I love my new Christian Overlords

[Goblinmonger]

So here's the my deal. We'll just pretend that there is a first amendment and a seperation of church and state, OK. Then, Christians can just put up what they want, where they want it, without regard to the first amendment mentioned above. We atheists will just shut up about it and let it go so that nobody gets angry at some group acutally trying to gain whatever rights may be mentioned in said amendment. That way, everyone is happy...well, except the atheists, but nobody really gives a shit about us anyway so no big whoop. I mean, hey, I was willing to fight for my rights when I thought there were groups of progressives out there that would actually help me and recognize the seperation of church and state implicit in the first amendment (hell, Madison, Adams, and Jefferson wanted way more restrictions on religion than actually made it into the constitution). But it is clear that even progressives are willing to drive the bus over us, back up, and drive over us again, so, hey, go nuts.

[dmallind]

1. New?

Since when did the Christian overlords change?

Don't blame me - I voted for the fundamentalist in the green hat not the yellow one!

[Goblinmonger]

2. I know, nothing new,

but the current rash of "don't be so rude" over the sign in Washington has brought it all to the surface again.

[sam sarrha]

18. these links explain some>> links>>

really looks like the source is Nazis, ...Vereide and Strauss, and their F'n Flying Monkeys the NeoCons. and the people that were instrumental by just being hangers on by Capitalizing on the NAZI Movement just make'n a lot of money off it

http://www.insider-magazine.com/ChristianMafia.htm
"snip...The Roots of the Fellowship

The roots of the Fellowship go back to the 1930s and a Norwegian immigrant and Methodist minister named Abraham Vereide. According to Fellowship archives maintained at the Billy Graham Center at Wheaton College in Illinois, Vereide, who immigrated from Norway in 1905, began an outreach ministry in Seattle in April 1935. But his religious outreach involved nothing more than pushing for an anti-Communist, anti-union, anti-Socialist, and pro-Nazi German political agenda. A loose organization and secrecy were paramount for Vereide. Fellowship archives state that Vereide wanted his movement to “carry out its objective through personal, trusting, informal, unpublicized contact between people.” Vereide’s establishment of his Prayer Breakfast Movement for anti-Socialist and anti-International Workers of the World (IWW or “Wobblies”) Seattle businessmen in 1935 coincided with the establishment of another pro-Nazi German organization in the United States, the German-American Bund. Vereide saw his prayer movement replacing labor unions...

...One philosophical fellow traveler of Vereide was the German Nazi philosopher Martin Heidegger, a colleague of Leo Strauss, the father of American neo-conservatism and the mentor of such present-day American neo-conservatives as Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz. Strauss’s close association with Heidegger and the Nazi idea of telling the big lie in order to justify the end goals – Machiavellianism on steroids -- did not help Strauss in Nazi Germany. Because he was Jewish, he was forced to emigrate to the United States, where he eventually began teaching neo-conservative political science at the University of Chicago. It is this confluence of right-wing philosophies that provides a political bridge between modern-day Christian Rightists (including so-called Christian Zionists) and the secular-oriented neo-conservatives who support a policy that sees a U.S.-Israeli alliance against Islam and European-oriented democratic socialism. For the dominion theologists, the United States is the new Israel, with a God-given mandate to establish dominion over the entire planet. Neither the secular neo-conservatives nor Christian fundamentalists seem to have a problem with the idea of American domination of the planet, as witnessed by the presence of representatives of both camps as supporters of the neo-conservative Project for a New American Century, the neo-conservative blueprint for America’s attack on Iraq and plans to attack, occupy, and dominate other countries that oppose U.S. designs...snip"


http://doggo.tripod.com/doggchrisdomin.html

"snip...Leo Strauss was born in 1899 and died in 1973. ... He is most famous for resuscitating Machiavelli and introducing his principles as the guiding philosophy of the neo-conservative movement. ... More than any other man, Strauss breathed upon conservatism, inspiring it to rise from its atrophied condition and its natural dislike of change and to embrace an unbounded new political ideology that rides on the back of a revolutionary steed, hailing even radical change; hence the name Neo-Conservatives.

Significantly, Dominionism is a form of Social Darwinism.<48> It inherently includes the religious belief that wealth-power is a sign of God’s election. That is, out of the masses of people and the multitude of nations, wealth, in and of itself, is thought to indicate God’s approval on men and nations whereas poverty and sickness reflect God’s disapproval.

(It was not until I read this article that I realized that this is a fundamental tenet of Dominionists.

Worldly wealth and power are signs of God's favor -- to attempt to limit or decrease one's wealth and power is to disrespect God.

On the contrary, God's elect on Earth are called upon to increase their wealth and power.

It is not sufficient for a man to be a millionaire, or for a country to have sovereignty within its borders -- a man must strive to increase his wealth as much as possible, and a Dominionist government's behavior toward its neighbors must be "invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity".

Furthermore, any attempt to decrease a person's or a country's wealth and power -- to take from the rich to give to the poor, to reduce military spending and power -- is a direct attack on God.)

If “Secular Humanists are the greatest threat to Christianity the world has ever known,” as theologian Francis Schaeffer claimed, then who are the Humanists? According to Dominionists, humanists are the folks who allow or encourage licentious behavior in America. They are the undisciplined revelers.

Put all the enemies of the Dominionists together, boil them down to liquid and bake them into the one single most highly derided and contaminated individual known to man, and you will have before you an image of the quintessential “liberal” -- one of those folks who wants to give liberally to the poor and needy -- who desires the welfare and happiness of all Americans -- who insists on safety regulations for your protection and who desires the preservation of your values -- those damnable people are the folks that must be reduced to powerlessness -- or worse: extinction...snip"

[hootinholler]

24. Thanks for those links, Sam!

I hadn't run across them before.

-Hoot

[TexasObserver]

3. Freedom from religion would be nice.

This time of year brings out those who hate in the name of the Prince of Peace.

Ain't religion a fraud?

[madokie]

5. Yes

[SidDithers]

4. I'm with you, Goblinmonger...

separation is a noble ideal, but doesn't really exist in reality.

Sid

[Goblinmonger]

6. Hey, Sid

what bothers me most is that the same people bitching about the sign are the same that would say elsewhere that there IS a seperation. The attitude of some progressives (notice the lack of broadbrush all you lurkers) to atheists never ceases to amaze me.

[Fumesucker]

11. LOL.. I literally had a poster blame the eight years of bushie on atheists yesterday..

Series!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3635994&mesg_id=3637328

Part of this last eight years, eight years that will keep us tied to paying for its time for decades to come, was in goodly part due to the antagonistic undermining of all things religious in the public space.

[Goblinmonger]

12. I never knew we had such POWER.

What shall we muck up next? Global weather patterns? Sun spots?

[SidDithers]

13. My vote is weather...

Cold and snowy in Toronto today. Could use a little global warming, if you know what I mean :)

Sid

[Goblinmonger]

16. Well, lets get to work

Atheist powers unite! Form of: Greenhouse Gases!

[Deep13]

7. We have a duty to let bad, destructive ideas fester behind a shield of polite respect.

Every other kind of idea in the world is open for discussion and criticism. But differences of opinion about something religious dogma calls "god" are off limits.

[Goblinmonger]

9. Oh, that's right,

I think I remember getting that memo. Yeah, here it is. Funny thing, though, the memo does say that you can make fun of the religious right, mormons, scientologists and other religions to be named later.

[enlightenment]

8. Ah - come on now, GM -

they're just going to accuse you of whinging about it! Suck it up and welcome that bus! Feel the burn, baby - feel the burn!! *sigh*

Here - just for you (I love this guy!)

[Goblinmonger]

10. That gif is awesome. It's making it into my sig line.

I am surprised there haven't been any "stop whining" posts yet, but they'll come.

[enlightenment]

14. I'm sure they will.

Since we're just poo-slinging monkeys, after all.

Personally, I'm still looking for the top of my head, which blew off after reading one of the longer threads on the topic yesterday. It's unbelievably frustrating.

on edit: glad you like the gif. I can't take credit for it, but use it regularly in other fora . . . it just seemed too perfect for you!

[Goblinmonger]

15. As you can see

I have put it to good use already. I think I'll keep it in the sig regardless of the text just because I loves me some goblins/trolls.

[enlightenment]

17. Love it!

Maybe we should ALL use that sig line . . . wouldn't want to be accused of sneaking up on some innocent theist . . .

[Goblinmonger]

19. Then we'd be accused of being a cult or something

not that that doesn't happen already.

[Ezlivin]

20. Atheist signs are "needlessly provocative"

At least that's what I've been told.

It's free speech as long as it's not provocative, I guess.

[tblue37]

29. I find Christianist signs and other public displays

needlessly provoctive, but no one ares about my feelings on the matter, because only Christians' feelings must be protected from being troubled.

[Goblinmonger]

30. Well

you do understand that the god-shaped hole in our heart leaves us devoid of feelings.

[Raskolnik]

21. Oh, you poor dear.

You truly are a martyr.

[Goblinmonger]

22. Nope, just pissed

Do you disagree with something in the OP or are you just going to toss around ad homs?

[Raskolnik]

23. No, not at all. It sure sounds like you have it rough.

I'm sorry you have to endure such a burden.

[ZombieHorde]

25. Bwahahaha!

Smart ass.

[Sanctified]

26. I must have missed something, because I have no clue what you are talking about. n/t

[Goblinmonger]

31. Go to GD and read any one of the threads on the sign

put up by the FFRF in Washington and see the responses toward atheists. Then you'll know. And the fact that the vast majority of those were allowed to stay in GD and this one was cast down to Purgatory is a whole other discussion.

[Sanctified]

40. Well if you believe in the first amendment then you have to take the sign down.

The part of the sign that reads, "There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds." Would indicate that the Government has taken a position on Religion.

[Goblinmonger]

41. You're joking, right?

The reason the FFRF put the sign up is because the state of Washington was required to allow all voices in since they let Christian displays be put up. I guarantee you that if not for the Christian displays, the FFRF would not give a crap. The FFRF, and me for that matter, would rather that there be no displays on government property.

Even if there were no other displays around the FFRF display, do you realize how many Christian displays there are put up each year on government property and with government money? THAT isn't the government taking a position on Religion?

[Sanctified]

42. If the Christians had a sign that said...

Christ is the only Lord and Savior, the only way to Heaven and there is a God so repent now, you may have a case. But they put up a symbol and the Atheists put up a sign that gave a position.

The Atheists were fine to put up a sign until the sign gave a position which is unconstitutional.

[Goblinmonger]

43. Give me one SCOTUS case

that supports your position. You clearly don't understand entanglement.

[Sanctified]

46. Here you go.

http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/amendment-01/11-religious-displays-on-government-property.html

[Goblinmonger]

48. How does that say the FFRF sign is not acceptable?

It basically says that it is acceptable. It is part of a whole display. If it were just that sign (which would never happen because that isn't the FFRF purpose in the sign) then you would have an argument. But it was an open forum created by the State of Washington.

[Sanctified]

51. There were two cases they ruled on with creches.

One was in 1984 with a creche by itself and the other was a creche with a sign that read, “Gloria in Exclesis Deo.” The creche by itself was constitutional while the creche with the sign was found unconstitutional because it showed the state endorsing a religious belief.

Even if the creche with the “Gloria in Exclesis Deo.” had a menorah, a Christmas tree and a Santa Clause as the baby Jesus it would have still been unconstitutional because of the added sign. So if that is the case then a having a sign that reads "Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds." has to be found unconstitutional also for it is a position.

[Goblinmonger]

55. There is nowhere in that link that says

that the Gloria banner would have made it unconstitutional when in the midst of a complete display.

[Sanctified]

57. They decided that it was the banner that made the difference in the two displays.

From the link.

To the majority, the setting of the creche was distinguishable from that in Lynch. The creche stood alone on the center staircase of the county courthouse, bore a sign identifying it as the donation of a Roman Catholic group, and also had an angel holding a banner proclaiming “Gloria in Exclesis Deo.”

[Goblinmonger]

58. Right

They said there was nothing that distracted from the religious nature of the display. There is no comparison by the court to the other display.

[cosmik debris]

44. It's Bizarro world!

If Christians do it, it is OK but if atheists do it, it is a violation.

I hope you realize that SCOTUS has ruled that a creche is a religious statement and that therefore other religious statements have equal standing.

You may split hairs between a "symbol" and a "statement", but SCOTUS is not on your side.

[Sanctified]

45. They ruled the creche by itself is a religious statement while

the creche with other holiday symbols is a symbol. The state cannot just have a creche they have to have other symbols that represent the holiday. So if you have a menorah a creche and a Christmas tree all together you are ok. The sign would have been completely fine until it took a position which is unconstitutional because it can be taken that the state has a position on religion.

[cosmik debris]

47. I'm sure you believe that is true

But the lawyers for the state of Washington don't agree.

Did you see the SCOTUS decision that required the state to include other statements?

[Sanctified]

49. The decision was not for statements but symbols.

They have to have other symbols the beginning of the sign was fine where is said "At this season of the Winter Solstice, may reason prevail." but the rest of it took a position and made a statement. The state cannot have anything on it's property that endorses a religions position.

The major issue with creche that they ruled on and found unconstitutional in 1989 was that it also had a sign above it that read “Gloria in Exclesis Deo.” which clearly is a religious statement that can show endorsement by the state. They ruled in 1984 a creche by itself is fine because it is a symbol without a statement.

[cosmik debris]

52. The lawyers disagree with you. n/t

[Sanctified]

54. Lawyers don't decide the law, so we will have to see what the courts say. n/t

[cosmik debris]

56. Has there been a suit filed? By whom? n/t

[Goblinmonger]

50. Which means that the creche IS religious.

When the state allows other voices in, then it isn't. The FFRF is another voice. You are basically saying that it is OK because there are other voices but then say you want SOME of the other voices stifled which would then make it NOT ok again.

[Sanctified]

53. I was wrong on that last statement, their 1984 ruling shows the creche as a symbol

that can stand by itself as long as the forum is open to other symbols. The sign that was put up was not a symbol but a statement, unless you are willing to say having a sign next to the creche that reads "Christ is the Lord God" is also a symbol.

I am not saying that the Atheists should be stifled I am saying that the forum has to be equal, since you cannot put up a sign that says "Christ is the Lord God' then you most certainly cannot put up a sign that says "Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.”

[Norrin Radd]

27. When I was a kid, my mother had a tiny nativity scene she

put under the Christmas tree that had tiny painted animals that resembled the tiny plastic animals, dinosaurs, robots, what-have-you, that came in plastic bags that I was fond of bugging my parents to purchase for me at the drug store. It seemed perfectly reasonable and fitting to me that a skunk, a dolphin, a stegasaurus, and a shiny C3PO should also gaze upon their newborn savior with the flowing blond locks, along with the cow and sheep, and wizards bearing gifts.

I wonder what that would look like on a larger scale?

If ya can't beat 'em, join 'em..then beat 'em.

[Azooz]

28. Afghanistan and Iraq try not to laugh at them

It was better during the British Empire, they just killed people - now the poor Iraqis and Afghanis have to listen to the new overlords preach loudly and sing (badly) asking them to open their hearts to this god or that.

And why would you want to fight for a very bad constitution written by boring old farts centuries ago? Let Bremer and Gonzales write a brand new one for you, it'll keep you entertained for years, but try not to giggle at it when the overlords are around or they'll give you another hour or two about the evils of Evolution or make you watch the 700 Club!

I love my new Christian Overlords,
Thank you America - do you have them in other colors to?


"separation of church and state" - George Carlin was a Saint.

[Lerkfish]

32. Many progressive christians, like myself, support a rigid line between church and state

FWIW, in this regard I agree with atheists and any other group that wants that separation.

[wryter2000]

33. Effing Christians

Did you see the "F the atheists" sign over the wise men in the creche? No? Maybe that's because it wasn't there.

:sarcasm:

[Goblinmonger]

36. Three questions

1. Is the sarcasm tag supposed to cut against the last sentence of your post or is it because you think some people might not get that the last sentence of your post is showing that the first part is sarcasm?

2. Assuming it is the latter, I don't understand your point. Is it:
a. That the atheist sign is saying "F the Christians"? Because it's not.
b. That anything short of the creche saying that is OK?
c. That saying "fuck you" would be the only thing that atheists could be offended about?
d. Something else?

3. So you think that the government allowing religion into the public square while not allowing the counter to that expression (which is what people--from Bill O'Really to people on DU--are calling for)is OK and constitutional?

[cosmik debris]

34. I was born and raised in the Jim Crow South

I've seen all this before.

"We don't need no outside agitators comin' to Olympia to stir up trouble. Our minority should be happy with what they got. They get all uppity and cause trouble, and that ain't gonna help at all. If they'd just sit in the back of the bus where they were told, we wouldn't have no trouble. They need to learn their place."

What's old is new again.

[Festivito]

35. Oh oh oh, let me guess, sarcasm and hyperbole!?

We disagree on meaning of the 1st, but so far atheists in general seem unable to understand any difference other that the difference they have with religion in general.

As far as nobody caring about you, wrong, we do care about you single-minded sarcastic stubborn and worse as ever you could possibly be, because no matter how awful you might be, we have been that and possibly worse.

And, although I have argued against your interpretations in threads with you, I have also seen some of the same DUers arguing with me in other fights, and I thank those.

We have more work to do. Don't get me wrong, I think there are some paid agitators pushing this stuff. But, for now, since we have Obama at the ready, they don't matter as much.

I wish you all well.

[Goblinmonger]

37. More like satire and hyperbole but sure

I think if you look at SCOTUS case law, you will find that my interpretation is more in line with the actual law of the land.

I think that you are right that we have more in common than differences and I fight with people that I fight against on religious matter. It's just that sometimes it gets to be too much when progressives don't understand the 1st Amendment violations. And some of the the people on here pushing this have been here too long and have too long a track record in other progressive areas to be paid agitators.

Have a good holiday season. Or Merry Christmas. Or whichever version you want/subscribe to.

[Festivito]

38. We still attempt at a more perfect union in this country.

Your case law represents certain cases which then extrapolate to other cases, sometimes well, sometimes not well.

Depending upon case law, even law itself as an end, is short sighted. We are human. We occasionally want more than short sight.

I hope you enjoy the trappings of the coming seasons without being trapped by them. We don't want anyone being trapped.

And we only do this because we care.

[Goblinmonger]

39. I was raised strict Catholic

so the Christmas season is pretty well wound about my roots. I tend to focus now, obviously I guess, on the more secular aspects of the holiday as well as exploring the more ancient religion roots of the season. I now appreciate it more as a time of the return of the Sun, but celebrate none the less.

[quaker bill]

59. Why bother getting offended?

There are times when fundamentalists attempt to legislate religion. I object to these as much now as a Quaker as I did when I was an atheist. I simply disagree with these folks in a different way. I do not want my faith taught in the schools or posted on public buildings, none of them would get it right anyway. I don't care for bits of reverence offered at public meetings and football games either.

However, I could never bother to be offended as an atheist and still cannot be bothered, it is just not worthwhile. I can see and even enjoy irritating people for a purpose, I just don't see one here.