Religious reactions to Atheist/Agnostic/Humanist Invitations

[NMMNG]

The good, the bad and the downright ugly. This is what happened when a student organization for atheists, agnostics, humanists and other non-religious individuals sent out a mass e-mail inviting others to join their group.

<snip>
For those who missed it, here's what our mass email looked like:

Are you an atheist, agnostic, skeptic, pastafarian, or otherwise nonreligious student? Come join Atheists, Humanists, and Agnostics at UW-Madison this Fall! AHA is a great way to meet fellow nonbelievers here on campus, all while getting involved in the secular movement. Our meetings will be every Wednesday at 7 PM in 155 Van Hise.

We hope to see you there!

<snip>

Pretty innocuous, yes? Tens of thousands of people calmly tolerated this minor intrusion into their life, deleted the email, and then proceeded to move on with the rest of their day. Others could not resist the urge to share their disagreement, pity, and anger with us. I've taken the liberty of organizing the best of these replies into a few rough categories. As you will see, some messages unfortunately could belong in multiple groupings.
No attempt was made to correct grammatical errors.


<snip>

Group 3: Looks like someones got a case of the Mondays!

~why is this being sent to my email. do you even know if i'm religious or not. your club is stupid.
~You're group sucks. You're going to Hell!
~Ummm.... I'm a religious jew. Don't send this crap to me.
~I am a Christian. Take your ignorance elsewhere.
~This is bull shit. Evil only exists in this world because of the absence of GOD. Take me off this email list please. Hope you enjoy your non-belivers party, losers.

<snip>

Group 5: Bat shit crazy.

~You live in a nation under GOD, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. His miracles surround you every day. Open your eyes. The only person that would die for you are the men and women of the US Armed Forces and the Lord Jesus Christ. Get with the program fools and stop spreading this useless shit. There are real problems out there.
~I just wanted to let you know that Jesus loves you and he is coming back soon. All will bow down and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. Have a blessed and wonderful day!<3

[TexasProgresive]

1. This kind of proselytizing is offensive not matter what the

belief or non-belief. Sending out a broadcast email or snail mail is just wrong.

[NMMNG]

3. The mass e-mail is something all student organizations can do

for a $100 fee. Why should this group be excluded from using it? And where was the 'proselytizing' in their message? They merely said what the group was and invited people to join.

[TexasProgresive]

25. Here's my advice- spam is spam

don't pay the $100 fee and don't send out unsolicited email or us mail. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

[cleanhippie]

26. But ALL the school clubs use that email as a way to disseminate info about school clubs.

Thats what its for. How is that spam?

[LeftishBrit]

27. If you're a student, you get all the info about student organizations

E.g. the football society, even if you have no interest in sport.

If it's constant, then it becomes objectionable, but I don't see the harm in one mass e-mail at the beginning of term; the alternative is that many people won't know what's going on (or a return to people sending a leaflet to everyone, like in my pre-internet student days; but that wastes trees).

[rug]

2. "Tens of thousands of people calmly tolerated this minor intrusion into their life"

Good advice.

[darkstar3]

4. Yes it is, but of course, you have no sense of the word "minor",

so you need not attempt to give this advice to others.

[rug]

5. I thought your new plan was to ignore.

That's good advice too.

And I do know what minor means. I just encountered it.

[darkstar3]

6. Thank you for once again demonstrating that you understand far less than you read.

3 things:

1. Your obsession with that group is reflective of some deep seated problems.
2. Your statement shows you can't tell the atheists on this board apart. Congratulations on joining that group.
3. You've already demonstrated several times that your privilege blinds you to the major intrusion of your religion into the lives of other Americans, allowing you to dismiss it as "minor". So no, you don't know what it means.

[rug]

8. I would consider your opinion if I had any respect for it.

But, as you've often said, your views on religion warrant no undue respect. And in your case, none is due.

3 things for you:

1. Were I cavalier about issues of mental health, I might say to you, "Your obsession with this forum is reflective of some deep seated problems." But I'm not. I consider mental health and its treatment to be far more important than to respond to an internet loudmouth quick to make an unqualified diagnosis as a vehicle for a failed insult.

2. I have no trouble at all distinguishing posters in here. In fact your typed snarls are quite distinctive. It's the repetitive talking points that blur, as your #3 demonstrates.

3. What you see as "privilege" is not a license for you to be an asshole.

[darkstar3]

9. LOL.

This right here:
"What you see as "privilege" is not a license for you to be an asshole."

Comedy gold coming from you.

[rug]

11. True or not, it doesn't lessen you.

[TheMadMonk]

16. Well EXKYOOSE us. FUCKKUCKLE of the Westborough Baptist...

...Church enjoys absolute freedom of speech.

But you want to tell us to shut up, because you don't want to hear?

[darkstar3]

20. I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about.

[NMMNG]

22. I think he meant to reply to someone else

:shrug:

[NMMNG]

7. If instead of an e-mail, which can easily be deleted and ignored,

it had been something like:

~A law prohibiting Christians to marry
~The erection of a giant atheist "A" on public property, using tax dollars
~The president of the united states holding a National Day of no-prayer
~"Conscience laws" which allow atheists to refuse to do their jobs if their person morality is violated (such as if they'd be requited to serve a Christian customer)

Would you still be calling it "minor"?

[rug]

10. Can you cite a state, territory or commonwealth that enforces a prohibition on atheists marrying?

Easier yet, can you list the states, territories or commonwealths that still have such laws on the books? If there are such laws currently enforced, it is an actual, not minor problem.

That said, your second example is one of budgetary waste, probably illegal, but would no more intrude in my life than ubiquitous flags.

I would be less incensed over a presidential no prayer day than I would over daily drone flights.

As to your last example, if a conscience clause is inserted for a religious conscientious objection, it would have to apply equally to an areligious conscientious objection. I don't think you should be required to sell rosaries. Your example does not lend itself to a glib answer. In these areas of law, time is better spent examing the actual statute or bill instead of trotting it out as a talking point.

[NMMNG]

12. More than half of US states prohibit same-sex marriage

All thanks to "religious beliefs".


As to your last example, if a conscience clause is inserted for a religious conscientious objection, it would have to apply equally to an areligious conscientious objection. I don't think you should be required to sell rosaries. Your example does not lend itself to a glib answer. In these areas of law, time is better spent examing the actual statute or bill instead of trotting it out as a talking point.


If I am a cashier in Bob's Maxi-Mart why should I be allowed to disrupt everything by picking and choosing who or what I will ring up? If I'm working with elderly people should I be allowed to refuse to take them to church because I don't like it? Could I get a job in a restaurant yet refuse to serve meat to the customers because I'm a vegetarian? Am I there to do my job or to serve my own agenda?

[rug]

13. That's true but the topic was atheist discrimination.

A much different thing.

Conscience clauses are a very interestinfg subject. The flip side is, Should a worker be compelled to perform a function that is squarely opposed to a firmly held principle? If you're an auto worker, should you be compelled to build tanks when the factory is retooled for war? It's not a black and white area. One size does not fit all.

[darkstar3]

14. No, that's what you chose to make the topic. The topic was religious persecution and intrustion

into the lives of all who are not part of their group.

[rug]

15. No, all your examples were of discrimination against atheists.

Or does the letter A mean soemthing else?

[darkstar3]

18. Uh, no, all of NMMMG's examples were about persecuting Christians

as a role reversal exercise. I can't believe I even have to explain that.

[NMMNG]

19. Maybe I should have used pictures

:shrug:

[laconicsax]

21. Small words would've helped... n/t

[rug]

28. In that case, the crossbar in the A must be removed.

[NMMNG]

17. Conscience clauses allow for thinly veiled and specifically targeted bigotry

I notice that the people who refuse to hand out marriage licenses to gay people based on their "religious principles" never object to handing them out to divorcees, adulterers, thieves, liars and other such "sinners".

The people who refuse, on "religious principle" to dispense birth control pills based on the false claim that it is an abortion drug never mind the thousands of other drugs that could potentially harm fetus.


The emergency room personnel who refuse to assist women who require life-saving abortions stand behind their "pro-life" values, but they don't mind the idea of letting women (and the fetus they carry) die as a result of their grandstanding.





Conscience clauses are nothing more than a way to allow people to exercise their bigotry while pretending they're engaging in some higher moral purpose. If you cannot fulfill the requirements of your job because your beliefs keep getting in the way you should find another job.

[rug]

29. Then you oppose conscientious objectors.

[NMMNG]

31. Apples and oranges

Conscientious objectors don't join the military then refuse to do their jobs claiming their beliefs are being violated. They refuse to join in the first place because of their objections.

The "conscience clause" people do their jobs until they are asked to serve people they don't like (such as gay people or women seeking reproductive health care). Then they're suddenly all about their "religious beliefs" and they start wanting to get out of the work duties they've been doing all along for all manner of "sinners".

If you can't see the difference I can't help you.

[rug]

32. With a drsaft, there's not a choice to join.

In the case, your argument requires they perform anything asked.

It's a weak argument.

[NMMNG]

33. In a draft

Conscientious objectors can perform non-combat functions.

My argument doesn't require people to perform "anything asked". It requires them to do the job for which they were hired. It requires them to perform the tasks in the job description they signed when they took the job--the basic functions of their position. Sadly that seems too difficult for some people.

[rug]

39. Having lived through it, there are different forms of conscientious objection.

Some, see Lew Ayres, did not oppose service in the military and accepted noncomat assignments.

Others opposed participation in the military totally and performed alternative service.

And there were still others who refused to register at all, opposing the entirely military establishment, from combat to cooperation with the Selective Service System in the first place.

Employer rules, problematic in the first place, are the weakest argument in areas of conscience. There are some better ones but this isn't it.

[laconicsax]

34. What if he simply refuses to acknowledge the difference? n/t

[NMMNG]

36. He does

Yet I still keep trying, like a masochist. :banghead:

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[darkstar3]

24. I take it you never read the hate mailbag.

[NMMNG]

37. I meant to ask what I missed

Somebody showing their Christian Love again?

[Thats my opinion]

30. For those who might have a spasm if a Christian group

would send out a general invitation, it is surprising that there was such a reaction by the original inviters..
Having said that, I am ashamed--as I often am-- at the sub-decent way some of those "religious" types responded. It is obscene and I am as angry with those religious bigots as any of you.

[laconicsax]

35. I think you forget that Christian groups do this with some regularity.

Just an hour and a half ago, I was offered a leaflet and invited to come worship at some church. This wasn't online, but as I walking through a public park. At an entrance to another park nearby, someone had set up a makeshift lectern and was reading from one of the Pauline epistles through a microphone.

[dmallind]

38. Standard student group mass email routinely used by Christian groups - no spasms. nt

[LeftishBrit]

40. In universities, they do

Students routinely get invitations from the Christian Union, etc. and even staff get termly leaflets from the college chapel. I don't mind.

[NMMNG]

41. If I had a spasm every time a Christian group invited me to something

I'd need anticonvulsants.

[WolverineDG]

42. Meanwhile, the vast majority simply deleted the email

but it's so much more fun to post responses from the assholes & use that as a broad brush to tar all believers with.

dg

[laconicsax]

43. When your focus is so narrow, all brushes look broad.

The OP clearly says, "Tens of thousands of people calmly tolerated this minor intrusion into their life, deleted the email, and then proceeded to move on with the rest of their day." It's pretty clear that the responses are from a minority that deserves to be mocked.

There's no broad brush here. Try expanding your focus.