetic, and makes your religion look extremely foolish.
Wait a minute. Let's just say that you are right and I am doing ALL those things that you claim. You end it with this? A fallacious argument called a hasty generalization? Even if I did those things, your attempt to throw the baby (Jesus?) with the bathwater as a comfort to deny Christ. That sir makes you an anti-Christ not a non theist or an Atheist. (1 John 2:22, 1 John 4:3)
Speaking of conspiracy theory. I think this just became my newest post. Hold that thought.
>>It's clear that Dan's not interested in sincere conversation. Please do what I do: Ignore what he says
ReplyDeleteSaid the man who just a few minutes ago said:
>>Lube's in the bathroom cabinet, Dan.
Sure Wem. Who are you trying to convince, me or you?
You said that I don't even know the meaning of the word lie. No matter that you've been caught over and over again. So, I'll just repeat some here.
ReplyDeleteYou claim (in plural) that it was the pilot's "courage" to "stand for what they believe in" yet the article only had ONE guy who had the motive. So, when you claimed in plural, that it was their "courage" to stand up for what "they" believed in, you were lying. As was pointed out to you in the first comment here.
You also claim that we get our rights from your god. It was asked more than once that you list the corresponding bible verses with the american Constitutional rights that you have.
Reynold,
ReplyDelete>>So, when you claimed in plural, that it was their "courage" to stand up for what "they" believed in, you were lying.
You cannot show evidence with certainty that all remaining 66 people were Atheists afraid and wearing bullet proof vests. The data is strong that some actually were Christians that refused to do the work of the Atheists. Its TEXAS dude! Have you EVER been there? I lived there for 12 years, its mostly Christian. To say otherwise is intellectually dishonest. I will concede to some assumptions at the least, but that is not lying. Your overreaction to say it was is obvious.
>> It was asked more than once that you list the corresponding bible verses with the american Constitutional rights that you have.
Its obvious that love thy neighbor, the backbone of our laws, is a very Christian thingy. To judge righteously also. I might post about this in the future though. Let me have time to gather the data as I do not have them at this moment, readily available, in this old brain of mine. Patience
Like I said though, you're always welcome to come over on Tuesday for Bible study about this red herring of yours. :7)
Okay Dan, you said that you need some time to make a response to Reynold, which is pretty reasonable, but here's something to consider while you come up with a response. Isn't love supposed to be freely given, if someone(the government) is enforcing love of neighbor than you don't have ability choose not to love, and then its not really love at all. If that's the only basis for the rights in your constitution, they are unenforceable.
ReplyDeleteJesus also commanded people to give money to the poor, but in previous posts you've made it clear you are against socialism, government enforced charity. So I guess the question is, exactly which of the things Jesus said, should be enforced by the government, and how can you distinguish them from those that shouldn't.
D.A.N,
ReplyDelete>> You cannot show evidence with certainty that all remaining 66 people were Atheists afraid and wearing bullet proof vests. The data is strong that some actually were Christians that refused to do the work of the Atheists. Its TEXAS dude! Have you EVER been there? I lived there for 12 years, its mostly Christian. To say otherwise is intellectually dishonest. I will concede to some assumptions at the least, but that is not lying. Your overreaction to say it was is obvious.
The same way you can’t prove all those 66 pilots were christians who were brave enough to stand up for their faith by refusing to fly with atheist banners as you claimed was the true reason.
The article mentioned just ONE pilot who refused to fly with atheist banners for religious beliefs, but since it doesn’t say what religion he follows, he could be a christian, a jew, a muslin, etc.
The statistics on religion in Texas:
Roman Catholic 28%; Baptist 21%; No religion 11% ; Methodist 8% ; Christian – Others 7% ; Lutheran 3%; Pentecostal 3%; Presbyterian 2%; Non-denominational 2%; Mormon 2%; Episcopalian 1%; Islam 1%; Jehovah's Witnesses 1%; Assemblies of God 1% ; Church of God 1%; Other 2%.
In 2000, most adherence belong to the Roman Catholic Church with 4,368,969; the Southern Baptist Convention with 3,519,459; and the United Methodist Church with 1,022,342.
The Jewish population stands at around 128,000 and about 146,000 adherents of non-Abrahamic religions such as Hinduism and Sikhism live in Texas.
Ok, most of the inhabitants in Texas are christians, but you can’t assume – without evidence – those 66 pilots were christians. Maybe some of them were jews, muslins, hindus or sikhs.
>> Its obvious that love thy neighbor, the backbone of our laws, is a very Christian thingy. To judge righteously also.
No, it’s not. It doesn’t need to be a christian in order to love and respect other people. It doesn’t need to be a christian in order to treat others like you want to be treated. Those rules exist way before christianity came along; since mankind began to live in society people realized in order to live in harmony with their neighbors they had to follow some rules like respecting one another, cooperating with each other, treating others like they wanted to be treated, etc. We don’t need a religious book to tell us all that (specially your bible which is a walking contradiction when is about “loving thy neighbor”, “thou shall not kill , “thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor , etc)
Dan:
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be confused, which is nothing new. Free speech means that you can speak your mind without the threat of being thrown in jail just because the government doesn't like your opinion. It does not, however, grant you license to lie about people to incite harm to their person or make it harder for them to earn a living. If you do that, even in the U.S. they can sue you based on damage that you did to them. But you still won't go to jail.
Pvb,
ReplyDeleteYes, I concede to that point of yours. Its sad though. That gives Casey Anthony grounds to sue the state of Florida for their accusations and destroying her "good" name. I don't think that was what the founding fathers had in mind though. Sad.
Dan
ReplyDeleteYou cannot show evidence with certainty that all remaining 66 people were Atheists afraid and wearing bullet proof vests.
I don't have to; I don't believe I said that they ALL were; it's sufficient that multiple people do.
Let's see: Good grief. You "applaud" those pilots for "having courage" to not fly the banners because some were too afraid of getting death threats from you fundy fucks?
Jaye said while some feared for their lives, others feared for their marriages. He had one pilot say his wife would divorce him if he made the flight.
Dan
The data is strong that some actually were Christians that refused to do the work of the Atheists.
Didn't the article only mention ONE christian?
Its TEXAS dude! Have you EVER been there? I lived there for 12 years, its mostly Christian. To say otherwise is intellectually dishonest.
I never did say otherwise, but the article mentioned ONE xian pilot and more than one atheist pilots.
Besides, I know people who live there who have told me of the "kind" of christians that are there, too. That bolsters my case for their being afraid.
I will concede to some assumptions at the least, but that is not lying. Your overreaction to say it was is obvious.
You made your case off of ONE person from the article. My case was made from more than one person. Yet YOU were the one who completely ignored the fact that some of those people were afraid of those xian good ol' boys while only one guy in the article did it for his "faith".
Remember, the article was talking about the company's atheist pilots also.
Now to this:
Nice general statement there. One could just as easily say that your laws are based on the Hamurrabi code!
Let me give you an example: "Freedom of religion" vs. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me".
Here, the constitution directly contradicts the bible, as opposed to being based on the bible.
I'll look forward to your justifications coming later.
Reynold,
ReplyDelete>>I don't have to; I don't believe I said that they ALL were; it's sufficient that multiple people do.
Great! Then we can agree. It's sufficient that multiple people believe in Christ and resisted for that reason. Unless you are claiming some relativist fallacy.
>>Didn't the article only mention ONE christian?
Yes, as one Atheist waring bulletproof vest. It's sufficient that multiple people are Christians as it's sufficient that multiple people were Atheists. Moving on.
>>Besides, I know people who live there who have told me of the "kind" of christians that are there, too.
Hasty generalization and Fallacy of division. Nice. There are some real wholesome people living in Texas. You would be surprised how kind they are in general.
>>You made your case off of ONE person from the article
Duh, so did you! Unless your claiming that quote "Justin, I am an atheist and I won’t fly it because I can’t wear a bulletproof vest.’" (emphasis mine) was said in unison by multiple people. *pshaw
>>Remember, the article was talking about the company's atheist pilots also.
Also? Also to what? Christians? Well we agree then. Is this a story of atheist pilots that refused to fly Christian banners? No, its a story of people refusing to fly the Atheist's "agenda" flags, for whatever reason. If its your claim that they were ALL frightened Atheists then come out with the evidence. Otherwise, you MUST concede that SOME were Christians refusing to fly the Atheists "agenda" flags that went against their own conscience. Even you admit to the "kind" of Christians that are there. I was applauding those people in general.
On the American Atheists own website some comments were:
ReplyDelete"The first statement can easily be read to imply "Atheism is Patriotic, Religion is Not," by a biased viewer. Point of fact: biased viewers comprise most of the intended audience. Why put it up in the first place?"
"'God-LESS America' makes it sound like we want to kick religion out of America entirely. Maybe you do, but I only want to eat my piece of the pie in [peace]."
"I don't want Jehovah's Witnesses or evangelicals at my door, and I don't want you either. You're all just annoying. Start minding your own business and leave people alone."
WND made a great point:
The American Atheists cites Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists as evidence that the Founding Fathers intended to keep religion out of government. But they don't mention the opening prayer of the very first Continental Congress in 1774.
That includes, in part:
"O Lord our Heavenly Father, high and mighty King of kings, and Lord of lords, who dost from thy throne behold all the dwellers on earth and reignest with power supreme and uncontrolled over all the Kingdoms, Empires and Governments; look down in mercy, we beseech Thee, on these our American States, who have fled to Thee from the rod of the oppressor and thrown themselves on Thy gracious protection, desiring to be henceforth dependent only on Thee. To Thee have they appealed for the righteousness of their cause; to Thee do they now look up for that countenance and support, which Thou alone canst give. Take them, therefore, Heavenly Father, under Thy nurturing care; give them wisdom in Council and valor in the field; defeat the malicious designs of our cruel adversaries; convince them of the unrighteousness of their Cause and if they persist in their sanguinary purposes, of own unerring justice, sounding in their hearts, constrain them to drop the weapons of war from their unnerved hands in the day of battle! Be Thou present, O God of wisdom, and direct the councils of this honorable assembly; enable them to settle things on the best and surest foundation. That the scene of blood may be speedily closed; that order, harmony and peace may be effectually restored, and truth and justice, religion and piety, prevail and flourish amongst the people. Preserve the health of their bodies and vigor of their minds; shower down on them and the millions they here represent, such temporal blessings as Thou seest expedient for them in this world and crown them with everlasting glory in the world to come. All this we ask in the name and through the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son and our Savior. Amen."
D.A.N,
ReplyDelete>> Great! Then we can agree. It's sufficient that multiple people believe in Christ and resisted for that reason.
How do you know that? In that article mentioned people refused to fly with atheist banners, but it only mentioned ONE pilot who refused to fly due his religious beliefs (what religion he follows is not mentioned in the article and you assume he’s a christian just because most people in Texas are christians. Maybe he is a christian, maybe he isn’t. Nobody can’t know that for sure).
>> Yes, as one Atheist waring bulletproof vest. It's sufficient that multiple people are Christians as it's sufficient that multiple people were Atheists.
“I’ve been in this business for 20 years and I’ve never run into so much resistance on people flying,” Jaye said. “I’ve had pilots who are actual atheists who said, ‘Justin, I am an atheist and I won’t fly it because I can’t wear a bulletproof vest.’” (emphasis mine).
It wasn’t just one atheist pilot like you claim D.A.N; it doesn’t say the exact quantity but it mentions pilots who are actual atheists, you know…in the plural.
>> Is this a story of atheist pilots that refused to fly Christian banners? No, its a story of people refusing to fly the Atheist's "agenda" flags, for whatever reason.
Is not what you claimed here: “I applaud these pilots for knowing their rights and for having the courage to stand for what they believe in.”;
and here: “The data is strong that some actually were Christians that refused to do the work of the Atheists.” (the article mentioned ONE pilot refused to fly with atheist banners due his faith and yet we can’t know for sure what his religious beliefs were since the article didn’t mention it)
and also here “It's sufficient that multiple people believe in Christ and resisted for that reason.