| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Note to TCG: if you want us to spin this off into its own thread, I suspect folks would comply. I'm appreciating the fact that it's flying under the radar of religion/atheism threads and avoiding some of the attention and the vitriol that would come with it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah I'd be happy to become a lich. Then spend the rest of my undeath reading books and surfing the net watching youtube videos all day and all night long. Maybe even tons of Pathfinder on roll20, now I never have to sleep again...
I would never take another's life for immortality. That person's life never belonged to you, you have no right to take it.
The Klingon and Romulan would reply that if you were not strong or clever enough to keep one from taking it, you had no implied right to it. :)
Yes completely unintentional. Atheism would be aberrant NOT harmful. Well... not harmful to others anyway. So kinda like smoking in your car by yourself. At least as seen from a Christian perspective. We worry about you cause you seem unconcerned that you are giving yourself cancer to continue the analogy.
Noted. Just as we worry about you because you smoke everywhere we are, to try to expand the analogy.
Noted. Just as we worry about you because you smoke everywhere we are, to try to expand the analogy.
I am not following. How is what we believe harmful to you?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Believe what you will, that is not the issue. You guys make laws, create policy, and so on. And so, we are subjected to your evaluation of every single new concept. We can't decide on our own values regarding reproduction, research, education, etc etc etc without having to run it past you guys. If you really hate something, such as abortion, we get subjected to your thoughts about it at our most vulnerable times. If we want the legal aspects of marrying, and our prospective is someone of our own sex, rest assured that you guys will weigh in. If we want freedom of expression, you are there talking to the elected politicians about blasphemy laws. And so on.
We are forced to adapt to and relate to your values, despite not sharing them. We are forced to go against our conscience, our values, and what we feel is important in life, because you feel that your values are the only healthy ones in existence and everyone would be happy if only those values were strictly enforced. Note that this is exactly the argument for protecting religious people from blasphemy and making laws against insulting someone's religious feelings.
This is also the reason most dedicated atheists consider organized religion to be dangerous.
The courts side with you. How is listening to a toothless dog barking anything more than annoying?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ireland got new blasphemy laws not so long ago. California had Prop 8. Texas got harsh abortion laws. Bush shut down stem cell research. A serious number of countries have life from conception in their constitution, and the number is growing. Russia is actively persecuting homosexuals, largely run through their churches, as I understand it. Intelligent design, propriety censorship in school materials. And so on. Toothless? Not very. You are the 800 lbs gorilla in the room. You sit where you like. Everyone else adapts. Two billion christians means that it was ages since you were the underdogs.
This isn't Ireland. Russia is a weird place, it wasn't that long ago when Christians were persecuted there.
California's laws were found unconstitutional and thrown out.
Did you test the stem cell ban in court? Probably would win that too especially these days.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see this tangent of discussion is as fruitful as ever.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is also the reason most dedicated atheists consider organized religion to be dangerous.
I wish you would say many instead of most. Atheists are about as far from being a monolithic group as you can get. Certainly the most vocal ones do. I certainly agree it can used in a dangerous way (from undermining education to sheltering/legitimizing abusers to terrorism), but it can be used in a positive way, too (building community, sharing values, encouraging charity and compassion).
I believe religion wields an outsized influence but is a tool, not inherently good or bad.
I see this tangent of discussion is as fruitful as ever.
It is. I had no idea atheists viewed Christianity as this monolithic entity trying to oppress them. The ones I know are quite content to live and let life as long as you don't try to ram your ideas down our throats. The truth is we are a very fractured bunch without a single voice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is also the reason most dedicated atheists consider organized religion to be dangerous.I wish you would say many instead of most. Atheists are about as far from being a monolithic group as you can get. Certainly the most vocal ones do. I certainly agree it can used in a dangerous way (from undermining education to sheltering/legitimizing abusers to terrorism), but it can be used in a positive way, too (building community, sharing values, encouraging charity and compassion).
I believe religion wields an outsized influence but is a tool, not inherently good or bad.
Dangerous is not the same as bad.
Tools can be both useful and dangerous. You just have to be careful how you use them.
Not in denotation, but in connotation it often is. And if I'm trying to win a war of hearts and minds, I'm going to be careful to say what I mean and also to not say what I don't mean. So I'll call it a powerful tool or force that can be misused rather than calling it dangerous and risk stoking fears that I'd like to ban it rather than temper it (and if everyone decides they don't need it any more I won't be sad).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see this tangent of discussion is as fruitful as ever.It is. I had no idea atheists viewed Christianity as this monolithic entity trying to oppress them. The ones I know are quite content to live and let life as long as you don't try to ram your ideas down our throats. The truth is we are a very fractured bunch without a single voice.
Sigh. We don't. Or at least I don't. As the overwhelming majority in this country, Christians wield a lot of power. From within their echo chambers of their congregations, it seems that everyone agrees with these policies, so they seem reasonable.
Some (I hope a few rather than many) bad apples cloak themselves in Christianity to oppress/take power and then gin up outrage when others disagree and they dress it up as something close to what people devoutly believe so they take up the banner. But it's mostly people naively assuming all their values are universal and trying to apply them to everyone. No bad intent required there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is also the reason most dedicated atheists consider organized religion to be dangerous.I wish you would say many instead of most. Atheists are about as far from being a monolithic group as you can get. Certainly the most vocal ones do. I certainly agree it can used in a dangerous way (from undermining education to sheltering/legitimizing abusers to terrorism), but it can be used in a positive way, too (building community, sharing values, encouraging charity and compassion).
I believe religion wields an outsized influence but is a tool, not inherently good or bad.
A central part of my point is that atheists as a rule don't think it's a bad thing that people believe something. Generally, atheists are very much for freedom of thought and so on. That is not the sticking point. The bad thing is organized religion, specifically the way it affects people who do not agree with religious morality laws and so on. See, there is no option to opt out when the religious people make laws for the whole society, with christian lobbying groups with outlandish influence pushing such laws, christian politicians approving them, and christian policemen and lawmen enforcing them.
And if christianity is a tool, then it behooves us all to think about what it's a tool for doing. Statistically, it is very clear that countries with little poverty are less religious. Is it out of the question that major religious organizations draw the conclusion from that?
It is. I had no idea atheists viewed Christianity as this monolithic entity trying to oppress them. The ones I know are quite content to live and let life as long as you don't try to ram your ideas down our throats. The truth is we are a very fractured bunch without a single voice.
I don't think it's a question of you even trying to do so. It just happens, as a consequence of your view that since religious feelings are good, and your ethics are good, then laws and policies that enforce it are great. What you miss is merely that they are great FOR YOU. Everyone else has to adapt, which feels pretty much like getting YOUR ideas rammed down our throats. And sure, there are many christian churches... but there are also both huge organizations like the RCC, and a tendency for christian groups to act the same way in major issues, whether due to dogma, tradition, a desire for consensus, or whatever. The divisions only run so deep with regards to political actions.
Oh, and as for the courts, all it would take for christianity to make a serious-styled legal comeback is a slight change of the supreme court roster.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I read somewhere (maybe even on these boards) that when a dominant power group looses some privilege or power over a minority group(s), it is perceived like oppression. With the shifting demographics and ideologies in America, a lot of this is going to be felt in the next couple decades. My hope is that things don't get out of control as history has shown it to happen numerous times in the past.
You will note I did not say what change it would take. =) That said, I am sure there would be no problem finding people who would run a very christian agenda in the SCOTUS.
I read somewhere (maybe even on these boards) that when a dominant power group looses some privilege or power over a minority group(s), it is perceived like oppression. With the shifting demographics and ideologies in America, a lot of this is going to be felt in the next couple decades. My hope is that things don't get out of control as history has shown it to happen numerous times in the past.
Definitely true. When 90% of things are going a group's way, and then there is a law change which reduces it to 85%, the group complains often and loudly about that lost 5%.
They don't stop to think about all of the groups out there that only have 15% of things going their way.
Less, since that 15% is split between groups who probably don't agree on every aspect of that 15% that is going some peoples' way.
I read somewhere (maybe even on these boards) that when a dominant power group looses some privilege or power over a minority group(s), it is perceived like oppression. With the shifting demographics and ideologies in America, a lot of this is going to be felt in the next couple decades. My hope is that things don't get out of control as history has shown it to happen numerous times in the past.
:)
When a group is accustomed to being in power, equality feels like oppression.
But there is a them. There's a them who sets themselves apart and attacks various iterations of "us."
In my state (Washington) right now, there's a religious right impetus to change the law so transgender people are forced to use the wrong restrooms. This is done under the veil of supposedly keeping men from using the women's restroom, but this is already not allowed. Plus, 10 years of the law allowing transgender people to use the correct restroom has resulted in basically zero instances of harassment or worse, despite what is claimed by this movement.
They've set themselves up as "them" vs. an "us" that is among the most marginalized people in society. This whole thing happening anywhere in the US is probably a backlash against losing the same-sex marriage thing so spectacularly. So they cede that ground and attack people they expect will have a more difficult time protecting themselves.
So there is a "them" and certainly more than one kind of "them." Their political tactics have a real cost to real human beings.
To the extent there is a "them", "they" are losing, badly.
The thing that has surprised me about this whole trans bathroom panic especially is how much it's backfiring. Public opinion is strongly against these laws, even in states that have passed them. The backlash from business has been even stronger.
They certainly hurt real people, but they're also losing. Badly.
True, they're almost certainly on the wrong side of history.
The restroom thing isn't a religious thing. It is a republican thing. Personally I understand why they are worried, republicans usually imagine the worst that could happen and try to prevent it.
I have never seen a guy try to use the ladies room under any pretext let alone the "I identify as female" one. I suppose it could happen if it became law... but I haven't been following that. Personally why not just use the restroom you have the equipment for. You have boy parts use the mens room, you have girl parts use the ladies room. Seems simple enough. The only ones that hurts are transvestites but I have met some of them and they seem to be the guys who get off by dressing as a girl more than "identifying as female" and I wouldn't want them watching me use the bathroom.
Besides this is doing harm. You have seen I am sure how some places are solving the issue by making ALL their restrooms non-gendered and stripping it down to just one toilet with a lock on the door. That just reduces the amount of available toilets women can use and makes the line to use them twice as long by filling it with men too.
|
But there is a them. There's a them who sets themselves apart and attacks various iterations of "us."
In my state (Washington) right now, there's a religious right impetus to change the law so transgender people are forced to use the wrong restrooms. This is done under the veil of supposedly keeping men from using the women's restroom, but this is already not allowed. Plus, 10 years of the law allowing transgender people to use the correct restroom has resulted in basically zero instances of harassment or worse, despite what is claimed by this movement.
They've set themselves up as "them" vs. an "us" that is among the most marginalized people in society. This whole thing happening anywhere in the US is probably a backlash against losing the same-sex marriage thing so spectacularly. So they cede that ground and attack people they expect will have a more difficult time protecting themselves.
So there is a "them" and certainly more than one kind of "them." Their political tactics have a real cost to real human beings.
I quite agree that there are people out there who see it as their mission in life to protect society from minority groups and will do all they can to fight against what they perceive as attacks against the structure of society.
Thing is they are overall rather rare though quite vociferous and often violent. This gives them a strong media and political presence, but they are not the representatives of the "silent majority" that they claim to be.
So, there is not a "They" as a homogenous easily identifiable group, whatever those extremists may claim. If robbed of their current common target/enemy, they would quickly find another way to hate someone for being different and the supposed "They" would split in a new "Us" vs "Them" conflict.
I think nothing is gained by using generalities such as "Christians oppress atheists" because 1) it is not true (as in not all Christians oppress atheists) and 2) it needlessly antagonizes people who identify as Christians and makes them more likely to listen to what the hatemongers preach and in the end reinforces the "Them" that then gets more of a reality/political weight than any it started with.
Note also that in any Us vs Them conflict, there are extremists on both sides who see the conflict as the only way for their side to "win" and that will in fact do all they can to keep the conflict going because it has become their raison d'etre.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally why not just use the restroom you have the equipment for. You have boy parts use the mens room, you have girl parts use the ladies room. Seems simple enough.
If you're using the toilet by sitting down, it doesn't matter which equipment you have. And if you're living as one gender but haven't had any surgical changes yet (or never will - it's expensive and invasive), outing yourself when you use the opposite restroom would be, to put it lightly, upsetting.
The only situation that *seems* reasonable on its face is changing/shower facilities where everybody sees everybody naked. The argument goes that our daughters are going to see male "equipment". But as a cis man I do my best to avoid my equipment being seen in such facilities from simple modesty. I'm pretty sure someone who perceives themselves to have the wrong equipment will be more eager in hiding it.
So while I agree the birth certificate laws are absurd, simple equipment matching is appealing but misses some important corner cases.
|
|
The restroom thing isn't a religious thing. It is a republican thing. Personally I understand why they are worried, republicans usually imagine the worst that could happen and try to prevent it.
I have never seen a guy try to use the ladies room under any pretext let alone the "I identify as female" one. I suppose it could happen if it became law... but I haven't been following that. Personally why not just use the restroom you have the equipment for. You have boy parts use the mens room, you have girl parts use the ladies room. Seems simple enough. The only ones that hurts are transvestites but I have met some of them and they seem to be the guys who get off by dressing as a girl more than "identifying as female" and I wouldn't want them watching me use the bathroom.
Using the restroom you have equipment for is easy for you. You have never struggled with your gender identity. Imagine how you feel as christian right now and amplify that by a thousand. That is the life of a transgender folk. No majority backing them up, a country that actually has folks making laws against their existence being acceptable. If you imagine for just a moment you can maybe start to empathize.
Besides this is doing harm. You have seen I am sure how some places are solving the issue by making ALL their restrooms non-gendered and stripping it down to just one toilet with a lock on the door. That just reduces the amount of available toilets women can use and makes the line to use them twice as long by filling it with men too.
Harm? A minor inconvenience for the majority to allow some one a moments of peace and acceptance I think is worth it.
Also requires somebody checking at the door. Who's willing to have the security guard check their genitals in order to pee?So while I agree the birth certificate laws are absurd, simple equipment matching is appealing but misses some important corner cases.Personally why not just use the restroom you have the equipment for. You have boy parts use the mens room, you have girl parts use the ladies room. Seems simple enough.
It could be a jobs program to make up for the jobs lost to automation and outsourcing.
Jokes aside, it's worth pointing out that enforcement of such a law wouldn't have to be proactive. For it to be effective it would, but not all gun-free zones have checkpoints and this could be the same. Which is why I oppose it from a different angle.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why would it be a good idea, if you have several toilets, to close all but one and set it as nongendered? I mean, if you have several, I would think there would be just as many nongendered... And where is the harm then?
The restroom thing isn't a religious thing. It is a republican thing.Also, this part. It is a religious thing.
It's not an "all Christians" thing, certainly. As I've said again and again. It's a Christian Right thing. It's a Republican thing, but that's largely because the Republican party has yoked itself to the Christian Right. It's largely the same religious groups fighting against same-sex marriage a decade or so back, when it was still a winning issue for Republicans.
I am unaware of any mention of restroom usage in the bible?
Can Christians be Republican? Yep, but that doesn't make Republican issues into Christian ones.
Why would it be a good idea, if you have several toilets, to close all but one and set it as nongendered? I mean, if you have several, I would think there would be just as many nongendered... And where is the harm then?Well, if you had a room with multiple stalls and you were prohibited from keeping trans people out, but you wanted to make sure none of them ever got the chance to see anyone else in the bathroom, you'd put a lock on the door and only allow one person in at a time, despite the multiple stalls. I assume you'd still have two rooms - the one that used to accommodate multiple man and the one that used to accommodate multiple women, but each would now only be used by one at a time.
Mind you, you'd be an idiot if you did this, and it's stupid to blame the law for your idiocy, but idiots will be idiots.
The vast majority of places won't do this. Those that do won't last long. It's just not practical.
This seems to be restricted to places like restaurants not sports venues where it would be logistically impossible. But there are very very few transsexuals in real life. Why not do what Meijer has set up and add a single toilet third restroom that anyone can use with a lock on the door. Seems like the best solution.
I understand the plight of transsexuals since one is a friend of mine. BUT they have been using whichever restroom they are dressed as for decades now. With NO incidents (since they DON'T stare at others and try to be a bit secretive) ... so this LAW change seeks to protect them from something they had NO trouble with. Why not instead legally allow ALL transsexuals to use the unused stalls in the mens room? They mostly use urinals right? And men probably don't care who is in there with them. Just look at the line jumper women who were so sick of waiting in lines at the womens restroom that they used the mens instead. No arrests, just amused men right?
|
|
The restroom thing isn't a religious thing. It is a republican thing.Also, this part. It is a religious thing.
It's not an "all Christians" thing, certainly. As I've said again and again. It's a Christian Right thing. It's a Republican thing, but that's largely because the Republican party has yoked itself to the Christian Right. It's largely the same religious groups fighting against same-sex marriage a decade or so back, when it was still a winning issue for Republicans.
I do not see why this would be a religious thing rather than a conservative thing ?
Is it because the groups who fight against this proclaim being true Christians (whatever that means) ?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can Christians be Republican? Yep, but that doesn't make Republican issues into Christian ones.
It does when the majority of your party are Christian and a lot of their proposed laws are explicitly stated to be based around protecting "good Christian values" and line up exactly what extremist Christians want.
Sure, Republican may not be synonymous with Christian but it's pretty damn close to it.