Atheist or just Anti-religion?
Marll
Posts: 904 Member
So, are you truly Atheist or just Anti-religion?
The reason that I ask is that it totally chaps my *kitten* when I see "Atheists" protesting things like crosses at soliders' graves or memorials, nativity scenes, or other displays of faith. A true Atheist shouldn't give a rats *kitten* about any of that because you know it's all fantasy, why should you care?
I also don't understand why so many Atheists as depicted by the media tend to be liberal, or left leaning politically. Freedom to choose is on the right hand of the spectrum not the left. Sure generally the left doesn't tolerate religion, but they just replace it with a form of religion, which is worship or idolization of the state and its leaders. I am very conservative and agree with the basic principals of most religions (which are strikingly similar) such as Christianity, but do not believe in God or Satan or whatever other form they take in other religions.
I also find it odd that so many people that identify as Atheist are acting more and more like it IS a religion unto itself....
The reason that I ask is that it totally chaps my *kitten* when I see "Atheists" protesting things like crosses at soliders' graves or memorials, nativity scenes, or other displays of faith. A true Atheist shouldn't give a rats *kitten* about any of that because you know it's all fantasy, why should you care?
I also don't understand why so many Atheists as depicted by the media tend to be liberal, or left leaning politically. Freedom to choose is on the right hand of the spectrum not the left. Sure generally the left doesn't tolerate religion, but they just replace it with a form of religion, which is worship or idolization of the state and its leaders. I am very conservative and agree with the basic principals of most religions (which are strikingly similar) such as Christianity, but do not believe in God or Satan or whatever other form they take in other religions.
I also find it odd that so many people that identify as Atheist are acting more and more like it IS a religion unto itself....
0
Replies
-
Lots of generalizations in that post, but I guess we have to start somewhere.
I've been an atheist my entire life, and have never considered it a religion. It is, however, indicative of a world-view that informs many of my beliefs and strategies regarding the way I approach my daily life. For many people, religion does that. My lack of religion doesn't do that directly, but is evidence of how I prefer to reason and make decisions.
I know many atheists on both "sides" of the political debate, and I believe the reason why liberal atheists speak out more is because it is simply more widely accepted in their circles. Most atheists I know do not worship the state. In fact, most people I know who are skeptical about religion are also skeptical about authority figures and constructs.
Many people take for granted that the US is a Christian Nation, when there is in fact very little evidence for that, overall. Those who point that out are seen as rabble-rousers and bullies, but many are just approaching it from the perspective of reason. As for the people screaming on TV about how there shouldn't be any Christian symbols or expression anywhere- I believe those people are simply lashing back against what they perceive as a mistake in the way many people form a national identity around Christianity. When atheists want to express an idea publicly, it is often met with a lot of controversy and reactionary hostility. Honestly, even if someone of unknown religious affiliation expressed a secular idea publicly, he or she is often met with equal hostility (though "secular" and "atheist" are not in any way beholden to one another). While I don't agree with the approach that some atheists take to be heard, I do understand the frustration.0 -
I was going to respond similarly, but I think Kennkaru did a great job. Frustration comes with conflict of any ideology of any level because perspective of the individual is based on the individual's life experiences and influences. As a former religious follower, I felt the hostility of non-'believers'. As an atheist, I can sense it from those fully immersed in a religious discipline. By and large, if all of your interactions are based from ultra-left or activist atheists and you've not been able to find less dogmatic individuals, then all I can do is assure you they exist and whether it's worth going to new places, meeting new social groups or exploring a region with a vastly different base of average social opinion is based upon your frustration with people you interact with and how much you want that to be different.
I am atheist, and in areas of scientific education and progress, I would say I have a dash of anti-religious influence; but as an atheist who accepts evolution, it is always considered that variation in public consensus is as natural as any other variation. Some ideals make it through to influence for better or worse the population moving forward, but I've never found a religion that has spanned all social structures at any one time, let alone the entire life history of homo sapien sapiens. Thus, I don't consider religion as a mainstay of my existence nor necessary to battle folks over. Good on you for your conservative self-standards as it keeps people out of trouble, generally. It's not a bad way to proceed. And I think most atheists would concur.0 -
I think that the US has been built on predominantly Christian ideals and I'm ok with that. The basic teachings of Christianity also make good logical sense, I just don't believe in an all knowing being that contructed the Earth and everything that we see. I am highly conservative on most political issues because they generally make logical sense as well, though of course I differ on a few issues.
I take issue with the many in your face type of atheists that want to condem everything from displaying religious symbols in public/government cemetaries, to outright being hostile to groups that celebrate holidays like Christmas (hell I celebrate Christmas, it just means something completely different to me personally)
I also find it bizarre when atheist groups start putting up billboards advertising atheism....you are turning it into a religion when taking it to this level...or actually more like a cult. I whole heartedly disagree with this stance as an atheist because it's stupid and serves no purpose. You don't believe in god, why in the world would you care what others believe and attack them?
On the other side of the fence though I find it hilarious when atheists are lumped in with Satanic worshipers. I had to explain to someone once that accused me of worshiping the devil "How can I worship something that I don't believe even exists? If there is no god, there is no devil." That left her scratching her head for a while LOL.0 -
I was going to respond similarly, but I think Kennkaru did a great job. Frustration comes with conflict of any ideology of any level because perspective of the individual is based on the individual's life experiences and influences. As a former religious follower, I felt the hostility of non-'believers'. As an atheist, I can sense it from those fully immersed in a religious discipline. By and large, if all of your interactions are based from ultra-left or activist atheists and you've not been able to find less dogmatic individuals, then all I can do is assure you they exist and whether it's worth going to new places, meeting new social groups or exploring a region with a vastly different base of average social opinion is based upon your frustration with people you interact with and how much you want that to be different.
I am atheist, and in areas of scientific education and progress, I would say I have a dash of anti-religious influence; but as an atheist who accepts evolution, it is always considered that variation in public consensus is as natural as any other variation. Some ideals make it through to influence for better or worse the population moving forward, but I've never found a religion that has spanned all social structures at any one time, let alone the entire life history of homo sapien sapiens. Thus, I don't consider religion as a mainstay of my existence nor necessary to battle folks over. Good on you for your conservative self-standards as it keeps people out of trouble, generally. It's not a bad way to proceed. And I think most atheists would concur.
Thankfully I know and was raised by a very conservative and level headed atheist, who encouraged me to study other religions and make a decision based on what I learned. My decision was atheism because it's very logical and makes sense to me. I've run into a few zealots on both sides and have little tolerance for either. As a person, and a veteran I firmly believe the that greatest thing in life is being able to choose ones own beliefs and be that religion or atheism I'm glad that we have that right in the US at least.0 -
While I am personally not an atheist activist, I do appreciate the work they do. Perhaps some of them go overboard with their anti-religion ideals, but I do see the reasoning behind it. Without their activism, this nation (U.S.) would potentially become dominated by the religious faction; introducing intelligent design into our science classes, passing laws that violate the separation of church and state, and more. We can see the potential dangers of that happening by simply taking a look at Muslim countries.
Allowing the fantasy to remain pervasive was a driving factor for the so-called dark ages. The reason we should care is so that we can advance as a society rather than spending so much time, energy and money every time Christianity tries to find a way to get their mythology into the classroom. That energy is much better spent on vastly more important advances in medicine, technology, social sciences, etc.
All that said, I'm mostly talking about the leaders of the atheist movement, who are educated and logical, and attempt to fight the battle with reason and intellect, rather than atheistic "dogma."0 -
I agree that everyone should be on the lookout and resist anything that would set up a theocracy in the US. I don't think that would ever happen due to the diverse makeup of cultures and religions, but we should always be on guard. That being said I'm of the mind that people misinterperet the seperation of church and state a bit, and want to dismantle all reference to god or religion from every facet of local and federal governments. The seperation is mainly to prevent the establishment of a state religion, not the outright banning of religious references or ideals that influence government to a certain degree.
I have noticed however that the determination to prevent religion from seeping into government seems to be a tad selective, and normally targeted against Christianity. Why are we not seeing an uproar about the Islamic prayer that is to take place at the DNC this year, even though this is obviously mixing politics/government with what in my mind appears to be a very forceful and authoritarian religion?0 -
Have not yet read the other replies, only the OP remarks.
Atheism is a religion
the way bald is a hair color..........
Atheism is a religion
the way abstinence is a sexual position.
Yes, yes, i DO object to govt supported displays of any religion.
I am for complete separation of church and state.0 -
Sure generally the left doesn't tolerate religion, but they just replace it with a form of religion, which is worship or idolization of the state and its leaders.
says who?
I am a liberal,
and i do not "worship" the govt.
I am for FAR MORE freedoms than most republicans or conservatives are.
I do not want the govt burning or banning books, nor censoring history books,
not rewriting them to suit their agenda.
I do not want the govt shoving anyone's gods into my public places, my courthouse, my country's legislation.
I do not want the govt involved in private consensual sexual choices.
I do not want a govt involved in my uterus, or my decisions that are between ME and my doctor and whoever else i choose to involve in MY decision.
I do not want the govt banning birth control, nor denying birth control that can rightly be covered by insurance coverage.
nor who can marry who,
who can adopt who based upon who they have mated with.
I don't want your "small" govt getting into private family decisions about last wishes and end of life care.
I don't want your "small" govt getting to shove "creationism" into SCIENCE books, when there is zero evidence for it, it's NOT science.
I want the freedom to say, those 10 commandments have nothing to do with my govt, and should not placed on govt tax-payer supported lands, like courthouses.
(and only 2 of them are actual laws, it's a crummy list, i could make a better list, but, that's off topic)
I do not want a govt trying to force biblical "morals" onto me, like no liquor sales on Sunday, the 'honor the sabbath' crapola,
(rofl, Jesus loved wine, and so did his Dad. When biblegod Dad flooded the earth, and chose to save one (1) dude and his family, he chose a guy with a drinking problem).
but i digress.
I am MORE for freedom than YOU are. I want freedoms even MORE than you do!!0 -
So, are you truly Atheist or just Anti-religion?
I AM BOTH!!!!! :bigsmile:
I can't speak for anyone but myself about what THEIR atheism means to THEM,
as we atheists are NOT a relgion,
and although many of us do share commonalities,
we have no dogma,
no leader,
no organization which encompasses all of our often diverse views.
but, for me,
Yes, i am an atheist,
and yes, i am anti-religion.
I feel religion does harm, oppresses people, (especially women)
induces guilt,
stunts critical thinking skills,
causes wars,
divides families apart,
and is one of the most horrific forces on earth.
yet,
i still can treat a theist with respect. I dislike the religion, not the person who has been hypnotized since birth,
by eveyrone he knows,
to love a cosmic jewish zombie, who make you live forever, if you symbolically eat his flesh and drink his blood,
whle telepathically telling him that you accept him as your master,
so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree…
under threat of eternal punishment.
I can see how that person DID inherit the gods their parents worship.
I dislike the religion
and it's impact on humans, on govts,
but i can love the person who espouses that nonsense. And i will stand up for that person's freedom to worship whatever gods they inherited,
yes i will.
I will stand up for that theist's right to worship,
in any way he chooses,
so long as no children are harmed....
and so long as my taxes are not going into it,
and so long as it is NOT on tax-payer supported lands.
EDIT x 2.0 -
btw, to the OP,
sorry about your a$# is all chapped by people's freedom of speech.
rofl.
ironic, isn't it?
Here you are, claiming to love freedoms,
but only for YOUR point of view.
See, that' isn't how freedom works. It's for everyone. Even atheists.
I am just against public displays of the gods on govt (tax payer supported) lands.0 -
Sure generally the left doesn't tolerate religion, but they just replace it with a form of religion, which is worship or idolization of the state and its leaders
Of the 435 elected officials in Washington, of those on the left,
only one (1) is an atheist. And he is not a democrat.
Over 99.9% of all democratic leaders in your govt,
are also religious.
Many of them very very much contribute to blurring the lines between church and state.
WHERE do you get your info ??
Can you cite an example of anyone of significance (not a teen on facebook)
on the left "not tolerating religion"?? Even one?
Keep in mind
there is a difference,
between challenging an idea that has zero empirical evidence,
egging them on to use critical thinking skills,
as well as a difference in someone (even a religious person) objecting to the govt favoring one god over another,
or objecting to using tax payer dollars to indulge in worshiping the gods.
0 -
I think that the US has been built on predominantly Christian ideals and I'm ok with that
nope, sorry, it's not.
The original founders of the USA govt, were people running FROM the mix of govt into religion,
and religion into govt.
The pilgrims initially wanted zero mix of the two, at all,
as they had seen how disastrous that ALWAYS becomes.
always.
True, over time, it did get messed up,
but morality and religion have zero to do with each other.
^oh, the entire pic doesn't show, it reads,
"MORALITY IS DOING WHAT IS RIGHT, NO MATTER WHAT YOU ARE TOLD.
RELIGION IS DOING WHAT YOU ARE TOLD, NO MATTER WHAT IS RIGHT."
THANK DAWG that civil law DOES override the bible laws,
or else we could sell our daughters,
murder adulterers,
murder sassy children,
perform infantocide,
torture those who do not worship same gods we do,
indulge in geneocide,
tons
and
tons
of crazy-a$3 bible "laws" and "rules" which i am EXTREMELY grateful to our founding fathers for NOT treating as CIVIL law.0 -
I am highly conservative on most political issues because they generally make logical sense as well, though of course I differ on a few issues.
can you name a conservative position on any issue that you feel "makes sense"??
/gets popcorn,
cuz, i am betting you believe that rightwingers are better at budgets, but, the CBO disagrees. sorry, i should wait til you DO actually reply.
or, you can skip it, as there is already so much going on in this thread.
BIT I WILL AGREE, the vast majority of atheist i know ARE liberals,
and few self label as "independents" but most of the "independents" i know, are embarrassed republicans.
but,
there is the rare "conservative" atheist, they do exist.
ON "AtheistUniverse.net"
there are a few others like you there,
and there are multiple discussions as to why most atheists ARE liberals.....it's a fairly complicated discussion,
you should join AU, to join in,
there are a few like you there.
Most of those discussions seem to imply,
that since conservatism IS a largely illogical and oppressive and religiously based group, and tend to espouse so so many "social" values which most americans outgrew in the 19th century,
that few atheists,
who DO tend to be critical thinkers,
can swallow it.
PLUS, it *almost* seems like,
to be a "real" republican,
you HAVE TO watch Faux News........and that might be a bridge too far for anyone who does not buy into fantasy........it is an interesting thing to wonder,
why so many atheists ARE liberals???????0 -
The basic teachings of Christianity also make good logical sense,
no, no they don't.
I will readily admit,
there ARE a few good ideas in the bible!
but the overall vast bulk of the bible,
is one horrific monstrous story, with ghastly morals!!!
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/atrocities.html
Even the main characters leave much to be desired. Not really a lot to admire there, at all! shiver!! Don't get me started on Jesus......so overrated. Yes, he did have some nice qualities,
like he was FOR healthcare for the poor,
the literal redistribution of wealth,
was NOT a capitalist,
lotta things about the guy i do like,
but,
so much to wonder about,
like why he couldn't ever once stand up against slavery? or the severe, mind-blowing oppression of women going on all around him?
I am a mere mortal,
yet,
i have managed to find the courage to stand up against evil when i see it.
couldn't Jesus have even said, "Ey, this whole selling women thing, and the slavery, i am against it."
but nope, not a peep.
Not a word against molesting kids, child abuse (in fact, Jesus recommends murdering sassy children)
See, i couldn't even hang around with a guy like that, let alone worship him.
If i DID follow his "logical" rules,
i'd end up on "Crime Mysteries" show, and in jail.
Why did Jesus disrespect his own mother every single time he saw her? What was THAT all about? Like i always told my daughters, "watch out for any guy who doesn't treat his mother with respect, and run from any adult male who seriously dislikes his mom."
I got a long long list of things about almost all of the bible's "heros".
That bible is a crappy immoral book.0 -
dawg, almost every line you wrote, Maril, i have a disagreement with.
liek this one:I also find it bizarre when atheist groups start putting up billboards advertising atheism....you are turning it into a religion when taking it to this level...or actually more like a cult.
Why?
why are you against THIS freedom?
And if something is on a billboard, it is now a "religion"???
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
so, Century 21 Realtors is a religion now? Or, would they be a "cult"??
DO LOOK UP THE MEANING OF THE WORD "CULT". ATheists are not even organized, have no leader, we worship nothing, (generally) we oppress no one.
I am all for promoting rationality. :bigsmile: Any tool that helps, i'm all for it.
Messaging on billboards is effective,
and THAT is why you see so many of them.
:laugh:
Billboards like this can increase membership in local atheist groups
(i know, cuz our billboard DID just that, wow, what a turn out that month!):noway:
as well as raise cash for campaigns and causes and groups and events, (like the annual atheist cruise
sponsored by CFI )
as well as help desensitize others to our presence.:flowerforyou:
as well as help instigate thinking,
as well as help the vast bulk of atheists in the closet feel validated, and respected, and more acceptable and less afraid of the wrath:explode: so many atheists face.
I was atheist back in the 70s and 80s, things were a LOT worse then, oh bayyyyyyyybee, was it ever worse back then. the pre-internet era of atheism, it was just hateful.
felt VERY alone,
would have LOVED to see a billboard about atheism.
even one. even a magazine, or a book, that actually made it to the shelves.
even one well spoken atheist on tv that WASN'T being pelted with eggs.
there was nothing.
so far as i knew,
i was the ONLY one, me and Dr Ohara, being tormented and ridiculed on the tv news.
Glad for you,
that your life as an atheist is such,
that you yourself feel no need to support the others still struggling to find the courage to be out,
and
i'm glad that wherever you live,
there is no need to stand up for rational thinking.
0 -
To the OP,
i haven't even slogged through your second post yet.
guess i can only read that kind of 'logic'
in small increments.
later.
but one more before i log off,You don't believe in god, why in the world would you care what others believe and attack them?
Atheist are typically the ones under attack.
not the other way around.
I can't speak for other atheists,
and rather resent the way some teens on facebook are somehow seen to represent the bulk of atheists,
when teens are usually not the most logical nor well developed thinkers in the world,
but,
for me,
i never attack the person.
Like i said,
i can
and will
attack an idea, but, *I* never ever bring up their gods,
they do.
I find religion offensive, myself. Such a dangerous thing.
HOPE YOU CAN READ THIS:
I can attack the idea, or the "logic" they are using,
but not the person.
Maybe not everyone can do that.
but i can, if i choose to.
See,
there is a difference between saying, "The bible IS full immoral rules"
and saying "you are an idiot who just swallows whatever you are told."
see?
see the difference there?
I do not attack the person.
i can and will attack the IDEA or NONSENSE.
I am all for promoting critical thinking skills,
and greatly fear the encroachment of religion into the US govt, it is just mind-blowing!!!!!!! I have long long list
of how religion
has
and
does
influence our govt.
oh, the poster reads, "this is not a f#cking church, keep your hallucinations out of my life."
I am rather shocked you do not seem aware of this. Perhaps you watch clusterFaux news.
that'd do it.0 -
I have noticed however that the determination to prevent religion from seeping into government seems to be a tad selective, and normally targeted against Christianity.
Actually, like many atheists, i am very supportive of efforts to keep any religion from "seeping" into govt any further than it already is. (Religion IS in bed with the US govt, btw)
But it is not just christianity. Some legislators felt the need to try to pass some amendment or law stating Sharia Law could not overtake the Pklahoma state govt. GUESS which "logical" party did that?
take a wild guess.
There is indeed, a very stiff bigotry against anything that can even be mistaken for muslim adherents, amazing you seem unaware of it. It's also part of the GOP platform, as well.
But, the reason you might be noticing more protests against christianity trying to take over the US govt,
is,
cuz christainity is THE one religion trying to do so.
Christanity is the largest religion in the US.
so most efforts to shove their gods,
their creationism stories,
all that crapola,
ARE from christians.
sorry, but anything that smacks of 'CHRISTIAN OPPRESSION' just amuses me..............what a groupwide-persecution complex so ingrained as a reflex almost............
0 -
Why are we not seeing an uproar about the Islamic prayer that is to take place at the DNC this year, even though this is obviously mixing politics/government with what in my mind appears to be a very forceful and authoritarian religion
My friend, you have ALL the earmarks of a devoted Faux news viewer, or perhaps a Glenn Beck fan, or a Rush Limbaugh adherent.
I'd rather you were religious.
that rightwing faer-mongering stuff is permanent,
but religion is not.
First off, the DNC is not "govt". It is a political party.
It is NOT sponsored by YOUR tax dollars.
Second off,
there is NO muslim prayer fest,:laugh: but this WAS used as a way to fire up the base against democrats.
rofl.
///"Many of the emails link to a blog post or to an article posted on The Blaze, Glenn Beck’s conservative website. The Blaze article originally carried the headline, “DNC Announces 2-hour Islamic ‘Jumah’ Prayers After Rejecting Cardinal’s Blessing (And You Won’t Believe Who’s Invited).”:laugh: The article has since been updated to reflect that Cardinal Timothy Dolan, New York’s archbishop, will be leading the DNC’s closing benediction.
A Muslim group scheduled a prayer service titled “Jumah at the 2012 DNC” in a city park — not in any official convention venue — for the Friday afternoon Before the convention."///
http://factcheck.org/2012/08/muslim-prayer-service-at-the-dnc/
TURN OFF FAUX NOISE!!!!
see, bigotted, fear-mongering stuff like THAT might be why most atheists
who DO tend to be logical, fact-based types,
just can not get themselves to take rightwinger 'fear-based' crapola seriously.0 -
Atheism is a religion
the way not collecting stamps is a hobby...........0 -
Okaaaay. I can't comment on religion and state in the US as I am UK based but I would say that I am a rationalist, a humanist and an atheist. I have good friends who are Christian, Muslim, Sikh, whatever and, because most of us are, shall we say, a bit left-leaning we tend to respect each others positions.
Because I am left-leaning I don't think people should be oppressed for their political beliefs, their sexuality, race or religious beliefs. I don't think it is illogical to be an atheist yet to hate islamophobia. I'm lucky, I'm not oppressed for my atheism but I do know some young British Asians who are atheists. If you think its tough being a Christian atheist imagine what its like when you reject Islam?
In terms of being anti-religion I would say in my case, no I'm not. I would defend peoples rights to believe what they like. 'The Church' on the other hand I can often find offensive. When 'organised religion' starts telling folk what to do rather than them trusting to good old fashioned common sense is when the trouble often starts....
Finally - teens on Facebook? I work in a West Yorkshire University so I see these teens every day - most of them are rational and, especially in the case of the young Muslims, brave to reject a religion they have been raised in. Most of them will also often be a bit rash and stupid but thats what being a teenager is all about. We were just the same but only a few of our nearest and dearest ever saw us. This generation have no fear of going public with their lives and, on the whole, thats a good thing to me.
Jane0 -
OH, i so so agree,
much much HAS changed for atheists today!!:bigsmile:
HUGE CHANGES IN JUST MY LIFETIME, i stand witness to the vast differences. I think most young atheists today have no idea how it once was for atheists,
not that long ago.
Many young atheists today
can not even picture what it was like
to be an atheist
in the pre-internet era...
to live for 30 years and only meet one (1)other atheist...................really, picture that.
no internet.
Can't find another anywhere.
so far as you know, you might be the only one!! (besides Dr Ohare on tv being pelted with eggs).
I still remember that moment
the first time i ever ever met another atheist..........i cried. And so did she.
NEITHER OF US HAD EVER EVER EVER MET ANOTHER.............both of us had suffered some forms of cruelty or what borders on abuse by others
for being atheist.:noway:
so yeah, i might have more passion about being PRO- BILLBOARDS FOR ATHEISTS than someone who has never experienced what i have.:laugh:
especially in religious countries like USA or Pakistan.
btw, there is no suchthing as a "christian atheist" so far as i know. But yeah, from belonging to a GLOBAL atheist community like ATHEIST UNIVERSE . NET,
i have met, and am now penpals with several exmuslims/atheists. The stories they tell would make you weep, and most must fake that they are believers,
or face beatings or even death.
In their countries, the church IS the govt,
which is always a bad bad thing......always.
TODAY, we atheists ARE far more accepted than even just 40 years ago.
MUCH progress HAS been made,
and today,
we do have well spoken atheists on tv,
most everyone today has met or at least heard of an atheist,
(huge change from even a few decades ago).
People ARE more likely to shrug nowadays
instead of react with rage or shock or wrath
when they meet an athiest...........it did not used to be that way.
Things have changed,
and i am ALL FOR atheists being more accepted nowadays!!s YAY!!! Yes, yes IT IS MUCH EASIER to be an out atheist now,
than it was when i used to come out and find my car keyed with the words, "YOU WILL BURN IN HELL"
and have coworkers leave the lunchroom when i came in, who'd previously liked me very much,
til they found out i was atheist.
In USA, atheists are even fired
for being atheist. :noway: A case not that long ago, and woman lost her insurance. Her employer stated he did not want anyone he knew to be atheist in his company. She died of cancer.
yet, things today, are MUCH better......and i am grateful for those who went first,
the bushbeaters
those who took the worst of the flack
for those to follow.
same as it was for women's rights, getting the vote for women, women in the workplace, those who went first,
took a lot of flack and even abuse.
same as it was for blacks, the first blacks to enter into all white schools, the first blacks to do this or that, took heat, and a lot of it,
but most of those things are now common place.
any minority or oppressed group,
be it blacks,
women,
atheists,
etc,
etc
who now enjoys more freedom
than they did in the past
owes a debt to those who went before
and beat the path for them to follow.
made it much easier for those who followed. Yes, being a young out atheist today
is nothing
like it was when i was a young out atheist...........shiver!! you would NOT believe the stories i could tell you.0 -
but yes, i so agree, with this remark:In terms of being anti-religion I would say in my case, no I'm not. I would defend peoples rights to believe what they like. 'The Church' on the other hand I can often find offensive. When 'organised religion' starts telling folk what to do rather than them trusting to good old fashioned common sense is when the trouble often starts.
but i AM anti-religion, (which is not the same thing as being hateful, or obnoxious, or violent, or not peaceful, but YEAH I AM " anti-religion", so what? What is anyone's problem with that???????
)
but, i can like the PERSON
even LOVE the person,
but not the IDEA they espouse, nor the impact those ideas can have on them, on my govt, etc.
I don't think i know any atheist
who does NOT HAVE friends, relatives, even lovers
of all various religions.
and yeah, like i said,
i will stand up for anyone's right to worship
so long as no children are harmed
and so long as it is NOT on tax-payer supported land or using tax-payer dollars in any way.
I don't want their gods rules listed in my courthouse, for example. The OP could not seem to understand why an atheist (or a religous person who IS for separation of church and state)
would mind stuff like having the 10 commandments in front of my local courthouse,
or having tax dollars spent on honoring some gods, etc.
since they don't even believe in the gods anyway...............
0 -
BlueJean,
It's very hard to read your posts as they are so long and ranty, but I will do my best to respond with how I am thinking about these subjects, but it's hard to even know where to start.
First off I can tell right off the bat that you are taking the tone of the intolerant liberal that can't stand the idea that anyone would have ideas different than yours. You talk of freedoms, but your tone suggests otherwise. Your thinly veiled jabs that seem to suggest that I am not a real atheist and am just here to stir up trouble because of my misguided opinions after watching Fox News would be comical if they weren't so silly.
I think part of the problem stems from the fact that you've been brainwashed youself by what started out as a more decent political leaning and has degraded further over time. The Democratic party of which most liberals in the US identify has declined so far that they in fact stand for many of the things that are counter to true freedom.I do not want the govt burning or banning books, nor censoring history books,
not rewriting them to suit their agenda.
I do not want the govt shoving anyone's gods into my public places, my courthouse, my country's legislation.
I do not want the govt involved in private consensual sexual choices.
I do not want a govt involved in my uterus, or my decisions that are between ME and my doctor and whoever else i choose to involve in MY decision.
I do not want the govt banning birth control, nor denying birth control that can rightly be covered by insurance coverage.
nor who can marry who,
who can adopt who based upon who they have mated with.
I don't want your "small" govt getting into private family decisions about last wishes and end of life care.
I don't want your "small" govt getting to shove "creationism" into SCIENCE books, when there is zero evidence for it, it's NOT science.
You've got a few good points above. Burning books is never ok, nor re-writing history. Those particular issues however do come up much more often in LEFT leaning societies than right as a general rule. It's pretty typical in Communist, Socialist, National Socialist (Nazi), and Facist governments. All left leaning, regardless of the way that the political spectrum has been distorted by the propoganda in this country (I get so sick of Nazi's being referred to as right wing).
I don't want people's sexual choices to even be an issue, yet both sides use it politically to try to garner an advantage. Live and let live, I don't want that shoved in my face in either direction.
On the topic of health care and choices, you however are dead wrong. The larger government and the recent Affordable Care Act are the things that are going inject themselves into EVERYTHING that you do that involves a doctor. If you can't see that you are so blind it makes me sad for you. They WILL regulate everything that you do, make those end of life decisions for you family (believe me anyone that knows and deals with the VA already knows this...try having an older veteran parent and see what happens...). They WILL get between you and your doctor, they are already doing it.
On the topic of abortion (which I assume you are referring to based on your uterus comments) I don't see how any logical person can consider abortion a moral position, especially late term. This should not be a form of birth control, and it seems to me that you have the responsibility to protect that life. Nobody is trying to ban birth control, but the current administration is attempting to force groups to pay for it on their health plans, even though they are opposed to it based on their religion. If you truly believe that people can worship as they wish, you should be against forcing them to break their own doctrine to do what a government is FORCING them to do. That's similar to someone forcing something that you are opposed to down your throat and making it illegal to resist. Surely you can see that is wrong?
I like your points on being anti-religion but treating with respect. I totally get that. I also believe that generally religion has been twisted and corrupted to cause many wars, death and suffering, and many people follow what they've been told blindly, never questioning, which is sad. I still like many that live like this, many are very good friends of mine.btw, to the OP,
sorry about your a$# is all chapped by people's freedom of speech.
rofl.
ironic, isn't it?
Here you are, claiming to love freedoms,
but only for YOUR point of view.
See, that' isn't how freedom works. It's for everyone. Even atheists.
I am just against public displays of the gods on govt (tax payer supported) lands.
I'm not sure where you get that I am opposed to freedom of speech. I served and did my time to defend that right with my life if need be. What I'm saying is that I don't understand why people take the time to do something like protest crosses at a soldiers memorial or something similar. In death do these people not have the right to have their religious symbols displayed? Can we add more for equality? Sure I don't care, and as an atheist I wouldn't have a problem being buried in a national cemetary with neighbors that are displaying these symbols, I'd just be the plain grave next to them.The original founders of the USA govt, were people running FROM the mix of govt into religion,
and religion into govt.
The pilgrims initially wanted zero mix of the two, at all,
as they had seen how disastrous that ALWAYS becomes.
always.
True, over time, it did get messed up,
but morality and religion have zero to do with each other
I never said that the founders WERE Christian, but rather that many of the ideals that the country grew up with were the important areas of Christianity (and other religions like the Jewish faith) like don't murder, steal, cheat, etc. These are good basic rules, and make logical sense. We still see it in other areas as well, on money and monuments. Nobody wants a religious state, a totalitarian rule of any kind and nobody wants anarchy either (I'd hope) so a few basic rules are good in this sense.can you name a conservative position on any issue that you feel "makes sense"??
/gets popcorn,
cuz, i am betting you believe that rightwingers are better at budgets, but, the CBO disagrees. sorry, i should wait til you DO actually reply.
or, you can skip it, as there is already so much going on in this thread.
I'll go ahead and throw this out there and get the ball rolling I guess:
Abortion: I prefer the conservative stance on this. While the waters are muddied a lot by religion that the Christian element generally injects into the debate, I think that people need to take personal responsibility for their actions and not use abortion as a form of birth control. Late term abortions are pretty ****ing ghoulish if you ask me and just aren't right (if anyone has bothered to actually read about the procedure). Shouldn't a society strive to protect the smallest and weakest among us?
Immigration: Does everyone just blank out the word "illegal" when talking about this? I'm all for legal immigration into this country. Just about everyone comes from an immigant of some kind in this country. What I am against is when we ignore the illegal immigration that happens and then don't deport even criminal offenders that commit violent crimes. They don't pay taxes (something liberals overlook even though they LOVE taxes haha) and generally strain the systems for welfare, health care, police, etc and make it harder for people that are citizens to get help. The fact that Democrats are trying to make it easier for illegals to vote in a system in which they are not citizens sickens me. I welcome anyone that is an immigrant and wants to come here the right way.
Foreign Aid: I'm not sure why we support and send money to countries that hate America, and above all I think that the spending is a waste of time. We have enough budget issues and things we could fix in our own country first. If it were me, I'd immediately cut all foreign aid focus on America first. We can't keep being the world's welfare office, police force and everything else. And unless you have seen how our troops are being used in all kinds of ways beyond our high profile wars first hand, I'll ask you to reserve any comments, because I have and it's pretty shocking.
Healthcare: This government mandated monstrosity is a huge invasion of my rights to choose options for myself and family. I can tell you right now, when this comes to pass, I know for a fact that my employer will choose to ditch their healthcare plan, and based on rates current and projected I'll probably have no choice but to go with government subsidized healthcare.
Further because of over-regulation and anti-capitalist bent, competition has not been opened up to allow sales across state lines, as well as forcing types of service into the plans that I'd never want nor use, thus driving up my costs. Let companies decide what's in the plans and I'll buy what I want and need.
Military: A strong military is a must. The constant fight over the size of the military is something I think is stupid. Our forces should be large, well outfitted and used as a deterrant to our enemies. We should also use quick decisive firepower to end wars as quickly as possible. The fact that our military is generally hobbled to the point of being ineffective most of the time costs more lives on both sides.
Budget: We need to stop spending money. If I have no money to spend I don't go out and get more credit so I can buy more stuff. We need to dial back useless programs that do nothing to help people, stop aiding corporations with money (if they fail so be it...chances are they'll find a way to make it work like Ford did when they didn't accept a bailout), and get a budget under control. This goes for Bush as well, the bailouts were crap, but he's far from what I'd call a conservative. Obama and his mostly Democrat congress made it worse and now we're looking at the worst deficit in the history of mankind. Instead of making the decsions that make fiscal sense liberals always want to slash the military, police, firefighters, teachers (all scare tactics so that they paralyze the public into doing nothing, or getting behind the push for more deficit spending).
Welfare: I'm all for welfare for those in need. We have an obligation to protect those that cannot fend for themselves like the mentally handicapped, children, elderly. NOT some schlub that just doesn't want to work and pay his way. Welfare has been used as a political tool for far too long by liberals to make people dependent and beholden to the government, a quick way to secure votes. It makes it so much easier when someone running for election can just say "My opponent wants to take away your free cash!!". Well ****, who doesn't like free cash? The problem is that there are WAY too many able bodied people that are just gaming the system getting that free cash, that cash that rightfully belongs to tax paying citizens and those that are actually in need.
Taxes: Taxing corporations and the rich at the levels that liberals want right now is insane. When's the last time that you got a job from a poor person? Taxes cripple innovation, hiring, production and your average person's buying power. Taxes are another way to control people, and shockingly enough liberals in this country tend to want to raise taxes, but are always unwilling to make cuts where necessary and instead cut funding to essential services. Taxes always go up in this country and never go away. We should strive to lower taxes and allow more financial freedom to people of all classes. A Fair Tax should be implemented and everyone pay an equal percentage. And NO, I'm not rich at all, I'm firmly in the middle class.
There are many other points that you made that I'm not going to addess in this post, because it's gotten so long anyway. Once I slog through your responses I'll see what else there is to say.0 -
Lots of generalizations in that post, but I guess we have to start somewhere.
I've been an atheist my entire life, and have never considered it a religion. It is, however, indicative of a world-view that informs many of my beliefs and strategies regarding the way I approach my daily life. For many people, religion does that. My lack of religion doesn't do that directly, but is evidence of how I prefer to reason and make decisions.
I know many atheists on both "sides" of the political debate, and I believe the reason why liberal atheists speak out more is because it is simply more widely accepted in their circles. Most atheists I know do not worship the state. In fact, most people I know who are skeptical about religion are also skeptical about authority figures and constructs.
Many people take for granted that the US is a Christian Nation, when there is in fact very little evidence for that, overall. Those who point that out are seen as rabble-rousers and bullies, but many are just approaching it from the perspective of reason. As for the people screaming on TV about how there shouldn't be any Christian symbols or expression anywhere- I believe those people are simply lashing back against what they perceive as a mistake in the way many people form a national identity around Christianity. When atheists want to express an idea publicly, it is often met with a lot of controversy and reactionary hostility. Honestly, even if someone of unknown religious affiliation expressed a secular idea publicly, he or she is often met with equal hostility (though "secular" and "atheist" are not in any way beholden to one another). While I don't agree with the approach that some atheists take to be heard, I do understand the frustration.
Brilliant post. I consider myself both Atheist and anti-religion, but only because I believe religion isn't truly a "harmless fantasy" that doesn't affect me. When I can be fired from a job for being Atheist, or I am not represented in Congress because my lack of religion is so "evil," I realize how harmful religion is. When I see wars start, laws pass, and murders and rape occur because of religion, I stay anti-religion. And even, on what many people argue is, "Well, it just makes them feel better. Why can't you let them have what they have and just leave them alone?"... well, I see people wasting their own lives, not truly living, waiting for something to come that won't. I see people that follow guidelines in a book that are hindering their true potential, because a person is too afraid to think for themselves, enjoy themselves, love the person they truly want to live... because they're waiting for a fantasy land to come that won't.
So, I'm both Atheist and anti-religion, because anything that can make someone feel good from religion--the balm that there's "more than this," the idea that they're "unconditionally loved," or (one of my personal favorites), "the words move them"--CAN be found elsewhere in this world. People are too lazy to find it, or don't want to question this.
Also, I didn't read this whole thread, but I'm feeling flames.0 -
Holy ****, OP is a troll come from under the bridge. "A large military is a must." You ask why we "support countries" that "hate America" but don't realize that our huge *kitten* military occupying other countries is why they do? Really?
EDIT: Wow, and OP is a Vet? Def. a diggit, I see...0 -
You obviously have no real experience with the military. The military is not some huge machine that wakes up every day and says "Huh, I think I'll go **** with some other country". Politicians are the ones that send our troops into places and "aid" whichever side they think is right. And both sides of the fence use troops in equal measure, you just only hear about the times when a Republican sends them in...never mind that we STILL have troops rotation in and out of Bosnia and Kosovo, even though Clinton specifically said that we'd only be there for a while....that was HOW many years ago?
I am all for pulling out of every country that we currently are in, telling the UN to **** off and stationing all of our troops within our borders.
The fact that you don't realize, or at least don't seem to, that many of these places that we are in now truly do hate American, and they'd just as soon come in and kill every last atheist as they would christian. There is real evil out there and it does have a religious angle, but we only generally see atheists targeting christianity as a major problem.
Whatever though, I guess it's impossible to share the same theological ideas (or lack there of if you will) and have differing opinions politically. I see.... I would have thought that at least in an atheist forum there'd be more rational and logical discussion and a lot less brainwashed zombies shambling around. I guess that thinking for yourself is just lip service?0 -
To Maril,
thank you for reading and replying.
sorry if you found my posts too long,
i do type at 100wpm,
and i can read entire BOOKS
so a few paragraphs,
or one thread on an internet site,
is nothing to me. But many ppl today DO have twitter-level att'n spans, and balk at even trying to focus on reading
entire paragraphs.
I am have not yet read your post in it's entirty,
but, will just reply as i go.First off I can tell right off the bat that you are taking the tone of the intolerant liberal that can't stand the idea that anyone would have ideas different than yours.
this is an interesting remark,
from a guy who opposes ppl putting up billboards to express their views, who is against that freedom.
but perhaps the irony there is lost on you.
It's also sad,
that you feel the need to label me as 'intolerant' of different ideas,
when i clearly state i am against irrational behaviors and beliefs.
I "stand the idea" every day of my life, religion is all around me.
Show me even one atheist in the USA who is not surrounded by religion every day.You talk of freedoms, but your tone suggests otherwise.
feel free to quote the remark of mine,
that is not for freedoms.
Again,
i have taken pains to point out,
and again, in even greater detail HERE
>
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/726666-i-am-anti-religion-so-what
that i am not against the expression of religion
but
i am against mixing religion into govt.
SO WHAT??The Democratic party of which most liberals in the US identify has declined so far that they in fact stand for many of the things that are counter to true freedom.
NAME ONE.
be specific,
name a freedom that the DEMOCRATS alone,
as a party platform specific to DEMOCRATS
are pushing to remove.
SPECIFICALLY NAME A FREEDOM YOU FEEL THE DEMOCRATS ARE TRYING TO TAKE AWAY FROM YOU.
not a freedom you feel the govt in general has removed from you,
but a FREEDOM that you feel the DEMOCRATS have removed from you.0 -
Those particular issues however do come up much more often in LEFT leaning societies than right as a general rule
It's pretty typical in Communist, Socialist, National Socialist (Nazi), and Facist governments
I agree that cencorship IS part of facist govts, but not necessarily socialist govts. Please list any modern industrialized nation,
whose govt is not at least partly socialist?
The USA has always always been partly socialist. Your public schools, libraries, armies, NASA, electrical grids, aviation controller depts, sewer systems, highways systems, fire depts, food safety depts, engineering depts of the govt,
are all just a few of the 100s and 100s of socialist features to the USA.
Ppl who watch faux news *seem to*
think of socialism as a "bad" thing,..........odd.
and seem oblivious to the 100s and 100s of socialist agencies in the USA that they much enjoy...............odd.
I feel the republican party
has been invaded by facists, though.
NAME ONE democrat legislator who has burned books. The GOP vp nominee
Sarah Palin, did attempt to ban books in Alaska libraries. The Texas republicans in charge of our history books, are the ones rewriting the history books to fit their agenda,
not the democrats. WHY all of our nations textbooks,
all have to be approved by Texas,(?)
is something i do not understand......this is NOT just books that students in TEXAS will be given,
but the entire nation's student body.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/23/tea-party-tennessee-textbooks-slavery_n_1224157.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/education/21textbooks.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1346869714-JPhEVTe/8L4jNQVzdqDtxw
see, this kind of crap is done by republicans,
not democrats.(I get so sick of Nazi's being referred to as right wing).
i imagine you would,
yet, it was a rightwing and christian extremist movement or form of govt. They would have also though atheists should not be putting up billboards, btw. lol0 -
I don't want people's sexual choices to even be an issue, yet both sides use it politically to try to garner an advantage.
i agree with you,
that sexual choices should not be an issue,
yet,
with one political party
trying to keep gays oppressed,
it IS an issue.
i think the american voter has the right to know,
that republicans are for oppressing gays.Live and let live, I don't want that shoved in my face in either direction.
sorry,
but i don't exactly understand what you mean by having it shoved in your face.(?) I feel how each party DOES vote on gay rights,
is something the american voter SHOULD know.
I do not think
that hiding the fact that the GOP is against gay rights,
is the solution to your discomfort about hearing about that topic.0 -
Ugh, this is so not worth my time.
AGAIN I am not against the billboards I just find it silly to even bother attacking religion in such a way. As an atheist I find that this is an illogical waste of money and does NOTHING to help people make rational decisions, but rather paints all atheists as religion hating, hate spewing nut jobs. THAT is what I take acception with, NOT their right to do so. You may type at 100WPM but your reading comprehension is not that great.
Also it's not that I have a short attention span, but rather your formatting just plain sucks and is hard to read.
And as far as the Democratic party, I take issue with the things that they are IMPOSING on the people now (e.g. Healthcare laws) that WILL restrict my choice to make my own decisions (and you are an idiot if you don't see that coming) and the fact that their new platform specifically includes language to allow the government to subsidize and pay for things like abortion.
The party has been declining for years, not to mention its past issues attempting to repleal many pieces of civil rights and voter protection laws that were championed by the Republican party. This is a long history of oppression and that is something that you can't escape no matter how much the DNC wants to rewrite history.
“Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws… On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.”
October 13, 1858
During Lincoln-Douglas debates, U.S. Senator Stephen Douglas (D-IL) states: “I do not regard the Negro as my equal, and positively deny that he is my brother, or any kin to me whatever”; Douglas became Democratic Party’s 1860 presidential nominee
April 16, 1862
President Lincoln signs bill abolishing slavery in District of Columbia; in Congress, 99% of Republicans vote yes, 83% of Democrats vote no
July 17, 1862
Over unanimous Democrat opposition, Republican Congress passes Confiscation Act stating that slaves of the Confederacy “shall be forever free”
January 31, 1865
13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. House with unanimous Republican support, intense Democrat opposition
April 8, 1865
13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. Senate with 100% Republican support, 63% Democrat opposition
November 22, 1865
Republicans denounce Democrat legislature of Mississippi for enacting “black codes,” which institutionalized racial discrimination
February 5, 1866
U.S. Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (R-PA) introduces legislation, successfully opposed by Democrat President Andrew Johnson, to implement “40 acres and a mule” relief by distributing land to former slaves
April 9, 1866
Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Johnson’s veto; Civil Rights Act of 1866, conferring rights of citizenship on African-Americans, becomes law
May 10, 1866
U.S. House passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the laws to all citizens; 100% of Democrats vote no
June 8, 1866
U.S. Senate passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the law to all citizens; 94% of Republicans vote yes and 100% of Democrats vote no
January 8, 1867
Republicans override Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of law granting voting rights to African-Americans in D.C.
July 19, 1867
Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of legislation protecting voting rights of African-Americans
March 30, 1868
Republicans begin impeachment trial of Democrat President Andrew Johnson, who declared: “This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government of white men”
September 12, 1868
Civil rights activist Tunis Campbell and 24 other African-Americans in Georgia Senate, every one a Republican, expelled by Democrat majority; would later be reinstated by Republican Congress
October 7, 1868
Republicans denounce Democratic Party’s national campaign theme: “This is a white man’s country: Let white men rule”
October 22, 1868
While campaigning for re-election, Republican U.S. Rep. James Hinds (R-AR) is assassinated by Democrat terrorists who organized as the Ku Klux Klan
December 10, 1869
Republican Gov. John Campbell of Wyoming Territory signs FIRST-in-nation law granting women right to vote and to hold public office
February 3, 1870
After passing House with 98% Republican support and 97% Democrat opposition, Republicans’ 15th Amendment is ratified, granting vote to all Americans regardless of race
May 31, 1870
President U.S. Grant signs Republicans’ Enforcement Act, providing stiff penalties for depriving any American’s civil rights
June 22, 1870
Republican Congress creates U.S. Department of Justice, to safeguard the civil rights of African-Americans against Democrats in the South
September 6, 1870
Women vote in Wyoming, in FIRST election after women’s suffrage signed into law by Republican Gov. John Campbell
February 28, 1871
Republican Congress passes Enforcement Act providing federal protection for African-American voters
April 20, 1871
Republican Congress enacts the Ku Klux Klan Act, outlawing Democratic Party-affiliated terrorist groups which oppressed African-Americans
October 10, 1871
Following warnings by Philadelphia Democrats against black voting, African-American Republican civil rights activist Octavius Catto murdered by Democratic Party operative; his military funeral was attended by thousands
October 18, 1871
After violence against Republicans in South Carolina, President Ulysses Grant deploys U.S. troops to combat Democrat terrorists who formed the Ku Klux Klan
November 18, 1872
Susan B. Anthony arrested for voting, after boasting to Elizabeth Cady Stanton that she voted for “the Republican ticket, straight”
January 17, 1874
Armed Democrats seize Texas state government, ending Republican efforts to racially integrate government
September 14, 1874
Democrat white supremacists seize Louisiana statehouse in attempt to overthrow racially-integrated administration of Republican Governor William Kellogg; 27 killed
March 1, 1875
Civil Rights Act of 1875, guaranteeing access to public accommodations without regard to race, signed by Republican President U.S. Grant; passed with 92% Republican support over 100% Democrat opposition
January 10, 1878
U.S. Senator Aaron Sargent (R-CA) introduces Susan B. Anthony amendment for women’s suffrage; Democrat-controlled Senate defeated it 4 times before election of Republican House and Senate guaranteed its approval in 1919. Republicans foil Democratic efforts to keep women in the kitchen, where they belong
February 8, 1894
Democrat Congress and Democrat President Grover Cleveland join to repeal Republicans’ Enforcement Act, which had enabled African-Americans to vote
January 15, 1901
Republican Booker T. Washington protests Alabama Democratic Party’s refusal to permit voting by African-Americans
May 29, 1902
Virginia Democrats implement new state constitution, condemned by Republicans as illegal, reducing African-American voter registration by 86%
February 12, 1909
On 100th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s birth, African-American Republicans and women’s suffragists Ida Wells and Mary Terrell co-found the NAACP
May 21, 1919
Republican House passes constitutional amendment granting women the vote with 85% of Republicans in favor, but only 54% of Democrats; in Senate, 80% of Republicans would vote yes, but almost half of Democrats no
August 18, 1920
Republican-authored 19th Amendment, giving women the vote, becomes part of Constitution; 26 of the 36 states to ratify had Republican-controlled legislatures
January 26, 1922
House passes bill authored by U.S. Rep. Leonidas Dyer (R-MO) making lynching a federal crime; Senate Democrats block it with filibuster
June 2, 1924
Republican President Calvin Coolidge signs bill passed by Republican Congress granting U.S. citizenship to all Native Americans
October 3, 1924
Republicans denounce three-time Democrat presidential nominee William Jennings Bryan for defending the Ku Klux Klan at 1924 Democratic National Convention
June 12, 1929
First Lady Lou Hoover invites wife of U.S. Rep. Oscar De Priest (R-IL), an African-American, to tea at the White House, sparking protests by Democrats across the country
August 17, 1937
Republicans organize opposition to former Ku Klux Klansman and Democrat U.S. Senator Hugo Black, appointed to U.S. Supreme Court by FDR; his Klan background was hidden until after confirmation
June 24, 1940
Republican Party platform calls for integration of the armed forces; for the balance of his terms in office, FDR refuses to order it
August 8, 1945
Republicans condemn Harry Truman’s surprise use of the atomic bomb in Japan. The whining and criticism goes on for years. It begins two days after the Hiroshima bombing, when former Republican President Herbert Hoover writes to a friend that “The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul.”
September 30, 1953
Earl Warren, California’s three-term Republican Governor and 1948 Republican vice presidential nominee, nominated to be Chief Justice; wrote landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education
November 25, 1955
Eisenhower administration bans racial segregation of interstate bus travel
March 12, 1956
Ninety-seven Democrats in Congress condemn Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, and pledge to continue segregation
June 5, 1956
Republican federal judge Frank Johnson rules in favor of Rosa Parks in decision striking down “blacks in the back of the bus” law
November 6, 1956
African-American civil rights leaders Martin Luther King and Ralph Abernathy vote for Republican Dwight Eisenhower for President
September 9, 1957
President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republican Party’s 1957 Civil Rights Act
September 24, 1957
Sparking criticism from Democrats such as Senators John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, President Dwight Eisenhower deploys the 82nd Airborne Division to Little Rock, AR to force Democrat Governor Orval Faubus to integrate public schools
May 6, 1960
President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republicans’ Civil Rights Act of 1960, overcoming 125-hour, around-the-clock filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats
May 2, 1963
Republicans condemn Democrat sheriff of Birmingham, AL for arresting over 2,000 African-American schoolchildren marching for their civil rights
September 29, 1963
Gov. George Wallace (D-AL) defies order by U.S. District Judge Frank Johnson, appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower, to integrate Tuskegee High School
June 9, 1964
Republicans condemn 14-hour filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act by U.S. Senator and former Ku Klux Klansman Robert Byrd (D-WV), who still serves in the Senate
June 10, 1964
Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) criticizes Democrat filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act, calls on Democrats to stop opposing racial equality. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was introduced and approved by a staggering majority of Republicans in the Senate. The Act was opposed by most southern Democrat senators, several of whom were proud segregationists—one of them being Al Gore Sr. Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson relied on Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen, the Republican leader from Illinois, to get the Act passed.
August 4, 1965
Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) overcomes Democrat attempts to block 1965 Voting Rights Act; 94% of Senate Republicans vote for landmark civil right legislation, while 27% of Democrats oppose. Voting Rights Act of 1965, abolishing literacy tests and other measures devised by Democrats to prevent African-Americans from voting, signed into law; higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats vote in favor
February 19, 1976
President Gerald Ford formally rescinds President Franklin Roosevelt’s notorious Executive Order authorizing internment of over 120,000 Japanese-Americans during WWII
September 15, 1981
President Ronald Reagan establishes the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, to increase African-American participation in federal education programs
June 29, 1982
President Ronald Reagan signs 25-year extension of 1965 Voting Rights Act
August 10, 1988
President Ronald Reagan signs Civil Liberties Act of 1988, compensating Japanese-Americans for deprivation of civil rights and property during World War II internment ordered by FDR
November 21, 1991
President George H. W. Bush signs Civil Rights Act of 1991 to strengthen federal civil rights legislation
August 20, 1996
Bill authored by U.S. Rep. Susan Molinari (R-NY) to prohibit racial discrimination in adoptions, part of Republicans’ Contract With America, becomes law
And let’s not forget the words of liberal icon Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood…We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population….
Go ahead and keep your head in the sand and act like you are and think that you are supporting a "moral" party because they tend to have more atheists or religion haters, but in the end when it comes down to it, sure seems to me that the Republican party has stood for more freedoms than Democrats ever have.
It's ok, I support your right to believe anything you want. I'll just go find people that are a bit more rational to talk to issues about.0
