The Sad Radicals- atheists with a deep, abiding faith in their own oppression

[Route 45]

From the article:

"What is a radical community? For the purposes of this article, I will define it as a community that shares both an ideology of complete dissatisfaction with existing society due to its oppressive nature and a desire to radically alter or destroy that society because it cannot be redeemed by its own means."

I know quite a few groups like that, some with sky daddies and some without. Not sure what atheism has to do with anything, since there is absolutely no mention of it in the article.

 

[Trigger Time]

From the article:

"What is a radical community? For the purposes of this article, I will define it as a community that shares both an ideology of complete dissatisfaction with existing society due to its oppressive nature and a desire to radically alter or destroy that society because it cannot be redeemed by its own means."

I know quite a few groups like that, some with sky daddies and some without. Not sure what atheism has to do with anything, since there is absolutely no mention of it in the article.

More so atheists in my experiences. I know some great people who are "atheists". That's their business. Until they try to **** up my community. Then its game on and you are the enemy

 

[Route 45]

More so atheists in my experiences. I know some great people who are "atheists". That's their business. Until they try to **** up my community. Then its game on and you are the enemy

How do atheists **** up your "community?"

 

[Trigger Time]

How do atheists **** up your "community?"

I talked about it above.

 

[Route 45]

I talked about it above.

Ah, I see it now. We posted at the same time.

I don't protest about religious stuff in the town square, but I don't necessarily agree with it. You'll be singing a different tune when the demographics allow a town to put a crescent moon and star on the courthouse.

 

[Trigger Time]

Ah, I see it now. We posted at the same time.

I don't protest about religious stuff in the town square, but I don't necessarily agree with it. You'll be singing a different tune when the demographics allow a town to put a crescent moon and star on the courthouse.

I said Christian foundations for a reason. We are not a nation of muslims and that **** will happen over my dead body in my town.

Terrorist organizations arent religions

 

[ATOMonkey]

I have read that one good way to judge any organization is by how they treat people who disagree with them.

In my life I have seen joy in the midst of suffering and tragedy, because joy springs from hope. A hope based on a surety, not the kind of hope you find at a wishing well.

I don't know how people live without hope.

 

[Expat]

From the article:

"What is a radical community? For the purposes of this article, I will define it as a community that shares both an ideology of complete dissatisfaction with existing society due to its oppressive nature and a desire to radically alter or destroy that society because it cannot be redeemed by its own means."

I know quite a few groups like that, some with sky daddies and some without. Not sure what atheism has to do with anything, since there is absolutely no mention of it in the article.

 

[Ark]

I'm ok with everyone believing how they want. Except for the known religion of terrorism as I've said before. But people need to realize that America was founded as a Christian nation whether they want to throw a fit about it or not. Just leave people alone. When I see people fighting to remove the 10 commandments from town squares and courthouses it just pisses ME off and I am not super religious at all. So they are not gaining any friends but I think the ones that pull those stunts just want attention that mommy and daddy never gave them growing up and even if it's bad attention they like it. We just need to start punching dip****s in the face again in this country. If they're atheists then it's not religious discrimination now is it?!!
If you dont like something that doesnt affectyou, then shut your pie hole and crawl back into your cave and back on the internet and cry. Dont bother the people who make this country run,
What does atheism breed? Folks like antifa.

How can you plead to be "left alone" and then also advocate for branding religious iconography all over public institutions and shoving YOUR beliefs down everyone else's throat? How is that being "left alone"? Just sounds like you want to be "free" to steamroll your **** all over everyone else.

Separation of church and state is written into the constitution. If you don't respect that, you are by definition un-American. Believe as you will, practice as you will, but that stuff remains under your hat when it comes to governance.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

How can you plead to be "left alone" and then also advocate for branding religious iconography all over public institutions and shoving YOUR beliefs down everyone else's throat? How is that being "left alone"? Just sounds like you want to be "free" to steamroll your **** all over everyone else.

Separation of church and state is written into the constitution. If you don't respect that, you are by definition un-American. Believe as you will, practice as you will, but that stuff remains under your hat when it comes to governance.

So... we should tear down the Supreme Court Building?

Oh, and "separation of church and state" is not in the constitution. It was from a letter to the Danbury Baptists written by Thomas Jefferson. The first amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

It guarantees freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

 

[Ark]

Branding religious iconography on public buildings is establishment of religion. It is not free exercise thereof.

We are a nation of laws, not superstitions. The purpose of the law is not to enforce your personal superstitions on others. There is no difference between that and Sharia as far as I'm concerned, and the founders knew it, too.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Branding religious iconography on public buildings is establishment of religion. It is not free exercise thereof.

We are a nation of laws, not superstitions. The purpose of the law is not to enforce your personal superstitions on others. There is no difference between that and Sharia as far as I'm concerned, and the founders knew it, too.

And you find no irony in the fact that the building that houses the Supreme Court (the body that determines the constitutionality of those laws) nonetheless has an image of Moses and the 10 Commandments? Should they find the building to be unconstitutional then?

I disagree that it is the establishment of religion. It forces no one to join a particular church, or even practice a certain belief system. It is simply an acknowledgement of the basis (at least in part) for our system of laws. It is not even remotely similar to Sharia law.

 

[KG1]

At least he didn’t say “Flying Spaghetti Monster” Speaking of that I wonder what mrjarell has been up to since his departure from INGO?

 

[HoughMade]

From the article:

"What is a radical community? For the purposes of this article, I will define it as a community that shares both an ideology of complete dissatisfaction with existing society due to its oppressive nature and a desire to radically alter or destroy that society because it cannot be redeemed by its own means."

I know quite a few groups like that, some with sky daddies and some without. Not sure what atheism has to do with anything, since there is absolutely no mention of it in the article.

The particular radicals the article was talking about are atheists. They are lovers of atheist philosophers. It is clear. The article compares the radicalism to a religion and specifically states that it is a religion that has nothing to do with God.

Kinda sensitive, it seems.

Anyhoo, the point is that they have a faith- a faith in their own oppression that causes them to want to destroy everything vaguely traditional. They break up into groups and attack each other. Some of their fellow radicals are not radical in exactly the same way, so they are hated.

They see violence everywhere. When they don't see it, they assume they are not looking hard enough.

These people are worthy of pity. My point was that we have to head these thoughts off at the pass. I'll come right out and say it.

If we raise kids who see no joy, satisfaction, morality, goodness or love in our lives, they will rightfully assume that the older generation is the problem with everything.

A significant number (if not most) come from broken homes. Even when not, their parents have unhealthy relationships. They have been coddled and seen their parents spend more time and energy giving the kids everything they could want than spent on the marriage. Even the pets are treated more kindly than spouses in some cases.

They have observed parents who cared more about careers, or money, or fun, or distraction than each other or being decent people and doing good.

Solid marriages are the foundation of society. Everyone knows it. If the kids see no good marriages, they will start to believe that society itself is irredeemable. In a sense, they would be right.

If we value our family, parents, kids, above almost everything else, but in a positive way, it can only hope.

How many of these SJW kids had meals together as a family with both parents present at least 10 times a week? How many lived in a household where Mom and Dad NEVER argued about the children in front of them?

These young radicals are sad. They are angry. They are hurt. They are damaged. Sure, they are wrong, but they didn't just wake up one day and decide to reject everything. No. They saw nothing positive about the microcosm of society they lived in every day. Their families failed them no less than the families of inner-city gang members failed them.

Let's do better.

 

[two70]

Branding religious iconography on public buildings is establishment of religion. It is not free exercise thereof.

We are a nation of laws, not superstitions. The purpose of the law is not to enforce your personal superstitions on others. There is no difference between that and Sharia as far as I'm concerned, and the founders knew it, too.

Putting aside the completely nonsensical contention that the free and open display of imagery is an establishment or endorsement of a religion for a second let alone being a "law", simple logic and honesty would dictate that if displaying the imagery is a violation of establishment clause then prohibiting such a display is clearly a violation of the proscription against "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" portion of the Amendment that is so often conveniently ignored.

Adding another layer to the absurdity is the contention that a public display is making a "law". It is beyond absurd in the first place before even pointing out the Congress is in no way involved, as the actual Amendment you misquoted specifies.

Sharia Law, is not a religion, it is a system of laws that require adherence to a religion which, due to requirement not source, is incompatible with the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. What you either fail to understand or purposefully conflate in order to prop up this strawman argument, is that Islam, the actual religion from which Sharia Law in part comes, is not prohibited by nor is the practice there of incompatible with the Constitution and BOR, only the codification of that practice into law. What is ironic, is that many vocal atheists so frequently resort to the Sharia Law strawman argument while simultaneously embracing the codification of their belief system into law.

 

[Route 45]

Roll 'em all you want. I'm not the one who believes a centuries old story about a teenage girl who got impregnated by the creator of the universe, when no rational human would believe the very same story out of the mouth of their own daughter.

 

[HoughMade]

Roll 'em all you want. I'm not the one who believes a centuries old story about a teenage girl who got impregnated by the creator of the universe, when no rational human would believe the very same story out of the mouth of their own daughter.

Well of course not. We don't need another​ Savior.

 

[Route 45]

So... we should tear down the Supreme Court Building?

Oh, and "separation of church and state" is not in the constitution. It was from a letter to the Danbury Baptists written by Thomas Jefferson. The first amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

It guarantees freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

I don't have a problem with the display of the ten commandments in this manner, as they are most certainly an example of ancient law. They are certainly not the basis of all law, as ancient societies without the ten commandments most certainly had prohibitions against, stealing, murder, etc. I would note the absence of Jesus from the same building, for those who missed it.

A law that prohibits the establishment of a religion most certainly guarantees freedom from from religion with regards to the the government imposition of same. The only argument is where the line is drawn. The founding fathers knew well of the tyranny of the majority.

 

[Route 45]

Well of course not. We don't need another​ Savior.

Most rational people don't need someone to save them from conditions imposed by the one doing the "saving."

 

[KLB]

Most rational people don't need someone to save them from conditions imposed by the one doing the "saving."

I think you will find that you are in the minority, and that insinuating that those that disagree with your opinion are irrational is not a good stance to take.