How do atheists propose filling in the gap
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070503/LOCAL18/705030475/-1/ZONES04
Rather than focusing on removing that which atheists disagree with, why not focus on finding ways to "minister" (in a humanistic way) to the community? How about creating programs to promote morality in the workplace? How about working in cooporation with others who share your desire to make society better, even tho you may not agree with them on the subject of God?
Shouldn't our government be concerned with supporting and promoting the morality of its citizens, given that, societies with rampant immorality, in the long run, are incapable of sustaining themselves? Is not one of government's fundamental responsibilities to promote order in a non-obtrusive way so that you and I are free to live productive lives? Shouldn't government institutions be allowed at least some flexibility in determining how to do just that?
Given the situation we find ourselves in, where our society's moral decay is becoming more and more evident, how do YOU propose promoting sound moral behaviors? In my opinion, simply suing those with whom you disagree does not get to the heart of the matter. It just leeches funding from programs designed to help people, so you are in effect, inhibiting their ability to serve their community.
Which brings me to my last question. Ultimately, is your goal to help others, or are you simply trying to make a point. If your goal IS to help others, how is suing going to help anyone???
What it boils down to is you like being the "favorite", until things change and you are no longer in the "favored" group you will not even think about it another way, or try seeing another humans perspective.
Plain and simple.
BGH wrote:I think I have answered this in other posts. To add to what I've already said, I think we have a PC problem in this country. If I choose to become a wiccan, I am choosing to join a minority. Being in the minority does not then give me the right to limit or dictate the rights of the majority. It's a simple fact of life that there are majority groups and minority groups. It is the duty of both the majority and minority groups to respect each other. That responsibility does not only fall on the majority.jce wrote:The only thing I want to add is a question to sugarfree: If this program was set up to pay for the services of a rabbi, would you consider it acceptable and a good use of your tax dollars?Let's ask it this way:
Would you support this program if it ONLY funded a muslim cleric or a jewish rabbi, but specifically excluded a christian non-denominational chaplain? Thus causing you to feel excluded, second class and less worthy of care than the other faiths?
Oh? So what you are saying here is that the minority needs to shut up and let the marjority stomp all over it. You say that being in the minority does not give you the right to limit or dictate the rights of the marjority. So that means the marjority does have the right to limit and dictate the rights of the minority? I see how it is now.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
sugarfree wrote:MattShizzle wrote:If it made sense within the demographics of the area, yes. I don't believe wicca or witch doctor or FMS is ever going to fit into that category, however.jce wrote:pariahjane wrote:No one is cutting funding to needy people if they already provided them with the same service (which it appears they have in this article). In fact, without that unnecessary position the minister had, the company is actually saving money by not putting out for his salary.The beef is that our tax dollars should not be used to pay any person who has a faith agenda. Do you really think a minister would consel someone objectively? Of course not.
The only thing I want to add is a question to sugarfree: If this program was set up to pay for the services of a rabbi, would you consider it acceptable and a good use of your tax dollars?
Or how about a Mullah? A Hindu Priest? A Maylay witch Doctor? A Wiccan Priestess? A devotee of the FSM?
So you think the majority should be able to trample on the rights of the minority? Adolph Hitler would have loved you.
If you read my words more carefully, you will see that I said the majority groups and minority groups have a responsibility to respect EACH OTHER.
So, you have decided that your belief (or should I call it dogma) is more important than the people who might be benefitting from that which you disagree with?
It is not a belief - it is the law. I am sorry that you do not understand this better. In this situation, no one is being slighted or denied benefit because THERE IS ALREADY A PROGRAM IN PLACE. It is a violation of the constitution to favor one religion over another. If there were not already something in place, then, yes I would support a secular program to provide assistance to these people. Why, in your opinion, does there need to be a second program, paid for by people of many beliefs to benefit a group that subscribes to one belief?
I'm asking you to move past the separation of church and state issue here and focus on what these types of lawsuits might do to the PEOPLE.
You have no problem with people other than your favored worldview having to find help elsewhere. What I am telling you is people can find these services elsewhere and that is what they should do. Everyone should seek help outside of the place of business.
Oh? So what you are saying here is that the minority needs to shut up and let the marjority stomp all over it. You say that being in the minority does not give you the right to limit or dictate the rights of the marjority. So that means the marjority does have the right to limit and dictate the rights of the minority? I see how it is now.
sugarfree wrote:I'm asking you to move past the separation of church and state issue here and focus on what these types of lawsuits might do to the PEOPLE.You have no problem with people other than your favored worldview having to find help elsewhere. What I am telling you is people can find these services elsewhere and that is what they should do. Everyone should seek help outside of the place of business.
What it boils down to is you like being the "favorite", until things change and you are no longer in the "favored" group you will not even think about it another way, or try seeing another humans perspective.
Plain and simple.
pariahjane wrote:Please do not twist my words. Let me give you an example. When I was in college, my husband and I were in a movie theater. We are both caucasion. Behind us, some black guys were heckling him, saying "whitey, hey whitey". It made us mad. Shouldn't it? Or should my husband say, oh, that's okay they're a minority, so they are allowed... No, that kind of behavior is wrong, regardless of who is the majority and who is the minority. I'm just saying, it is not right to ignore or limit the rights of the majority simply because they are the majority.Oh? So what you are saying here is that the minority needs to shut up and let the marjority stomp all over it. You say that being in the minority does not give you the right to limit or dictate the rights of the marjority. So that means the marjority does have the right to limit and dictate the rights of the minority? I see how it is now.
Again, that is not a majority/minority situation. That is racism and it is wrong. What you are saying is that because you are white and christian you have the right to make all of the rules for everyone. No, you don't. It is (thankfully) illegal for you to do so based on you being white and christian.
pariahjane wrote:Please do not twist my words. Let me give you an example. When I was in college, my husband and I were in a movie theater. We are both caucasion. Behind us, some black guys were heckling him, saying "whitey, hey whitey". It made us mad. Shouldn't it? Or should my husband say, oh, that's okay they're a minority, so they are allowed... No, that kind of behavior is wrong, regardless of who is the majority and who is the minority. I'm just saying, it is not right to ignore or limit the rights of the majority simply because they are the majority.Oh? So what you are saying here is that the minority needs to shut up and let the marjority stomp all over it. You say that being in the minority does not give you the right to limit or dictate the rights of the marjority. So that means the marjority does have the right to limit and dictate the rights of the minority? I see how it is now.
Wait a minute. First off, a racial remark is NOTHING compared to the issue at hand. Or, maybe for you it isn't. That's it, I figured Sugarfree out. You actually take it as a personal affront when someone disagrees with you. It's offensive to you that someone dare say that as a marjority you do not have a right to push your views on other people. You really are incapable of seeing an issue any other way than your own.
No one is heckling you because they desire to keep the separation between church and state. For you even to compare the two is really just plain dumb.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
sugarfree wrote:pariahjane wrote:Please do not twist my words. Let me give you an example. When I was in college, my husband and I were in a movie theater. We are both caucasion. Behind us, some black guys were heckling him, saying "whitey, hey whitey". It made us mad. Shouldn't it? Or should my husband say, oh, that's okay they're a minority, so they are allowed... No, that kind of behavior is wrong, regardless of who is the majority and who is the minority. I'm just saying, it is not right to ignore or limit the rights of the majority simply because they are the majority.Oh? So what you are saying here is that the minority needs to shut up and let the marjority stomp all over it. You say that being in the minority does not give you the right to limit or dictate the rights of the marjority. So that means the marjority does have the right to limit and dictate the rights of the minority? I see how it is now.Wait a minute. First off, a racial remark is NOTHING compared to the issue at hand. Or, maybe for you it isn't. That's it, I figured Sugarfree out. You actually take it as a personal affront when someone disagrees with you. It's offensive to you that someone dare say that as a marjority you do not have a right to push your views on other people. You really are incapable of seeing an issue any other way than your own.
No one is heckling you because they desire to keep the separation between church and state. For you even to compare the two is really just plain dumb.
sugarfree wrote:pariahjane wrote:Please do not twist my words. Let me give you an example. When I was in college, my husband and I were in a movie theater. We are both caucasion. Behind us, some black guys were heckling him, saying "whitey, hey whitey". It made us mad. Shouldn't it? Or should my husband say, oh, that's okay they're a minority, so they are allowed... No, that kind of behavior is wrong, regardless of who is the majority and who is the minority. I'm just saying, it is not right to ignore or limit the rights of the majority simply because they are the majority.Oh? So what you are saying here is that the minority needs to shut up and let the marjority stomp all over it. You say that being in the minority does not give you the right to limit or dictate the rights of the marjority. So that means the marjority does have the right to limit and dictate the rights of the minority? I see how it is now.
Again, that is not a majority/minority situation. That is racism and it is wrong. What you are saying is that because you are white and christian you have the right to make all of the rules for everyone. No, you don't. It is (thankfully) illegal for you to do so based on you being white and christian.
Oh geez. Really, what I HAVE been saying is that, if a religious group is receiving grants or what not to helping people in need, why are groups like FFRF trying to thwart that? That's my one and only point with this thread, but no one is really answering it.
Well, geez, what we have really been saying is that there is already a program in place in this case. And, geez, no we do not have a problem with anyone wanting to help anyone but if tax dollars are being used then it should be secular in nature. geez.
pariahjane wrote:Is it not offensive for a white person to be heckled just as it is offensive for a black, asian, mexican, etc. to be heckled? Or are white people not allowed to feel bad about it in areas where they are the majority? I was just using that instance as an example because you were misunderstanding my majority/minority comment. You don't have to get snippy.sugarfree wrote:pariahjane wrote:Please do not twist my words. Let me give you an example. When I was in college, my husband and I were in a movie theater. We are both caucasion. Behind us, some black guys were heckling him, saying "whitey, hey whitey". It made us mad. Shouldn't it? Or should my husband say, oh, that's okay they're a minority, so they are allowed... No, that kind of behavior is wrong, regardless of who is the majority and who is the minority. I'm just saying, it is not right to ignore or limit the rights of the majority simply because they are the majority.Oh? So what you are saying here is that the minority needs to shut up and let the marjority stomp all over it. You say that being in the minority does not give you the right to limit or dictate the rights of the marjority. So that means the marjority does have the right to limit and dictate the rights of the minority? I see how it is now.Wait a minute. First off, a racial remark is NOTHING compared to the issue at hand. Or, maybe for you it isn't. That's it, I figured Sugarfree out. You actually take it as a personal affront when someone disagrees with you. It's offensive to you that someone dare say that as a marjority you do not have a right to push your views on other people. You really are incapable of seeing an issue any other way than your own.
No one is heckling you because they desire to keep the separation between church and state. For you even to compare the two is really just plain dumb.
Yes, it is offensive whenever anyone says something racist to anyone else. That has nothing to do with the matter at hand and I have no idea why you would even equate the two unless you feel that by removing the minister from his unnecessary position was somehow 'offensive' to you.
And you never answered my previous post, I'd appreciate if you would. That's why I'm getting snippy. You ignore what you don't want to answer or you somehow sidle around the matter at hand.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
sugarfree wrote:Oh geez. Really, what I HAVE been saying is that, if a religious group is receiving grants or what not to helping people in need, why are groups like FFRF trying to thwart that? That's my one and only point with this thread, but no one is really answering it.Well, geez, what we have really been saying is that there is already a program in place in this case. And, geez, no we do not have a problem with anyone wanting to help anyone but if tax dollars are being used then it should be secular in nature. geez.
So, you are saying, if grants are being given out by the government to orgs that are serving the community, the only orgs that should legally be able to apply are secular orgs. I will further assume that you are fair, then, and will agree that if any of those groups were to teach an anti-God, anti-religious message, their funding should be cut. Further, no atheist/agnostic groups should be allowed to apply for the grants.
Oh geez. Really, what I HAVE been saying is that, if a religious group is receiving grants or what not to helping people in need, why are groups like FFRF trying to thwart that? That's my one and only point with this thread, but no one is really answering it.
I agree. You have stated your argument clearly and I concur. No point in trying to be fair to everyone and keep from endorsing any religion. Let the heathens deal with their own crap on their own, you and I (now that I believe in god) will have OUR services. They should just give in too and quit all this silly thinking they want to do all the time....
jce wrote:So, you are saying, if grants are being given out by the government to orgs that are serving the community, the only orgs that should legally be able to apply are secular orgs. I will further assume that you are fair, then, and will agree that if any of those groups were to teach an anti-God, anti-religious message, their funding should be cut. Further, no atheist/agnostic groups should be allowed to apply for the grants.sugarfree wrote:Oh geez. Really, what I HAVE been saying is that, if a religious group is receiving grants or what not to helping people in need, why are groups like FFRF trying to thwart that? That's my one and only point with this thread, but no one is really answering it.Well, geez, what we have really been saying is that there is already a program in place in this case. And, geez, no we do not have a problem with anyone wanting to help anyone but if tax dollars are being used then it should be secular in nature. geez.
First off, I think you're getting a tad snippy. Secondly, atheists and agnostics are not anti-religious or anti-god. I think you've participated in this forum long enough to realize that. If a group did teach anti-religious or anti-god propaganda, then yes, it would not receive funding. Do you understand?
If god takes life he's an indian giver
jce wrote:So, you are saying, if grants are being given out by the government to orgs that are serving the community, the only orgs that should legally be able to apply are secular orgs. I will further assume that you are fair, then, and will agree that if any of those groups were to teach an anti-God, anti-religious message, their funding should be cut. Further, no atheist/agnostic groups should be allowed to apply for the grants.sugarfree wrote:Oh geez. Really, what I HAVE been saying is that, if a religious group is receiving grants or what not to helping people in need, why are groups like FFRF trying to thwart that? That's my one and only point with this thread, but no one is really answering it.Well, geez, what we have really been saying is that there is already a program in place in this case. And, geez, no we do not have a problem with anyone wanting to help anyone but if tax dollars are being used then it should be secular in nature. geez.
Since when did secular become anti-God, anti-religious? Have you ever heard of an organization offering aid only to those who would renounce God?
Why not just do the job at hand and keep God out of it?
"A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven." -- former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien
Yes, it is offensive whenever anyone says something racist to anyone else. That has nothing to do with the matter at hand and I have no idea why you would even equate the two unless you feel that by removing the minister from his unnecessary position was somehow 'offensive' to you.And you never answered my previous post, I'd appreciate if you would. That's why I'm getting snippy. You ignore what you don't want to answer or you somehow sidle around the matter at hand.
I do not know what I failed to answer. Please reiterate.
I agree, and most companies have policies in place for this.
The EAP program covers this. I guess I do not understand why you feel there needs to be a separate, redundant "tool" provided. It seems like a waste of money to me that could be better spent on other programs. If the employee wants counseling specific to his/her faith most clergy are happy to provide that free of charge.
Can you explain what you mean by this?
Churchs do little to help. I think the figures for what the church donates a year(accross the entire planet) is like 1.7% of there total profit. They are tax exempt. Worldwide churchs bring in around 300 billion dollars, meaning around 5 billion went to charities.
Oh, and 5 billion a year, is nothing. Bill Gates is donating I think 30 billion of his own cash to charity(he is a "greedy atheist" and other people as well are giving large sums of money.
I have seen people who could of used the money they put every sunday into church. Even when I was little I knew who was poor, and I asked myself when I was around 11 why these people who live in shit homes, and are just scraping by putting 50$ in the basket. It never made sense to me, all these people giving money with no way of knowing if it's going to help someone, or go to buying the preist a new car.
I always wondered why the minister down the street from me had a huge house(i'd say 300-500 thousand dollar house) and a 70 thousand dollar car, and the church was always redone. This never made sense to me, are they not trying to help?
The fact of the matter is, even if normal christians are good hearted, want to help people by giving to a church, why? Can they not give to a charity and cut out the crooked middle man? The church is very courrpt, even if the church you live beside may help people, overall they are not helping at all.
You are probably one of these people who think Mother Tresea wasn't a total bitch and was a saint. Church is evil. Religion is evil, the majority thank goodness of religious people ignore most rules set by their religion, otherwise we would all be dead now.
Also, no matter what, if you give a church and the church promises a heaven or hell, no matter if there is a heaven or hell they have lied, and are now under fraud, they can never keep that promise. Simply because, there is many religions, and also no proof heaven or hell exists, therefore if you ever give money to a priest, you have a right to sue him.
"When I die I shall be content to vanish into nothingness.... No show, however good, could conceivably be good forever.... I do not believe in immortality, and have no desire for it." ~H.L. Mencken
Thank god i'm a atheist!
Sugarfree, those are called ethics. Most companies have a code of ethics anyway.
From what I'm reading, you are alluding to praising employees for being good church-going folks. Otherwise, companies would be out there praising everyone for not stealing office supplies every day.
What do you mean "assure employees have the tools for happy, productive home lives"? Most companies have some kind of health insurance. If an employee has mental or physical problems, they can get help.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Maybe your problem is that you think there is a gap that needs to be filled.
I'm not trying to be a dick, but with comments like these I have to wonder if you've ever had a proper job?
My life outside the office is not the companies responsibility.
"A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven." -- former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien
I don't understand why a company would have an in-house chaplain when EAP is available and so much better. An chaplain is very limited in the kind of assistance they can provide. Talking to a chaplain will help with what? Maybe tell you that god has a plan for you, but in reality, not really beneficial. We have EAP at my work and though I've never had to use it myself, the list of services they provide at no cost to employees is in my opinion second to none. Just recently we were told that EAP now has a service that assist when you've been a victim of identity theft. Yeah, it's not in house, but really, why would you need anything in house? Has this country turned into whiney babies? We're talking about your place of business, deal with personal problems on your own. The only time I think in-house is necessary is when a tramatic event has happened at work, and EAP brings someone in if that happens. I agree they should sue to get the chaplain the hell out of there. It's an insult not just to non-theist, but an insult to the American worker in general. If you can't get thru a day of work without talking to a priest/councelor or what have you then you shouldn't be at work. I know this sounds harsh but really, who wants their co-workers running off to confess their sins or working on personal problems at work. It just doesn't belong.
I know I sound like a salesman for EAP, but this is my first job where it's been available and I'm thoroughly impressed. If you want to learn more about the kind of services they offer, my EAP provider's website is http://www.eapconsultants.com/products.html
http://arlettaq.spaces.live.com
Few points
1) Moral Decay There hasnt been a time in history where people are more concerned about the rights of other human beings.
People question their and other people's actions more now than ever. Slavery, women's rights, religious freedoms (which benefits christians and atheists alike), racism, freedom of sexuality.
In fact as all Western countries have a welfare system (even the US), which is probably the least darwinian (and strangely represents what christianity should be about) invention every created
People however also have more choices now than ever which is good a thing and sometimes they make bad ones (not so good)
Now if you refer to 'morality' as people don't follow the literal word of the bible well all I can say is 'thank god '
2) Secular versus non secular charities
If ther the slightest evidence or research on how charitable a person or organisation is based on its rellgion
Most charities are secular in Europe and the few that arent generally push charity not religion (they would get very little support if they did otherwise)
There is a branch of humanism which states you should give away all wealth that you don't absolutely need. Not a view I share but then again not a view most christians follow either
Well, since your being a dick, I'll go ahead and say this is a really dumb thing to say. I have been have been a hard-working member of the business world since 1997.
Well said! I think that pretty much sums up why it is unnecessary to have a minister employed. Sugarfree, you're asking what we would do to fill this gap, and I think everyone has pretty much concluded that it has been filled. Most companies provide all the assistance people already need without using a religious figure.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
I think we are misunderstanding each other. This is the type of thing I'm talking about. It comes from my company's vision statement:
"Partnering: Forming a mutually beneficial relationship by fostering honesty and providing quality results.
Associate Success: Provide an environment that encourages open communication, empowerment, empathy for fellow associates, continuous improvement, mentoring, training, and recognition.
Shared Values: Implement shared values in every aspect of our business and communications with customers and associates.
Do What is Right....Always"
This is an example of something a company can do to promote a strong moral/ethical work environment.
But that is kind of off topic and I am going to try to steer the conversation back to my original point. I will state it in different terms for the sake of discussion.
What justification do groups such as Freedom from Religion Foundation provide for lawsuits that take away funding that is providing social services to people who are in need. For more examples, see: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2894590. I understand your beef if the group's purpose is to preach a message, however, if the group is simply providing a needed service (i.e., food, clothing, shelter), how can the FFRF count it a victory when their lawsuit results in that funding being cut. Is it moral/ethical for them to then simply walk away and leave that "gap", i.e., the need that is no longer being filled. Bottom line, I do not see how someone can feel they are contributing to the good of society by cutting funding to needy people. Does this make sense to you? If so, please explain. (Note, I am not talking about funding for preaching to prisoners or the like, I understand how that is viewed as crossing the line...I'm talking about groups that are providing a service, but have their funding cut simply because they are a religious organization.)
HA! No.
No one is cutting funding to needy people if they already provided them with the same service (which it appears they have in this article). In fact, without that unnecessary position the minister had, the company is actually saving money by not putting out for his salary.
The beef is that our tax dollars should not be used to pay any person who has a faith agenda. Do you really think a minister would consel someone objectively? Of course not.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
The only thing I want to add is a question to sugarfree: If this program was set up to pay for the services of a rabbi, would you consider it acceptable and a good use of your tax dollars?
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
Or how about a Mullah? A Hindu Priest? A Maylay witch Doctor? A Wiccan Priestess? A devotee of the FSM?
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Let's ask it this way:
Would you support this program if it ONLY funded a muslim cleric or a jewish rabbi, but specifically excluded a christian non-denominational chaplain? Thus causing you to feel excluded, second class and less worthy of care than the other faiths?
As has already been stated, it is redundant and, therefore a waste of money. In this case, services are already available so I just do not understand why you feel it is appropriate that a specific group of people, based on religious affiliation only should be allowed to use tax dollars to meet a need that is already being met.
The truth of the matter is that it is not clear whether there is, in fact, a need for this service or not at this agency so the only other reason it would be provided is because of someone else's personal political agenda. Does that make sense?
Ah yes, the wonderful Sugarfree dodge and slip. Let me rephrase what everyone else has already said in plain English.
Keep the demographics the way they are presented in this article. Keep everything in this article EXACTLY the same. Now, remove the minister and replace him with a Rabbi or Imam. How would you feel about it now?
[MOD EDIT fixed quoting]
If god takes life he's an indian giver
If you are specifically favoring one religious bent over others, or lack of religious bent, then yes it is morally acceptable to sue and have it removed. What is being missed here is there are ways to do this that include everyone. That is what the EAP is for. There is no reason for there to be religious representation on site at a place of business. In the true libertarian sense the goverment should stay out of this and leave people to seek religious counseling on their own.
No because in that case it would not make sense. The chaplain is serving in a community that is majority Christian. Explain to me how I have dodged the question? I feel I have answered it quite honestly.
[MOD EDIT - fixed quoting]
So you think the majority should be able to trample on the rights of the minority? Adolph Hitler would have loved you.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
This is not a majority/minority issue. The issue is that the government does not have the right to favor one religion over another regardless of how many people subscribe to it. The end.
No because in that case it would not make sense. The chaplain is serving in a community that is majority Christian. Explain to me how I have dodged the question? I feel I have answered it quite honestly.
I'm sorry Sugarfree, but if you have answered this question honestly than you are incapable of thinking outside of your box. I try not to get frustrated with you, but it can be hard at times. I'll try again. How would it make you feel if your company hired someone of a different faith than yours to counsel you? Not only that, but this person's faith is in contrast to your faith and your tax dollars are paying for this person's salary. Would you think that is fair?
And again, by suing to have the minister removed from his position was not taking anything away from the needy. Or anyone, for that matter.
[MOD EDIT - fixed quoting]
If god takes life he's an indian giver