And it's the Christians who are persecuted!?!

[edhopper]

"The Wyndgate Country Club in Rochester Hills, MI, cancels Center for Inquiry–Michigan event with biologist Richard Dawkins because of his atheist philosophy."

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/news/richard_dawkins_event_banned_in_MI/

"The Wyndgate terminated the agreement after the owner saw an October 5th interview with Dawkins on The O’Reilly Factor in which Dawkins discussed his new book, The Magic of Reality: How We Know What’s Really True.

In a phone call to CFI–Michigan Assistant Director Jennifer Beahan, The Wyndgate’s representative explained that the owner did not wish to associate with individuals such as Dawkins, or his philosophies..."

[valerief]

1. Gotta keep the magic thinking alive. nt

[rug]

2. You have a rather broad definition of persecuted.

I'm sure they'll be able to meet at some other country club.

[Igel]

4. Indeed!

"The bastards, they canceled our reservations! Why couldn't they do something less punitive, like rape my wife or force my daughter to convert and marry, or blow up where I go to talk with those of like mind? Crap, even being beheaded for blasphemy is an improvement over the shame of having our prestigious reservations canceled!"

[darkstar3]

5. So do American Christians.

Moreso, I would think.

[NMMNG]

6. Indeed

Telling an American Christian they can't discriminate against LGBT people, women and atheists is "persecution".

Telling an American Christian they have to do the job they were hired for is "persecution".

Telling an American Christian you don't believe in their god and that you manage to be good anyway is "persecution".

Asking an American Christian to stop using tax dollars to perpetrate their religion is "persecution".

Etc, etc....


But somehow atheists have a broad definition of "persecution".

[rug]

9. This is about a country club.

Oh, the horror.

[Goblinmonger]

12. Kind of like

http://supreme.justia.com/us/395/298/case.html">this was.

As will be said down thread, I am not saying that the plight of the atheists is equal in scope or magnitude to that of African-Americans in the 1960s. But the parallel is interesting from a comparative level. Additionally, rug wants to dismiss this event just because it was a "country club" which would logically mean we should dismiss Daniel v. Paul. I post this in white so as not to stop responses which will clearly demonstrate a lack of understanding of allusion.

[rug]

13. Not in the least.

Unless you think the 1964 Civil Rights Act applies to atheist groups.

Do you really equate your nonbelief with race?

[Goblinmonger]

16. Highlight all of post 12 with your cursor for my response. n/t

[rug]

18. I can see why you wanted to hide it.

Your logic is flawed.

[Goblinmonger]

21. Which logic?

That I pretty much called what you were going to say?
That you dismissed something just because it was at a country club?

Both of those sound pretty damn sound.

[rug]

26. Your psychic abilities aside, your logic fails.

A Supreme Court decision upholding the 1964 Civil Rights Act as applied to racial discrimination.

Atheists can't rent a country club.

Therefore, atheists suffer very similar discrimination.

A poor syllogism.

I'll give you this: they both involve a country club.

[Goblinmonger]

27. But it's just a country club, right?

So who cares?

The extent of you understanding of logic and argument is limited to the syllogism? Really? Never heard of Toulmin? Never considered inductive reasoning?

[rug]

28. Yes, and your argument lacks his third step.

[Goblinmonger]

30. There are no "steps" in Toulmin.

Are you referring to data, claim, or warrant? (I mean backing, rebuttal, and qualifier aren't really necessary components to an argument) I'm going to guess warrant. Which makes no sense, but I'll argue warrant with you.

Claim: The refusal to let Dawkins speak is one based on bigotry.

Data:
1. Bigotry is involved when someone is acted against because of a class to which they belong (rough definition--I'm not assuming this will become a definitional argument, but it would be fine if it did).
2. The country club made their decision to "uninvite" Dawkins based solely on him being an atheist (again, pretty much flat out said).
3. The SCOTUS ruled in Davis that exclusion by class was not allowed under the CRA.
4. The exclusion of blacks in Davis is an example of bigotry.

Warrant: Just as we would agree that the club memberships denied to blacks in Davis is bigotry, the exclusion of Dawkins due to his status as an atheist should also be considered bigotry.

[rug]

31. You left out Backing, Rebuttal and Qualifier.

But I was referring to Warrant.

[Goblinmonger]

32. Those aren't needed for the structure of the argument n/t

[deacon_sephiroth]

29. You weren't asking me but...

yes, I equate discrimination with discrimination. Seems like a rather simple equation really.

[Goblinmonger]

7. I do believe you missed the point.

Less than this has been claimed as persecution in this very forum by Christians.

[edhopper]

8. Thanks.

I thought my tongue in cheek title was self evident, but obviously not.

[rug]

10. The point is this group can't meet at a country club.

Please link to a thread in this forum where Christians are outraged?!tm by having a meeting at a country club cancelled. Or less, as you stated.

[Goblinmonger]

11. There have been numerous times

(search for them yourself) when I or others have said the Pope covered up pedophilia and had responses be about the persecution of Catholics on this board. Too many people on here think any response other than "That's cool" is persecution.

And he was told he couldn't meet at a country club because he is an atheist. Which would be bigotry. And, from what I have seen in other threads, possibly illegal in Michigan.

[rug]

14. Ah, calling Catholics complicit in pedophilia is as terrible as being denied a untry club.

Identical.

[Goblinmonger]

15. I would argue it would be less egregious.

Your mileage may vary, I guess.

And I didn't say all Catholics, I said the current pope. And he was. He covered it up pretty clearly.

[cleanhippie]

17. And thats the last we will hear from him on that.

He did a pretty good job of painting himself into THAT corner, huh?

[rug]

19. Interesting how you move from a country club to covering up pedophilia.

Seriously, your flatness and lack of perspective makes me think cleanhippie stole your computer.

[Goblinmonger]

20. Did you seriously not get that in the OP?

It seemed pretty clear that it was a statement about the comments of Christians on here that they are persecuted when nothing is really happening. I don't think you're that dense.

[rug]

22. The OP is about atheists and a country club, not Christians claiming persecution.

[Goblinmonger]

23. You did read the subject of the OP, right?

You know, where it says the words "Christian" and "persecuted"? See, those set the tone (which is the attitude the writer takes toward the writing, in case you've forgotten) for what is in the body of the OP. But you know that because you are really involved in writing in your career, right?

[rug]

24. The subject is atheists not being allowed to rent a country club.

The headline lamely and ineptly tries to liken it to Christians claiming about persecution.

It's not difficult once you put your prejudice aside. You are a rational, unbiased thinker, right?

[darkstar3]

25. And if you see no similiarties to past American actions of persecution, you're deluding yourself.

Meanwhile, I don't see Christians getting barred from...anywhere...not even the front door of your neighborhood Planned Parenthood, which has been the subject of Christian terrorism.

[LeftishBrit]

3. Bigots...

But I would personally consider not being invited to somewhere like the 'Wyndgate country club' more a relief than a persecution!