"We're trying to upgrade the image of atheists,"


#1

I’m not sure this is the way to go about it.

startribune.com/462/story/1291147.html


#2

Don’t think it is honestly. I respect an atheist’s opinion just like anyone else’s. I may not agree with it but merging it into politics never works. Any mildly intelligent person knows the Muslim religion to be one of peace. The Muslim terrorists are extremists. Just like the Knights Templar were during the crusades.

I pray you change your stance.

Peace:)


#3

I’m curious what history books you are reading to assume the peaceful Mohammedan religion, and terrorists Knights Templars.


#4

Very few people on either side were particularly good in the Crusades.

I don’t see exactly what you object to in the article.


#5

Shhh Mirdath, they’re about to launch another attack on Islam. With possibly the least provocation ever…


#6

Ooooops :blush:

Though I’ve noticed most such things come about with no provocation whatsoever :shrug:

Anyway, Keith Ellison said he supports freedom of religion and freedom of non-religion. What’s not to like?


#7

Because…Because he’s a Muslim…He can’t go around saying rational things especially when they have a hint of gasp morality. He should be drinking the blood of virgins if he isn’t beating his 7 wives senseless. The nerve of him.


#8

What are you talking about?


#9

I didn’t make the Crusades comparrison, nor do I agree with it.

I object to any US Congressman, Muslim or not, saying stupid statements and pandering to a fringe group. The Atheists claim “they” (whoever that is) don’t think Atheists have a moral compass. If they (Atheists) do have a moral compass, getting this Congressman to define it for them is a poor choice.

I think the Congressman is also disingenuous to feign 9/11 as an inside job, or to call the faith based programs targeted to the far-right evangelicals, and if he wants Cheney and Libby to stand up in court for their actions I would like to hear his call for William Jefferson and Hillary Clinton to do the same.

And finally, if Congressman Ellison is so strong about his protection of Atheists in America I would expect him to do the same for Atheists and people of all faiths to be as protected in Muslim countries.


#10

Tell me what you found rational and moral about the article.


#11

Uh, the atheists were quite explicit that they do have a moral compass, and not one given them by a mere congressman. The ‘they’ refers to people who think non-theists don’t have such a thing, and I’ve heard it quite often here that no morality is possible without belief in a god, which is entirely false. So they are quite right to try to dispel this nonsense.

I think the Congressman is also disingenuous to feign 9/11 as an inside job, or to call the faith based programs targeted to the far-right evangelicals, and if he wants Cheney and Libby to stand up in court for their actions I would like to hear his call for William Jefferson and Hillary Clinton to do the same.

He didn’t say the September 11 attacks were an inside job, only that they were used to promote the neoconservative agenda, which they were; and where else would Bush’s faith-based programs be targeted than at his own bunch?

And finally, if Congressman Ellison is so strong about his protection of Atheists in America I would expect him to do the same for Atheists and people of all faiths to be as protected in Muslim countries.

Ellison is a United States senator, not a caliph. He has no jurisdiction in Saudi Arabia or Iran, and I am quite satisfied that he is working to represent a group of people who actually are his constituents and not citizens of another country entirely.


#12

Nothing…nothing…I’ll keep on topic from now on, promise :smiley:


#13

I’m going to have to say no, because when I went back to re read the article it won’t let me for some reason. Shame…maybe it will let me again later.


#14

Uh, where in the article were the Atheist group quite explicit about their moral compass? The word ‘they’ encompasses the very Congressman they had speaking to them.

He didn’t say the September 11 attacks were an inside job, only that they were used to promote the neoconservative agenda, which they were; and where else would Bush’s faith-based programs be targeted than at his own bunch?

Please, let’s not be too myopic to make a very weak point.

On comparing Sept. 11 to the burning of the Reichstag building in Nazi Germany: "It’s almost like the Reichstag fire, … The fact is that I’m not saying [Sept. 11] was a plan, or anything like that because, you know, that’s how they put you in the nut-ball box – dismiss you."
I don’t want to debate the 9/11 attacks here, but he purposely interjected Hitler to the President, and US invlovment prior to the attacks. A more apt if still incorrect comparrison would be the Tonkin Gulf Incident, but unless you want to claim Ellison is stupid by using a bad analogy I will say he isn’t, and made his unwarranted comments with purpose.

[quote]Ellison is a United States senator, not a caliph. He has no jurisdiction in Saudi Arabia or Iran, and I am quite satisfied that he is working to represent a group of people who actually are his constituents and not citizens of another country entirely.

He’s actually a US Congressman, but I’ll keep that in mind when he votes on foreign policy matters.

The Atheists for Human Rights claim:

Our Philosophy
Let us become post-religious, post-national,
Universal Humans.

– Lavanam, Atheist Centre, Vijayawada, India
Atheism accepts the natural world as all there is.

To live without god beliefs is intellectually stimulating.
To find one’s own purpose and be responsible for one’s own life is exciting.
To be free of the imagined surveillance of good and evil spirits is liberating.
To seek a peaceful world through work, friendship, and civic action is life-affirming.
Organized atheism supports the right to hold religious beliefs but vigorously opposes religious behavior that is politically and socially predatory or harms innocent people.

We support the social and political right to be religion-free.

We support state-church separation.

We oppose religious authoritarians and support all the rights they attack, including abortion rights, gay rights, physician aid in dying, and all the rest.

I do not trust people who set aside their personal beliefs for political points; Muslim, Catholic or whatever. The Atheists are upfront about their positions, the Sunni Mohammedan Congressman convert is not.
[/quote]


#15

Right at the end. I’m not arguing that the speaker could have been more effective, but it’s easy to see her point.

I don’t want to debate the 9/11 attacks here, but he purposely interjected Hitler to the President, and US invlovment prior to the attacks. A more apt if still incorrect comparrison would be the Tonkin Gulf Incident, but unless you want to claim Ellison is stupid by using a bad analogy I will say he isn’t, and made his unwarranted comments with purpose.

And he did, no arguing that. I think the comparison is at least close to apt, or at least relevant; not dead-on, but near enough that bringing it up is not mere worthless trolling. Hitler used the Reichstag fire as an excuse to solidify the power of the executive; Bush has used the WTC attack as an excuse to solidify the power of the executive. Whether the US was involved in planning or executing the attacks in 2001 is irrelevant: the point is how the President has used its results to gain power and money for himself and his friends.

He’s actually a US Congressman, but I’ll keep that in mind when he votes on foreign policy matters.

My bad, I thought he was a senator. I see I’m mistaken. The point about him not being a caliph still stands.

I do not trust people who set aside their personal beliefs for political points; Muslim, Catholic or whatever. The Atheists are upfront about their positions, the Sunni Mohammedan Congressman convert is not.

He supports freedom to choose one’s faith or lack thereof; how is he not being up-front about that? He said it quite explicitly.


#16

A dull and wearisome point that was not the focus of the article.

And he did, no arguing that. I think the comparison is at least close to apt, or at least relevant; not dead-on, but near enough that bringing it up is not mere worthless trolling. Hitler used the Reichstag fire as an excuse to solidify the power of the executive; Bush has used the WTC attack as an excuse to solidify the power of the executive. Whether the US was involved in planning or executing the attacks in 2001 is irrelevant: the point is how the President has used its results to gain power and money for himself and his friends.

Sorry. It is widely believed that the Nazi’s started the fire, and set up the communists. Unless he is stupid, he knew that too. It is relevent to the IMC that has grown to an international one which many are seduced by.

My bad, I thought he was a senator. I see I’m mistaken. The point about him not being a caliph still stands.

Either one believes in their declared faith, or they do not. That does not mean all are perfect practitioners of their faith, but religion is not a cloak to take off and put on when convenient or expedient.

He supports freedom to choose one’s faith or lack thereof; how is he not being up-front about that? He said it quite explicitly.

Then I question his integrity, since Sunni theology is severely qualified with regard to non-Muslims and their right to express a different faith than that of Mohamed.


#17

Whether the Nazis started the fire or not is immaterial: they used it for political gain. So too did the current administration use the events of September 11 for political gain.

Either one believes in their declared faith, or they do not. That does not mean all are perfect practitioners of their faith, but religion is not a cloak to take off and put on when convenient or expedient.

Certainly.

Then I question his integrity, since Sunni theology is severely qualified with regard to non-Muslims and their right to express a different faith than that of Mohamed.

Christianity calls you to make disciples of all nations, yet in the United States it seems Christians are perfectly content to let people belong to other faiths or no faith at all. If you question Mr Ellison’s integrity, I then question yours.


#18

To jump in here: the United States is a thoroughly anti-Christian country, that much is obvious. The United States had only one President that wasn’t a heretic, but he denounced the Faith, and was still assassinated even despite of that.


#19

It surprises me that anyone still calls the United States a “Christian” country…


#20

It is wholly material for it was the point the the Sunni Congressman was making in a disingenuous way.

Christianity calls you to make disciples of all nations, yet in the United States it seems Christians are perfectly content to let people belong to other faiths or no faith at all. If you question Mr Ellison’s integrity, I then question yours.

The manner in which a follower of Christ brings the Good News to others is fundamentally different than that of Mohammedans. So too is the civil treatment of all peoples in the societies in which we live whether they accept the Word or not.

The laws of this nation, much less many other free countries were arguably founded on the Judeo/Christian principlals. For what NT Scripture do you queston my integtity?


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.