posted
Is it possible for the government, simply through its own actions, to make religious minorities feel respected by American culture? Is that the goal, and is it a feasible goal?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:put yourself in the shoes of the religious minority, and imagine how they would feel. The one who contantly hears from the media, and even politicians, that s/he's not a "real American", because they don't believe the same things that "real America" is based on.
I'm struggling to think of anytime I've heard 'main-stream-media' or a politician say anything like this. At least not in respect to religious belief. Any specific instances you're thinking of here?
quote:put yourself in the shoes of the religious minority, and imagine how they would feel. The one who contantly hears from the media, and even politicians, that s/he's not a "real American", because they don't believe the same things that "real America" is based on.
I'm struggling to think of anytime I've heard 'main-stream-media' or a politician say anything like this. At least not in respect to religious belief. Any specific instances you're thinking of here?
quote:Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists? Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in god is important to me.
Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?
Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.
Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?
Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists.
More to the point, the fact that the president is sworn in on a Bible, the fact that several state constitutions still require a "religious test" for office (even if it's rarely enforced), the fact that our currency (I'd certainly consider a form of mainstream media), and the pledge of allegiance to our country all remind us that being religious is still the official sanctioned norm.
(Edit: Oh, an Tom's example is EXTREMELY common)
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
These two people sum up my opinion on the subject quite well
quote: (government) sponsorship of a religious message is impermissible because it sends the ancillary message to members of the audience who are nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community.
Justice John Paul Stevens
quote:The most important point for believers is that when we confuse biblical faith with civil religion, we dilute the former and use the latter to create an idol of our nation or our community. In short, we wind up praying nonsectarian, nonproselytizing prayers. In short, we are praying to the god of civil religion, which is our own nation or community--in short, ourselves. With no biblical mandate for public prayer and with the risk of idolatry that accompanies acts of civil religion, serious Christians should hardly need the Supreme Court to tell us to stop engaging in prayer before football games.
Barry Hankins, assistant professor of history and church state studies at the J. M. Dawson Institute of Church State Studies at Baylor University, Waco, Texas.
Both quotes were made in the context of a Supreme court ruling on prayers at a Texas High School football game but in my opinion they apply equally well to prayers in Congress.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
[EDIT: I posted this after seeing Tom's post and apparently right before a deluge of posting] I guess I see the linkage; perhaps it's interpretation as I've always found that to mean "Ours is a nation with a majority of Christians" if only because the few times I can remember politicians actually saying that it was followed with some stat on percentage of Christians. Still I was thinking more along the exclusionary lines but I suppose that could fit the bill of 'anything like this'.
quote:Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists? Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in god is important to me.
Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?
Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.
Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?
Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists.
You should be aware that there is no evidence that this interview ever took place. Sherman has changed the story numerous times and his honesty about such things is highly suspect. Several noted atheist organization have declared this story to be a myth and requested that people stop reporting it as fact.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The "Christian Nation" thing is often specified to mean "our founding fathers INTENDED this to be a Christian Nation."
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ray, I agree that's horrendous so I'll say my question is answered. I guess I'd put 1987 before my political horizon but what they hey, right?
The examples are important, I think, but not quite on the question I was asking. I think this thread is a discussion of 'reminders', as you say, of one religion's dominance and how that can (or should) be dealt with. The comment I quoted was a declaration not that there are constant reminders, but outright declarations of 'un-American' (ala the Bush quote you cited) for minority religions. I suppose unused religious tests count though not being familiar with any I probably shouldn't comment.
posted
Ours is a Caucasian nation (Edit to add: Too slow, was aimed at being after Tom's post)
These two are more recent, but perhaps not mainstream enough:
quote:"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.
quote:"Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government.
I believe that the "real American" reference refers to Sarah Palin, but she wasn't denouncing just non-Christians. She was denouncing whole cities at a go.
posted
Another recent one I remember (although I'm having a hard time finding the original source) was a statement made in the vicinity of 9/11 that "no atheists died in the trade towers," (they apparently all converted just before death). I think this one was actually censored by the newspaper in question before printing, but the sentiment was still there.
More common (and recent) is the "no atheists in foxholes" thing.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:The comment I quoted was a declaration not that there are constant reminders, but outright declarations of 'un-American' (ala the Bush quote you cited) for minority religions. I suppose unused religious tests count though not being familiar with any I probably shouldn't comment.
It is important to recognize that the validity of this quote is highly suspect. This was not a recorded or broadcast interview or even one reported at the time. It is a story told by Sherman which even many atheist organization believe to be highly embellished.
A Bush apologist is the last thing I am, but there is no credible evidence that he actually said this. Its a legend.
Atheists will lose their skeptic credentials if they keep swallowing this kind of story hook, liner and sinker.
[ February 01, 2010, 05:32 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: So the question is whether or not a government-sanctioned prayer at a meeting of congress is government influencing religion or religion influencing government?
How about neither? Is the prayer's purpose to convert? Not likely. Is the purpose to form a state church? Nope. I think it is safe to say that a government sanctioned prayer is not being used to further either establishments ends.
Why all this talk about intentions?
How about, rather than putting yourself in the shoes of the believer in the religious majority, and trying to figure out what the person in the majority would feel, put yourself in the shoes of the religious minority, and imagine how they would feel. The one who contantly hears from the media, and even politicians, that s/he's not a "real American", because they don't believe the same things that "real America" is based on.
Would you really feel that you as a citizen were being respected fully if every day, you were reminded that everyone held religious beliefs that were deemed worthy of public acknowledgement and celebration except for you?
Is there an established Atheist religion? Do they pray? I would be fine with having no prayer one year as part of the rotation to please the atheists.
What does "Real America" believe? What do you mean by this? I don't think "Real America" (if by this you mean religious people) is telling people what they can and can't do in government. I believe the majority comes from people telling what religious actions can and can't do.
That doesn't mean that either side is right or wrong. I think there is a line that has to be made by both sides. If equal time and consideration is given to groups on both sides of the debate, I'm fine with it.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
[quote[Is there an established Atheist religion? Do they pray? I would be fine with having no prayer one year as part of the rotation to please the atheists.[/quote]
But why do it at all? What purpose is served by opening a government meeting of people of diverse religious backgrounds with a prayer?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SoberTillNoon: I would go that far because it has gotten to the point that candidates are being elected on their religious beliefs and that is exactly what the constitution wanted to prohibit.
No, it isn't. Show me where it says that.
I know, it is wikipedia, but this one is accurate The constitution states that no person should be held to a test of religion as a requirement for political office. That is in there. that is the only thing in there regarding govt and religion. And we the people of this united states have pretty much invalidated that sentiment of the constitution by imposing our own religious tests for office. This is in effect apposing the intent of the constitution.
Posts: 262 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is in effect apposing the intent of the constitution.
By itself this is an incredibly weak argument because the US Constitution also has parts that deal with how our representatives will be elected, and its intentions to protect that process, too. There's certainly a case to be made that de facto religious tests go against the intent of portions of the constitution, but to say it as though the entire constitution is against it and leave it at that is, at best, incomplete.
Also, boy, no military chaplains is about the dumbest idea I've heard all week. But it is only Monday night.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm as dismayed as anyone at the de facto religious test that is currently required to serve in high public office, but it's not contrary to the Constitution which is a document describing the powers and limitations of government. It has nothing to say about what criteria individual citizens may choose to base their votes on.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SoberTillNoon: The constitution states that no person should be held to a test of religion as a requirement for political office.
So consequently, you want to outlaw any mention of religion by a candidate?
Personally, if a candidate running in my jurisdiction is a member of Scientology, or the Moonies, or the Creativity Movement, I want to know about it.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Creativity Movement"? I'd be all over a client who believed in a "creativity movement". Creationist, however, well lets say finding out about Govenor Palin's interesting church helped me right her off as a fringe candidate worth defeating.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm as dismayed as anyone at the de facto religious test that is currently required to serve in high public office, but it's not contrary to the Constitution which is a document describing the powers and limitations of government. It has nothing to say about what criteria individual citizens may choose to base their votes on.
Exactly. Man, the Constitution gets blamed and credited for all sorts of things.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: The "Christian Nation" thing is often specified to mean "our founding fathers INTENDED this to be a Christian Nation."
You see, though, many of our founding fathers were not religious let alone christians. So that argument is kind of moot.
quote:Originally posted by Sean Monahan: So consequently, you want to outlaw any mention of religion by a candidate?
Personally, if a candidate running in my jurisdiction is a member of Scientology, or the Moonies, or the Creativity Movement, I want to know about it.
Why should it matter if your local candidate believes in Zenu or Christ? How much of a difference is there really?
Posts: 262 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Something akin to the difference between a crazy person that believes he can hear Napoleon in his head and a crazy person that can hear both Napoleon *and* the entire cast of Friends in his head.
That they're both deluded isn't an excuse to throw up our hands and treat them as equal. One should at least try to measure and minimize the amount of delusion that one has to deal with.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
If someone told you that they really could hear Napoleon in my head, would you automatically assume that I was crazy.
Posts: 1794 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Something akin to the difference between a crazy person that believes he can hear Napoleon in his head and a crazy person that can hear both Napoleon *and* the entire cast of Friends in his head.
That they're both deluded isn't an excuse to throw up our hands and treat them as equal. One should at least try to measure and minimize the amount of delusion that one has to deal with.
Including the delusion that you know anything about what other people believe, or how that effects their choices and actions.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SoberTillNoon: Why should it matter if your local candidate believes in Zenu or Christ? How much of a difference is there really?
The responses of others notwithstanding, why it matters has no bearing on whether or not it should be legal for him to say it, or for me to know it.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Constantly calling other people's religious beliefs delusions is insulting, belittling, and narrow-minded.
I'm not the one who made it personal.
Believe what you want, it doesn't matter to me. But continue this here, and it may not go well. I'm pretty sure it's against the TOC of this site.
I can quote it if you want, but I doubt it is necessary. You already know it, it's been brought up before.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
First, a categorization of religious beliefs as a delusion is no more inherently insulting than if I related them to a broken leg or a virus. Unless you label or stigmatize mental illness as a moral failing (which is in itself a problem), that just doesn't fly.
Second, I was answering SoberTillNoon's question, which is essentially about two hypothetical candidates that are roughly equal except for their religious beliefs. Unless you also happen to be that hypothetical candidate, then I am not remotely making it personal. In fact, AFAIK, I have not addressed you in this conversation at all until you addressed me.
Lastly, it is a convention that while you cannot attack others for their beliefs, it is certainly within bounds to attack the beliefs themselves.
Thus, I think it would probably be more useful for you to simply 'chill out.'
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:First, a categorization of religious beliefs as a delusion is no more inherently insulting than if I related them to a broken leg or a virus.
I think most religious people would find comparison of their beliefs to a broken leg insulting too. Actually people in general would probably consider comparing personal belief in anything to physical illness insulting.
quote:it is certainly within bounds to attack the beliefs themselves
What bounds? There's a big difference between attack and discuss.
posted
I find it offensive, and have reported it. And I am hardly the only one, I am sure.
I am not a particularly religious person. I don't regularly attend a church, nor do I really care what other people think of my views most of the time.
Yet I credit my religion, particularly as a youth, for helping me become the person I am today. My Christian upbringing made me aware of how fortunate I was, and how I should behave towards other people. How I should respect myself, and how that respect carried over to other people.
You can talk about how irrational it is to you all you want, but there is something pathetic about only believing what you see and touch to me. I can't touch love, but I know it exists. I can't touch anger, greed, or hope, but they exist as well.
I don't challenge science's effectiveness in the physical world. I support it highly, and believe it is a wonderful tool to help us understand and manipulate the physical world we live in.
But I don't believe it will ever have ALL the answers. It is ONE tool, not the only one.
Religion, to me and many other people, is the reason WHY we want to be able to do these things. It gives us a moral standard, particularly when we are young, to help us develop as people. We are not machines.
I believe we are more than the sum of our parts. I also believe that religion helps us address the unseen, and makes us happier, live longer, and become better people.
If you fail to see how relating this to a virus, or a broken leg, is not insulting, you aren't half as intelligent as you seem to think you are.
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: ... Actually people in general would probably consider comparing personal belief in anything to physical illness insulting.
Actually, I don't define what I consider insulting based on what people who disagree with me think. For example, while it seems a majority of Muslims would consider a depiction of Muhammad insulting, I refuse to simply agree based on popularity.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I said....not as smart as you think you are, for sure. Not because of refusing to bow to popular ideas.......but because you fail to see why something like that would be insulting.
Thinking science is the answer to everything is as much a failing as thinking religion is as well.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think using the word "delusion" hurts/offends in a particular way, but I'm not sure why. Anyone who holds a religious belief that contradicts a religious belief held by someone else would seem to believe that the other person is deluded. They might refrain from saying it that way, but "I believe that what you believe is false" is pretty much an equivalent statement to "You are deluded". One of the definitions of delusion is "a false belief or opinion".
Are people offended by the mental illness connotations of the word? I suppose I can understand that, but the cause of a delusion needn't be inferred by calling something a delusion. Someone who believes the earth is flat and the center of the universe is deluded, but in some cases they might simply need a little education - it doesn't necessarily mean they are mentally defective.
Now obviously it's far more polite to refrain from bluntly saying that other people are wrong. Polite conversation doesn't really permit certain sorts of discussions at all, though.
ETA: "you aren't as smart as you think you are" is equally insulting and impolite, IMO. "You are deluded about your intelligence."
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kwea: I find it ironic that while you claim to be insulted by a fairly dry comparison of religion to a delusion or a virus, you go ahead and throw out numerous statements about how religion is required for a moral standard, to not be machines, to be "better" people, and so forth (the implication that those without religion don't have a moral standard, are machines, are "worse" people, etc.).
However, I'm not going to pretend to be particularly upset. I will point out that you can easily look into why one might want to model beliefs as a virus, or a meme. In the spirit of the TED thread, here's one http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/dan_dennett_on_dangerous_memes.html Just try not to hyperventilate.
quote:If you fail to see how relating this to a virus, or a broken leg, is not insulting, you aren't half as intelligent as you seem to think you are.
There's a difference between seeing why someone might believe a thing and actually agreeing with it. For example, I can see why, say, that aforementioned Creativity Movement religion might feel insulted by the notion that people are equal. That doesn't mean I agree that they should feel insulted.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Funny, I don't see the word required anywhere in my post. Could you show me where I said that?
I also never said people who aren't religious were bad people, but don't let that fact stop you from claiming I said it.
Unless you MEANT to misstate my actual arguments, of course.
If you claim to be basing your belief system on your rational beliefs and observations of the world around you, perhaps you should start with a remedial reading class. I never said that religion should be required, nor that it was the only path to developing morals. Any assumptions of that lie in YOUR mind, not mine.
Religion is a major way a large amount of people learn to share beliefs and morals though. I hear a lot of people bitching about all the injustice in religions, but I never hear about the good it does. Religious people help other people a lot, both with money and goods donations, but in other less tangible ways as well.
I fail to see a broken leg doing the same. And you were hardly equating religious beliefs to a virus because of the way they spread.....unless broken limbs also travel that way.
posted
The word "delusion" is a rather loaded term, but from the point of view of an atheist its use is not in and of itself an insult (though it may and often does accompany one). For people who've read Xenocide, think Valentine's use of the term "interfere" when talking to Miro. I don't think Mucus has crossed a line -- I think he's stepping into the gray area inherent in general TOS (and don't think I'm not still wrestling with those).
I've noticed a semi-regular pattern where a given statement isn't necessarily over the line, but the defense of the statement can be. Offense is not intended, but offense is perceived, and the discussion moves from the topic to the offense itself and goes downhill quickly. Happens in almost every category of topic. I haven't seen everything over the past month, because my schedule has been rather uncontrollable over the past month, but fewer people seem to be rising to the bait they're given -- I appreciate it.
Criticism (or attack) of closely-held beliefs can be difficult to distinguish from personal attack. My sense is to try to find a reading of the statement (and its context, because non-attack statements can be combined to form an attack, and because statements which would be attacks when they stand alone may not be intended as such*) that isn't a personal attack. It's not very often I can't find one, though there are times.
*For example, every analogy fails at some point, and in almost any case one can find an objectionable characteristic in the analogy that wasn't part of its intent. Gets worse when you combine or interweave them, which I think happened above with the broken leg/virus thing, where the point of the analogy seemed (to me) to be the clinical nature of the term (delusion), and specifically not the qualitative nature of the object. I could be wrong. If offense was intended, Mucus, please stop it.
quote:You should be aware that there is no evidence that this interview ever took place.
quote: Several noted atheist organization have declared this story to be a myth and requested that people stop reporting it as fact.
Rabbit, do you have a cite for that? Because in addition to the fact that American Atheists wrote to the White House and got a response that indicated that Bush's beliefs are compatible with those that Sherman recorded, I also wrote to the Bush Library several years ago, and was told that although they will not offer additional comment, they did have information regarding the incident that they were not willing to make public.
On reviewing Sherman's current website, he says that two documents corroborating his story are now available from the Bush Library, and provides explicit instructions on how to obtain them. I haven't requested them yet, but given your reaction to Raymond's post, I probably will, in short order.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: ... I fail to see a broken leg doing the same. And you were hardly equating religious beliefs to a virus because of the way they spread.....unless broken limbs also travel that way.
Actually, as PJ pointed out, I should make the analogies more clear. Different atheists compare religion to different things in order to underscore different behaviours or characteristics.
Dawkins compares religion to a delusion to emphasize the fact that people insist on things like a Creator god or communication with deities against all the available evidence. From our POV, theists are often literally talking to voices in their head. Dennett compares religion to a meme, a mental virus, in order to model how religion spreads from person to person and hijacks their behaviour. I can't remember who used the disability analogy, but the pattern should be clear.
And I would re-emphasize, that things like a delusion or a viral disease. These are not supposed to be things that are inherently shameful. If I catch a cold or suffer a mental breakdown, these are not moral judgments.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I also never said people who aren't religious were bad people, but don't let that fact stop you from claiming I said it.
Kwea, I think it's at least as legitimate to interpret
quote:[Religion] gives us a moral standard, particularly when we are young, to help us develop as people. We are not machines.
as an insult against the moral fiber of non-religious people as it is to interpet "Religious people are delusional" as an insult against the intellectual integrity of religious people. Honestly I don't even know how you'd interpret it to mean something other than "being religious makes you more moral and less machinelike," and both of those are conditions translate pretty directly to "bad" in most people's minds.
And as noted, "being delusional" doesn't even necessarily carry negative conotations, whereas being "less moral" almost always does.
You really do not have the high ground here.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
A new study says "nuh-uh." Essentially it concludes that people respond similarly to novel moral dilemmas regardless of their religious background or lack thereof.
quote:The study draws on tests of moral judgements using versions of the web-based Moral Sense Test that Hauser and others have developed at Harvard. These tests present dilemmas ranging from how to handle freeloaders at 'bring a dish' dinner parties to the justification of killing someone to save others. Few, if any, of the answers can be looked up in holy books.
quote:Thousands of people — varying widely in social background, age, education, religious affiliation and ethnicity — have taken the tests. Pyysiäinen and Hauser say the results (mainly still in the publication pipeline) indicate that "moral intuitions operate independently of religious background", although religion may influence responses in a few highly specific cases.
posted
I think at this point it's been made pretty clear that the reference to 'giving us morality' was specifically that religious people do derive a moral standard from religion, not that those without religion have no moral standard. I'm pretty convinced that this is true, but even if it isn't that's clearly not what seems to be repeatedly argued against here.
quote:I think at this point it's been made pretty clear that the reference to 'giving us morality' was specifically that religious people do derive a moral standard from religion
Or, as the research indicates, everyone has the same basic moral standard and religious people just assume that because their religion claims to provide a moral standard that it must have done so.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, so I requested the documents from the Bush Library. I don't expect them to shed much more light, because I've read quotes from them, and all they do is show that Bush was made aware of Sherman's accusation, and that he refused to apologize for his comment. If it didn't happen, then he could have denied the allegations, but he didn't do so.
As to Rabbit:
First: This isn't a myth or legend. In a myth, the source is unknown, and the roots of the story have been obscured by retelling and antiquity. This event occurred at a specific place, at a specific time, and is described by a first hand participant in the event, who was credentialed journalist, and who took notes. Bush has been made aware of the accusation, and has never disputed that the event occurred. The use of the term "Myth" is intellectually dishonest.
Second: Your attempt to discredit the source is similar to the attempts to discredit global warming experts, in that without any evidence to the contrary, you are casting vague aspersions in an attempt to discredit an eyewitness account. Granted, there is a difference in the evidence, but neither you nor anyone else that I am aware of has provided any evidence that the event didn't happen as described.
Third: The sound bite rings true. There is a prevailing attitude that since atheists are just wrong, they can be safely marginalized. The whole "America is a Christian Nation" and "There are no atheists in foxholes" perception revolves around the assumption that atheists are immoral and unpatriotic. Regardless what Bush did or didn't say, a quick look around the internet and you can find a huge number of similar quotes, many of them much worse. Given how often politicians use the flag and the cross to gain public support, it makes sense that a politician would have made such a comment.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:The..."There are no atheists in foxholes" perception revolves around the assumption that atheists are immoral and unpatriotic.
Actually, I don't think that's true at all. Rather, that expression means that atheists will suddenly see the appeal of belief in God once they're under imminent threat of death.
Either way, it is false, but I don't think it's any comment on the patriotism or morality of atheists.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
