Certain things scare me.
There's an opinion piece in the "On Faith" section of the Washington Post.
The comments there can be very nasty, but occasionally I'll comment, as I did on that article. I stated that I was atheist -- under Fabrisse, not my real name.
My first comment was:
From the article:But as governor of Texas, Perry has a civic obligation to represent all citizens of the state - not just those who share his Christian faith. What message does he send to the many thousands of Texans of other faiths - and those with no religious affiliation - when, as governor, he initiates and leads a Christian prayer rally for “national unity”? Can they really trust him to represent their interests - and treat their beliefs with fairness and respect?
The simple answer is no.
A friend of mine who retired recently talked about the fact that after 35 years with her colleagues, they still scheduled major meetings on Yom Kippur because they couldn't accept she was Jewish.
Muslim customers come into the government office I work in and get assigned to case managers who have quotes from the bible all over their office.
Buddhists can't be good people because they don't believe in a supreme being has been implied by others.
It is becoming more and more difficult for those who are not Christian, and specifically not Evangelical, to feel free to speak about their faith. Things like this are a large part of the reason why.
The response from commenter muawiyah was:
You know it's not like Buddhists or Moslems are an endangered species.
There are more where those uncomfortable guys come from, and they knew most folks in America were Christian long before they arrived.
it's not my responsibility adjust to them. it is their responsibility to obey the laws of this land.
BTW, I don't think I want to adjust to you either. Frankly, wouldn't bother me a bit if they simply deported all those folks who can't claim an ancestor here before 1828.
I have never encountered anyone who thinks that an ancestor before 1828 should be a requirement for citizenship. Immigrants -- some of them involuntary -- are what made this country thrive. Innovations, inventions, expansion -- none of these things are possible without a fresh influx of people to go west, make wheels, mine minerals, breed horses, and work the land. (That we did it at the expense of indigenous peoples is shameful, but part of a different post.)
When I took US History in college, my father, who was the professor, asked us to define liberal and conservative. The definitions he gave at the end of our student waffling have stayed with me for a long time.
Liberals (it's the small "L" version, but the beginning of a sentence *G*) believe humanity is perfectable. They will legislate toward that end because they believe, ultimately, that once the tide has changed on something like, say, smoking, the impetus of the world being better will keep the momentum going. But first you have to pass the legislation.
Conservatives (again, small letter) believe humanity is inherently flawed. Nothing we do will make us better or the world a better place because the golden age is in the past. Things were better then. "Then" might be thirty years ago, a hundred years ago, or a thousand years ago, but we as a society have been sliding away from that better time, and legislation will only make it worse.
In this response, I feel like I've seen the Ur example of Dad's dichotomy.
My response to the reply:
I had an ancestor in the Jamestown colony on my paternal grandmother's side. On my paternal grandfather's side, we were here before the Constitution was signed. On my maternal grandmother's side, they were in the Carolinas before 1750, and my maternal grandfather's family went to Tennessee with one of the Boone expeditions and to Texas with one of the Crockett sons.
And none of that has anything to do with my rights as an atheist in this country.
There were Jewish settlers in Georgia very early on. There were Jewish settlers in New Amsterdam. And you can't tell me there weren't Muslims here before the Constitution was signed. No one has the right to denigrate any religion or lack of religion.
Perry could have called for a day of prayer and/or fasting. As an atheist, it would make no difference to me, but to say that his inclusion was only for those who were evangelical Christians and that he would be spending the day with a group who doesn't welcome non-Christians among them was a violation of the separation of church and state de facto if not de jure.
I wish I'd come up with something better.
The comments there can be very nasty, but occasionally I'll comment, as I did on that article. I stated that I was atheist -- under Fabrisse, not my real name.
My first comment was:
From the article:But as governor of Texas, Perry has a civic obligation to represent all citizens of the state - not just those who share his Christian faith. What message does he send to the many thousands of Texans of other faiths - and those with no religious affiliation - when, as governor, he initiates and leads a Christian prayer rally for “national unity”? Can they really trust him to represent their interests - and treat their beliefs with fairness and respect?
The simple answer is no.
A friend of mine who retired recently talked about the fact that after 35 years with her colleagues, they still scheduled major meetings on Yom Kippur because they couldn't accept she was Jewish.
Muslim customers come into the government office I work in and get assigned to case managers who have quotes from the bible all over their office.
Buddhists can't be good people because they don't believe in a supreme being has been implied by others.
It is becoming more and more difficult for those who are not Christian, and specifically not Evangelical, to feel free to speak about their faith. Things like this are a large part of the reason why.
The response from commenter muawiyah was:
You know it's not like Buddhists or Moslems are an endangered species.
There are more where those uncomfortable guys come from, and they knew most folks in America were Christian long before they arrived.
it's not my responsibility adjust to them. it is their responsibility to obey the laws of this land.
BTW, I don't think I want to adjust to you either. Frankly, wouldn't bother me a bit if they simply deported all those folks who can't claim an ancestor here before 1828.
I have never encountered anyone who thinks that an ancestor before 1828 should be a requirement for citizenship. Immigrants -- some of them involuntary -- are what made this country thrive. Innovations, inventions, expansion -- none of these things are possible without a fresh influx of people to go west, make wheels, mine minerals, breed horses, and work the land. (That we did it at the expense of indigenous peoples is shameful, but part of a different post.)
When I took US History in college, my father, who was the professor, asked us to define liberal and conservative. The definitions he gave at the end of our student waffling have stayed with me for a long time.
Liberals (it's the small "L" version, but the beginning of a sentence *G*) believe humanity is perfectable. They will legislate toward that end because they believe, ultimately, that once the tide has changed on something like, say, smoking, the impetus of the world being better will keep the momentum going. But first you have to pass the legislation.
Conservatives (again, small letter) believe humanity is inherently flawed. Nothing we do will make us better or the world a better place because the golden age is in the past. Things were better then. "Then" might be thirty years ago, a hundred years ago, or a thousand years ago, but we as a society have been sliding away from that better time, and legislation will only make it worse.
In this response, I feel like I've seen the Ur example of Dad's dichotomy.
My response to the reply:
I had an ancestor in the Jamestown colony on my paternal grandmother's side. On my paternal grandfather's side, we were here before the Constitution was signed. On my maternal grandmother's side, they were in the Carolinas before 1750, and my maternal grandfather's family went to Tennessee with one of the Boone expeditions and to Texas with one of the Crockett sons.
And none of that has anything to do with my rights as an atheist in this country.
There were Jewish settlers in Georgia very early on. There were Jewish settlers in New Amsterdam. And you can't tell me there weren't Muslims here before the Constitution was signed. No one has the right to denigrate any religion or lack of religion.
Perry could have called for a day of prayer and/or fasting. As an atheist, it would make no difference to me, but to say that his inclusion was only for those who were evangelical Christians and that he would be spending the day with a group who doesn't welcome non-Christians among them was a violation of the separation of church and state de facto if not de jure.
I wish I'd come up with something better.