If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AlterNet)   Don't believe in god? That's a jailin   (alternet.org) divider line 251
    More: Scary, Almighty God  
•       •       •

10288 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Nov 2012 at 8:10 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



251 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-22 05:00:56 AM
Popcorn!
 
2012-11-22 05:41:56 AM

Gonzee: Popcorn!


I'll take one!
 
2012-11-22 05:43:47 AM
Wow, he's a Democratic representative?? I hope that means he's the last of a dying breed, rather than a trailblazer in bringing religion back to the Democrats.

Look, religious folk, you claim 'militant' atheists are everywhere and trying to ban religion, but that's bullshiat, the only time atheists get up in arms is when YOU shove your religion in everyone's faces. If you shut the fark up and worship as the bible says, quietly, and don't judge people who don't believe the same as you, then you'll find there are a lot less 'militant' atheists about.
 
2012-11-22 07:33:30 AM
This is a satire site, right? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!! GOOD ONE!

...RIGHT?

/Hey, the Christians are the good guys here... at least they're only peacefully jailing people who don't believe in their brand of sky wizard instead of killing them like those bad ol' Mooslums.

//religion is a mental illness.
 
2012-11-22 07:40:59 AM
Pretty soon non-religious people will have to meet in secret and will only be able to locate meeting places by the image of FSM drawn on things.
 
2012-11-22 07:41:06 AM

Slaxl: Wow, he's a Democratic representative?? I hope that means he's the last of a dying breed, rather than a trailblazer in bringing religion back to the Democrats.

Look, religious folk, you claim 'militant' atheists are everywhere and trying to ban religion, but that's bullshiat, the only time atheists get up in arms is when YOU shove your religion in everyone's faces. If you shut the fark up and worship as the bible says, quietly, and don't judge people who don't believe the same as you, then you'll find there are a lot less 'militant' atheists about.


PERSECUTION! Stop persecuting the Christians for telling them that they can't use the Government to force Atheists to believe in God. That's totally unAmerican and you will rot in hell for even thinking it.
 
2012-11-22 07:41:10 AM
Are we that desperate to bicker about religion that we need a six year old story, stemming from a three year old article to get it started? Can't wait for our family to piss us off so we start early?

Plus, we already did this one when the NYT article came out.
 
2012-11-22 07:42:51 AM
It's freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

All the 1st amendment says is that the state can't stop you from loving Jesus.
 
2012-11-22 07:46:30 AM

Ennuipoet: Are we that desperate to bicker about religion that we need a six year old story, stemming from a three year old article to get it started? Can't wait for our family to piss us off so we start early?

Plus, we already did this one when the NYT article came out.


Six years is but a blink of the eye to Our Lord.
 
2012-11-22 08:00:59 AM
Remember folks, it's just those evil, militant atheists in their coffee shop cabals who want to persecute and stifle the rights of God-Fearing Christian Americans. It's not the other way around.

FTFA: "The church-state divide is not a line I see," Riner told The New York Times shortly after the law was first challenged in court. "What I do see is an attempt to separate America from its history of perceiving itself as a nation under God."

Yes. We know you have no respect for the Constitution of the United States, and you fail horribly at history, and at 66 years old, you lived through the very history that made the United States "A Nation Under God", McCarthyism.
 
2012-11-22 08:05:36 AM
How do you legislate belief?
Is faith professed under threat of incarceration really faith?
 
2012-11-22 08:14:21 AM

Ed Finnerty: Ennuipoet: Are we that desperate to bicker about religion that we need a six year old story, stemming from a three year old article to get it started? Can't wait for our family to piss us off so we start early?

Plus, we already did this one when the NYT article came out.

Six years is but a blink of the eye to Our Lord.


Ramen.
 
2012-11-22 08:17:04 AM
I was thinking "well, it's a Muslim country, what do you expect?"

Then I hovered over the link. WTF Kentucky.
 
2012-11-22 08:17:25 AM
Right.. how about a demonstration of how God protects the nation.

/Methodist, but if there's a God out there, he's all but powerless.
 
2012-11-22 08:19:15 AM
"We believe dependence on God is essential.

Why bother having homeland security at all, god'll take care of it all.
 
2012-11-22 08:20:20 AM
Why are Christians so concerned with what I believe? It's almost like they're insecure teenage girls. If you think I'm going to hell for my beliefs, let me go to hell in peace. Jailing my ass isn't going to change what I believe.
 
2012-11-22 08:20:45 AM

birdboy2000: I was thinking "well, it's a Muslim country, what do you expect?"

Then I hovered over the link. WTF Kentucky.


fundamentalists are the same no matter what religion they practice.
 
2012-11-22 08:21:54 AM
I don't believe in God, but I do believe in Jesus titty-farking Christ.
 
2012-11-22 08:21:58 AM

Slaxl: Look, religious folk, you claim 'militant' atheists are everywhere and trying to ban religion, but that's bullshiat, the only time atheists get up in arms is when YOU shove your religion in everyone's faces.


Atheists, when they have the majority, can enact extremely oppressive laws. For example, look at what the PRC has done to the Falun Dafa people (who, in fairness, are a bit looney tunes).

And, quite honestly, when atheists go around saying "religion is a mental illness" and "religion is a delusion" is does create a concern that atheists, if they ever got a majority, would radically redefine mental illness to include, and discriminate, against religious people.

BSABSVR*

Both sides are bad so vote Rastafarian.
 
2012-11-22 08:22:43 AM
I love the logic employed in the article. To paraphrase:

"This is completely fine because the United States was founded as a nation under god!"

So by that logic, this could lead to further legislation punishing people for not acknowledging god because "that's how our nation was founded".

I'd love to be on the outside looking in on this issue, but I'm right here in Kentucky. I heard about this legislation years ago, so it's fairly old news. It doesn't make it any less ridiculous though.
 
2012-11-22 08:23:04 AM

Ed Finnerty: Six years is but a blink of the eye to Our Lord.


On the seventh he rested. (Penalty for not capitalizing?)
 
2012-11-22 08:23:26 AM
"Home of the free" my ass.
 
2012-11-22 08:23:29 AM
repeat. still doesn't make it any easier to swallow. better headline on this one though.
 
2012-11-22 08:24:34 AM

Ed Finnerty: Ennuipoet: Are we that desperate to bicker about religion that we need a six year old story, stemming from a three year old article to get it started? Can't wait for our family to piss us off so we start early?

Plus, we already did this one when the NYT article came out.

Six years is but a blink of the eye to Our Lord.


aka Drew?
 
2012-11-22 08:25:42 AM
well, I think a series of fines would be more practical then jail time, but it's nice to see some one, some where is forcing "atheists" to internalize the externality associated with their "lack of belief".
 
2012-11-22 08:27:56 AM
Why the hell did the Kentucky supreme court refuse to review the law? Why did the state court overturn the decision of the circuit court? Why is this guy a democrat and a fundamentalist of teaparty proportions? So many questions!
 
2012-11-22 08:29:01 AM

Smoking GNU: "Home of the free" my ass.


more like home of the ignorant

/ not all Americans are bad. I know this. but the one who derp the loudest give you all a bad name.
 
2012-11-22 08:29:08 AM

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Slaxl: Look, religious folk, you claim 'militant' atheists are everywhere and trying to ban religion, but that's bullshiat, the only time atheists get up in arms is when YOU shove your religion in everyone's faces.

Atheists, when they have the majority, can enact extremely oppressive laws. For example, look at what the PRC has done to the Falun Dafa people (who, in fairness, are a bit looney tunes).

And, quite honestly, when atheists go around saying "religion is a mental illness" and "religion is a delusion" is does create a concern that atheists, if they ever got a majority, would radically redefine mental illness to include, and discriminate, against religious people.

BSABSVR*

Both sides are bad so vote Rastafarian.


i'm to the point that i don't care if there is a god. but i tell people all the time that their religion is fine as long as it makes them feel better. just don't try and force me into it.
 
2012-11-22 08:32:44 AM

Natsumi: Smoking GNU: "Home of the free" my ass.

more like home of the ignorant

/ not all Americans are bad. I know this. but the one who derp the loudest give you all a bad name.


Y'know, you can say the same thing about every religion ever.

If people need to believe in a magical deity to make it through their day, so be it. If it makes them better people, and prevents them from raping, killing, and pillaging, even better.

But when they want to force everyone to believe in their favorite fairy tales, that's where the problems begin. And then they ratchet up the derp to try to make laws keeping science out of schools because it conflicts with their book of magical fairy tales, and then want laws stating their sky wizard is the only one, and if you don't believe in him and him only, you get jailed or killed.

And that's why people hate religion.
 
2012-11-22 08:36:45 AM
I'm not surprised. Not in the least. This is Kentucky folks. The same place where just being brown will get you thrown in jail. 

Next they will be after the Amish for refusing to join the military and Hindus for not eating a Hamburger (how DARE they!)
 
2012-11-22 08:38:19 AM
When can we go back to forcing christians to hang out in the sewers like the Romans did? They had some good ideas, the Romans.

You people can come out when you actually read the Jesus parts and not the horrible Paul stuff. Till then we'll be raining shiat on your heads, literally, down there in the sewers.

Pop pop, fizz fizz, oh what a joy it is. To deposit shiat on a christians head.
 
2012-11-22 08:38:30 AM

propasaurus: How do you legislate belief?
Is faith professed under threat of incarceration really faith?


This has been the case through most of world history. And the people with the authority to enforce "belief" really don't care whether you're sincere or not. They're only ever interested in appearances. (Because, like, you know, God can't tell the difference anyway. . . .)
 
2012-11-22 08:41:15 AM

Hunter_Worthington: well, I think a series of fines would be more practical then jail time, but it's nice to see some one, some where is forcing "atheists" to internalize the externality associated with their "lack of belief".


Ladies and gentlemen, take a good, hard look at this.

This is the mentality that the Religious Right has. If you're not one of us, you can either shut up and face the consequences of our theocracy. There's more of us, so that makes us right.

It's as American as Goulash and Sushi.

People like you are the EXACT reason why the Constitution was written the way it was, and why people like Jefferson warned against the invasion of Government by religion.
 
2012-11-22 08:41:52 AM
Keep procreating the groundfowl, rightwing.

/don't bother with "but he's a Denocrat'
 
2012-11-22 08:49:17 AM
I don't get it, is the guy a muslim or not
 
2012-11-22 08:51:18 AM

Endrick: It's freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

All the 1st amendment says is that the state can't stop you from loving Jesus.


i578.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-22 08:51:36 AM

BronyMedic: Hunter_Worthington: well, I think a series of fines would be more practical then jail time, but it's nice to see some one, some where is forcing "atheists" to internalize the externality associated with their "lack of belief".

Ladies and gentlemen, take a good, hard look at this.

This is the mentality that the Religious Right has. If you're not one of us, you can either shut up and face the consequences of our theocracy. There's more of us, so that makes us right.

It's as American as Goulash and Sushi.

People like you are the EXACT reason why the Constitution was written the way it was, and why people like Jefferson warned against the invasion of Government by religion.


I doubt the Disestablishment Clause was written with people like me in mind, but if that's true, maybe it's time to de-secularize the Constitution, or at least make it clear the disestablishment clause doesn't mean the separation of Church and State, but rather allows for a vibrant expression of genuine religious faith, and allowing for punishment for the lack -and the negative consequences of the behaviors associated with it.
 
2012-11-22 08:54:31 AM

Ennuipoet: Are we that desperate to bicker about religion that we need a six year old story, stemming from a three year old article to get it started? Can't wait for our family to piss us off so we start early?

Plus, we already did this one when the NYT article came out.


Even though the article is misleading (the penalty is not for being an atheist, it's for failing to display a plaque), the VERY current point is that the Kentucky Court of Appeal held that the law is legal, and that the Kentucky Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal. The petition to the US Supreme court was filed on November 13th. If the SCOTUS refuses to hear the appeal, then this clearly unconstitutional law is permanent and legal.
 
2012-11-22 08:54:48 AM
shiat, I'm in Kentucky right now!
 
2012-11-22 08:58:59 AM

FirstNationalBastard: Natsumi: Smoking GNU: "Home of the free" my ass.

more like home of the ignorant

/ not all Americans are bad. I know this. but the one who derp the loudest give you all a bad name.

Y'know, you can say the same thing about every religion ever.

If people need to believe in a magical deity to make it through their day, so be it. If it makes them better people, and prevents them from raping, killing, and pillaging, even better.

But when they want to force everyone to believe in their favorite fairy tales, that's where the problems begin. And then they ratchet up the derp to try to make laws keeping science out of schools because it conflicts with their book of magical fairy tales, and then want laws stating their sky wizard is the only one, and if you don't believe in him and him only, you get jailed or killed.

And that's why people hate religion.


This Exactly!

I hope you don't mind, but I am going to liberally plagiarize this comment far and wide.
 
2012-11-22 08:59:38 AM
img820.imageshack.us
 
2012-11-22 09:01:19 AM

crashdavis18: Ennuipoet: Are we that desperate to bicker about religion that we need a six year old story, stemming from a three year old article to get it started? Can't wait for our family to piss us off so we start early?

Plus, we already did this one when the NYT article came out.

Even though the article is misleading (the penalty is not for being an atheist, it's for failing to display a plaque), the VERY current point is that the Kentucky Court of Appeal held that the law is legal, and that the Kentucky Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal. The petition to the US Supreme court was filed on November 13th. If the SCOTUS refuses to hear the appeal, then this clearly unconstitutional law is permanent and legal.



Do you have a link or some reading? Failure to display a plaque and you get jail time? Is this for govt buildings? Personal property? What about other churches who don't believe in religious themed displays in their church? This seems like something out of Margaret Atwood novel
 
2012-11-22 09:01:35 AM

Hunter_Worthington: I doubt the Disestablishment Clause was written with people like me in mind, but if that's true, maybe it's time to de-secularize the Constitution, or at least make it clear the disestablishment clause doesn't mean the separation of Church and State, but rather allows for a vibrant expression of genuine religious faith, and allowing for punishment for the lack -and the negative consequences of the behaviors associated with it.


I agree. It's time for a state religion. American ecumenism as practiced is deeply flawed. By giving credence to all religions, we give credence to all of the wrong ones as well as the correct religion. God can't be too happy about that.

So let's pick one. As an agnostic athiest, I really don't care which. But whatever one we pick, we've gone from a zero chance of being correct (with the correspondant 100% chance of pissing off the deity, should it exist) to a non-zero chance of being correct. If we pick a side, there is at least a chance that Pascal's Wager would then pay off.

Surely that's worth something.
 
2012-11-22 09:03:46 AM
So if we pray hard enough, we don't need to bother actually planning for emergencies...am I reading that correctly? And if we don't plan and something terrible does happen, despite how much we pray, then that's just God working in mysterious ways, correct? Man, "mysterious ways" is the ultimate metaphysical escape hatch for 'spiritual leaders': "I'm lying to you, but please keep buying my line of crap. Of course I'm still right, God wanted this terrible suffering to occur despite our prayers."
 
2012-11-22 09:04:53 AM
"What I do see is an attempt to separate America from its history of perceiving itself as a nation under God."

I wonder if he knows the following things.

First of all the original pledge, which I assume is where he gets the under god bit, did not include that phrase. It was written by a Christian who was also a socialist.

Second of all religion as virtually all modern Christians practice it was not common in this country until the 1830s or later. The years 1776 and 1789 seem to be before that period so tell me again about the intentions of our founding fathers, some of whom were Deists and did not specifically believe in an Abrahamic god, when they established this "Christian" nation?

Thirdly, there's a really specific reason that the establishment clause is the absolute first thing in the Bill of Rights. That's not an accident and there's a reason Christianity loses almost every single solitary time things like this get to the SCOTUS.
 
2012-11-22 09:06:55 AM

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Slaxl: Look, religious folk, you claim 'militant' atheists are everywhere and trying to ban religion, but that's bullshiat, the only time atheists get up in arms is when YOU shove your religion in everyone's faces.

Atheists, when they have the majority, can enact extremely oppressive laws. For example, look at what the PRC has done to the Falun Dafa people (who, in fairness, are a bit looney tunes).


You seriously don't know the difference between religious oppression and political repression? Seriously?
 
2012-11-22 09:07:09 AM
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-11-22 09:07:28 AM

FirstNationalBastard: If it makes them better people, and prevents them from raping, killing, and pillaging, even better.


It does kind of worry me that some people really seem to think that the only thing stopping them from being a raping, murdering psychopath is belief in something that isn't there. What happens, then, if/when they encounter something that seriously causes them to question their beliefs? As an atheist, I don't murder or rape because they are wrong. They cause harm to others. And most violent crimes happen against people who did not harm the perpetrator to begin with, so it isn't just causing harm, it's causing harm to someone who doesn't deserve it at all. And I would not want any violence to happen to me or anyone I care about, so that's another secular reason to not be a violent asshole. That whole "do unto others" thing existed long before Judeo-Christian "morality" entered the scene (I put it in quotes because for some reason, that doesn't apply to gays, women, people of other religions, etc. and therefore does not seem very moral to me; it seems selfish, if anything), and seems to exist in people who never had any religion to begin with.
 
2012-11-22 09:08:34 AM

IoSaturnalia: Hunter_Worthington: I doubt the Disestablishment Clause was written with people like me in mind, but if that's true, maybe it's time to de-secularize the Constitution, or at least make it clear the disestablishment clause doesn't mean the separation of Church and State, but rather allows for a vibrant expression of genuine religious faith, and allowing for punishment for the lack -and the negative consequences of the behaviors associated with it.

I agree. It's time for a state religion. American ecumenism as practiced is deeply flawed. By giving credence to all religions, we give credence to all of the wrong ones as well as the correct religion. God can't be too happy about that.

So let's pick one. As an agnostic athiest, I really don't care which. But whatever one we pick, we've gone from a zero chance of being correct (with the correspondant 100% chance of pissing off the deity, should it exist) to a non-zero chance of being correct. If we pick a side, there is at least a chance that Pascal's Wager would then pay off.

Surely that's worth something.


Thrown into a positive form, the doctrine contended for in the foregoing chapters is this:--
1. The whole management and direction of human life depends upon the question whether or not there is a God and a future state of human existence. If there is a God, but no future state, God is nothing to us. If there is a future state, but no God, we can form no rational guess about the future state.
2. If there is no God and no future state, reasonable men will regulate their conduct either by inclination or by common utilitarianism.
3. If there is a God and a future state, reasonable men will regulate their conduct by a wider kind of utilitarianism.
4. By whatever rule they regulate their conduct, no room is left for any rational enthusiasm, for the order of ideas hinted at by the phrase "Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity," for, whichever rule is applied, there are a vast number of matters in respect of which men ought not to be free; they are fundamentally unequal, and they are not brothers at all, or only under qualifications which make the assertion of their fraternity unimportant.

--James Fitzjames Stephen
Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
 
2012-11-22 09:10:20 AM

Orange-Pippin: crashdavis18: Ennuipoet: Are we that desperate to bicker about religion that we need a six year old story, stemming from a three year old article to get it started? Can't wait for our family to piss us off so we start early?

Plus, we already did this one when the NYT article came out.

Even though the article is misleading (the penalty is not for being an atheist, it's for failing to display a plaque), the VERY current point is that the Kentucky Court of Appeal held that the law is legal, and that the Kentucky Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal. The petition to the US Supreme court was filed on November 13th. If the SCOTUS refuses to hear the appeal, then this clearly unconstitutional law is permanent and legal.


Do you have a link or some reading? Failure to display a plaque and you get jail time? Is this for govt buildings? Personal property? What about other churches who don't believe in religious themed displays in their church? This seems like something out of Margaret Atwood novel


From the article: "The law requires that plaques celebrating the power of the Almighty God be installed outside the state Homeland Security building--and carries a criminal penalty of up to 12 months in jail if one fails to comply."

See also, the NYT article referenced by Ennuipoet (in the seventh comment from the top).

Google 'American Atheists v. KY Homeland Security' for any one of 100,000 discussion threads for further reading.
 
Displayed 50 of 251 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report