Rising atheism in America puts 'religious right on the defensive'

[SecularMotion]

About 400 people are preparing to gather for a conference in Hartford, Connecticut, to promote the end of religion in the US and their vision of a secular future for the country.

Those travelling to the meeting will pass two huge roadside billboards displaying quotes from two of the country's most famous non-believers: Katharine Hepburn and Mark Twain. "Faith is believing what you know ain't so," reads the one featuring Twain. "I'm an atheist and that's it," says the one quoting Hepburn.

At the meeting, members of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) will hear speakers celebrate successes they have had in removing religion from US public life and see awards being presented to noted secularist activists.

The US is increasingly portrayed as a hotbed of religious fervour. Yet in the homeland of ostentatiously religious politicians such as Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry, agnostics and atheists are actually part of one of the fastest-growing demographics in the US: the godless. Far from being in thrall to its religious leaders, the US is in fact becoming a more secular country, some experts say. "It has never been better to be a free-thinker or an agnostic in America," says Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the FFRF.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/01/atheism-america-religious-right

[truebrit71]

1. Well, thank God for that then...

:sarcasm::evilgrin::hide:

[SecularMotion]

2. Ricky Gervais

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ng99hnxQmoI

[unblock]

4. ricky gervais says we're all atheists when it comes to 5,000 gods someone somewhere once believed in

we just disagree about that one last god....

[lindysalsagal]

21. I'll see you in hell.

Cause I don't believe in any of the voo-doo,either. :toast:

[RKP5637]

3. Good! Because ...

There Is No Greater Danger To Our Constitution Than Religious Frenzy

http://www.politicususa.com/en/constitution-religious-frenzy

"America’s experiment as a sort-of democratic republic has lasted for about 235 years, and for the most part, the system has worked relatively well. Since 1980 though, there has been a movement to change the nature of this country and the Republicans’ man-turned-god, Ronald Reagan, is responsible for unleashing the Religious Right on the nation and they are close to achieving their goals after the 2010 midterm elections that gave power to malignant teabaggers to collapse the government. Republicans are awash with funding from religious groups to enforce biblical laws against gays and women, but there is a bigger threat from Dominionists to form a theocratic government that is just now becoming evident to many Americans.

Two weeks ago this column addressed the Mississippi ballot initiative that replicates the personhood amendments many states have attempted to enact at the behest of fundamentalist Christian groups, the Catholic Church, and the American Family Association (AFA). The article pointed out that Mississippi’s ballot initiative 26 will most certainly pass and will withstand court challenges because the state supreme court’s bench is filled with 7 devout Christians reflecting Mississippi’s population that is fervently Christian (82%). The amendment is undoubtedly an attack on women’s right to choose their own reproductive health, but there is an insidious motive beyond just restricting contraceptives, stem cell research, in vitro fertilization, and abortion."

http://www.politicususa.com/en/constitution-religious-frenzy

[Vogon_Glory]

5. I Suspect That The Religious Right Was A Boon To Atheism

I personally believe that the Religious Right was a boon to atheism in the US and gave it a boost it probably wouldn't have gotten.

More seriously, I suspect that one of the reasons that Christianity is on the decline is because of the blow-back from the Religious Right's antics. While they're out there beating the drums for outlawing abortion, keeping homosexuality as a criminal offense, trying to cut access to birth control, prosecuting "pornographers," trying to gut funding for public art and public education, all the while they're not only busy insisting they're Christians, they're running the not-so-subtle sub-text that they alone are the only "true Christians."

And people pick up on that sub-text. And regardless of Religious Right conclaves held in their ivory towers, I'd say that a majority of people are not attracted to their version of Christianity, but repelled.

And that repulsion spills over. It spills over to the liberal mainstream Protestant churches. It spills over to the moderate congregations in the Catholic church.

IMO, people look at the Religious Right and read about or see their antics, they decide if THAT'S Christianity, I want nothing whatsoever to do with it!

I'd say that the Religious Right is blindly propelling the falling-away from Christianity. And being the arrogant and willfully self-blinded people they are, they don't see what they're doing.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

7. Yup, I think you've nailed it

About twenty years ago, the religious right started popularizing phrases such as "Catholics and Christians," implying that they were the only REAL Christians.

They go around saying "Christian this" and "Christian that," all of it pig ignorant and/or in the worst possible taste.

[Vogon_Glory]

51. Of Course What Liturgicals Often Fail To Realize Is That

Of course what Christians from liturgical backgrounds fail to realize is that not only are so many Religious Right figures from Evangelical Protestant backgrounds, but also that many of these same Evangelical Protestants SERIOUSLY believe that Lutherans, Episcopalians, many Methodists, Roman Catholics, and members of the various Orthodox Christian Churches aren't really Christians. It's one of the dirty little secrets that both Religious Right politicos from Evangelical Protestant backgrounds and upper-level clerics from the Roman Catholic Church who play footsie with them don't like to talk about. But it's there, it's been there for at least a century now, and I don't think it's all that hidden.

And what's entertaining is that guys like Bill Donohue, member of the Catholic League and basher of social liberals and left-wing Christians, is nowhere to be found when the Evangelicals in the Religious Right are bashing his faith.

[trotsky]

15. I dunno, I grew up in a fairly liberal and tolerant ELCA church.

I still rejected Christianity as being false.

[Vogon_Glory]

50. I Only Share My Observations, I Don't Say That It's Universal For Everybody

I only share my observations, I don't say that the Religious Right is responsible for turning ALL non-believers from Christian backgrounds away from Christianity.

[humblebum]

6. Opposite extremes. nt

[cleanhippie]

8. Only in your world.

[humblebum]

12. Yes. It's called the real world. nt

[cleanhippie]

14. You live on an MTV "reality" show?

It's all becoming so clear now.

[LeftishBrit]

9. Do you really consider ALL atheists as some sort of political extremists?

[humblebum]

11. No. nt

[cleanhippie]

19. Only the ones that speak up.

The rest are ok.

[NMMNG]

20. Not believing in any gods is the opposite extreme of

believing in a vengeful, wrathy god who hates gays, non-believers, women, non-RRRW Christians, and pretty much everyone else? M'kay.

[humblebum]

22. I think I am witnessing an example of each extreme at this very moment. nt

[NMMNG]

23. Yes, you *think* you are.

[Goblinmonger]

25. Your passive aggressive bullshit is getting old and very stinky.

I don't know how you possibly get away with this level of broad brush attack by saying that atheists are just the polar opposite of RW fundies by just saying two posts later that all atheists aren't extremists, but your bigotry is fucking sickening.

[onager]

27. Rare photo! Humblebum & socialshockwave together...

[humblebum]

31. And the polar extreme of those two would be Lenin conversing with Stalin.

They were militant atheists, too.

[humblebum]

30. Your accusations of bigotry are getting old too. I consider the NEW

Atheist movement the polar opposite of RW extremism and EVERY bit as dangerous. There, is that clear enough for you?

[Taverner]

53. Not really. But you can think that if you want.

[LeftishBrit]

10. I wonder if it's the other way round

That atheists may be more vocal because of seeing the threat of the religious right?

Personally, I was never all that interested in religion vs atheism debates until I observed the horrible influence of the political so-called pro-life movement in America in 2004 and subsequently, and then much closer to home in 2010.

[dmallind]

13. A bit earlier than you but much the same

Never gave a rat's ass about it in England and the first few years in the U.S. I remember the event that got my attention precisely. I was living in MN and a survey found that Jesse Ventura's popularity dropped by HALF immediately following his "crutch for the weak minded" comment. I reasoned that if in even a tolerant blue state, a fairly mild criticism of religion could cause such a huge change in support for a figure with an entirely secular role, then that meant religion was far too entangled in politics, and that this entanglement should be opposed by all sane people. I had known about the riligious right of course, but I confess that until then, my opinion was much like that espoused often by believers here - that the fundies were a far fringe of sound and fury with no impact. But hell, when a politician can go from celebrated to reviled in one day, a thousand miles from the Bible Belt, because he made a statement of a quite understandable nature that pissed off believers, it told me that both sensitivity and influence were far greater and that religiosity was far more extremist than I had known.

[NMMNG]

18. I know that's what brought me out of my shell

When I first returned to atheism I was pretty quiet about it. But the more anti-gay, anti-atheist, anti-woman garbage I heard and read about from the RRRW I couldn't help but speak out. My rights and life, after all, were on the line.

[Deep13]

16. That's good.

For a long time it has been on the attack with liberal and moderate Christians in its reticle. For some reason there has been no organized effort by "mainstream" churches to push back--at least not commensurate with their resources.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

17. Show 'em the "Treaty of Tripoli" and watch their heads explode.

"As the United States is not, in any sense, a Christian Nation"

--Treaty of Tripoli, ratified unanimously by Congress in 1797 and signed by that famous bomb-throwing anarchist President of the United States, John Adams.

[bigmonkey]

24. And no negative comment in the press of the time about it either.

Not a peep.

[humblebum]

35. Yes, the entire country was riveted to the newspapers and TV's

in 1796.

[bigmonkey]

39. Don't be silly, letters to the editor!

What are you on about?

[humblebum]

41. Yes, literacy was at an all time high in 1796, and of course

their chief concern was what was happening in Africa.

[bigmonkey]

42. You have a very strange perspective.

You treat this official confirmation of the US being a secular state, the first in history, as some sort of minor frivolity. Your animus against this evidence indicates some sort of polemical goal.

[humblebum]

43. Yes and the Second Great Awakening that was just starting about that time

demonstrated how secularism had firmly taken root in the country. There was no established national religion. That was the extent of secularism.

[bigmonkey]

44. Peace on you.

:-)

[humblebum]

45. And on you also. nt

[laconicsax]

46. I forgot...was the second "great awakening" an act of Congress?

So let's review, as the general populace was becoming more religious, the Senate was unanimously ratifying a treaty affirming that the US is not a Christian nation nor founded on Christian principles.

[humblebum]

48. They were ratifying a treaty to appeal to and soothe the warring

ways of a North African government and religious leader. Many treaties were made with many nations, including Native American tribes, designed to placate them in order to gain diplomatic favors. How important do you think these treaties really were, or how binding the language in them?

[laconicsax]

54. Article VI, Section 2 of the Constitution answers that question.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

It's the "supreme law of the land" that the US isn't a Christian nation, nor was it founded on Christian principles. That's pretty binding.

[humblebum]

32. Yes, the good old "Treaty of Tripoli" - a land mark legal document

enshrined right up there with The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. It doesn't make heads explode but it does get a good laugh when it is brought up in conversation. Just another common atheist retort.

[laconicsax]

33. Showing your true colors I see.

Always had you figured for a theocrat, though it's a bit sickening to see that I was right.

[humblebum]

34. Hardly a theocrat, and certainly not an atheocrat. nt

[laconicsax]

36. You can't divorce yourself from your own words.

The US is a secular democracy. A secular democracy is an atheocracy--a non-theocratic government. You've spoken against non-theocratic governments like the US before, and you reject non-theocracy here.

It must gall you that the position of your own government is secular; that is in no way a Christian nation nor founded on Christian principles.

[humblebum]

37. Now I have heard it all.

"A secular democracy is an atheocracy--a non-theocratic government" The US is far from being an atheocracy. That would entail being a government under state atheism. Hardly the definition of secular democracy.

[laconicsax]

38. Atheocracy: a+theocracy.

You speak English, right?

The prefix "a-" means "without" or "not."

Atheism=a+theism: without theism. Atheists are without theism.
Atonal=a+tonal: not tonal. Atonal music is not tonal.
Achromatic=a+chromatic: without chromaticism. An achromatic lens is without chromatic aberration.

Seems that atheocracy=a+theocracy: not theocracy. I'd say "not theocracy" is a correct description of a secular democracy.

It must really hurt inside to know that you live in an atheocracy.

[humblebum]

40. Yeh. Uh huh. nt

[LeftishBrit]

47. But that's EXACTLY the point I've been trying to make all the time!

Most outspoken atheists are demanding state secularism, i.e. the avoidance of state imposition of religion. NOT state imposition of atheism

[laconicsax]

26. I notice it doesn't read, "Moderate and liberal Christians put religious right on defensive."

:think:

[LeftishBrit]

28. In the UK they do - you should see Nadine Dorries and Cristina Odone on the subject of the

Archbishop of Canterbury.

Not to mention the Daily Mail when it comments on the local bishop here: always referred to by them as 'the left wing Bishop of Oxford' - horrors!

[laconicsax]

29. One of the many differences between our countries. n/t

[deacon_sephiroth]

49. Makes me wanna dance

[Taverner]

52. Why should they (Religious Right) care what the hell I do and don't believe?

Nun of their biz nets