Josh, I'm going to say something completely irrational: I can usually tell whether or not someone is a fundy within the first three minutes regardless of the topic of conversation. There is something about the way fundies dress, speak and act that fairly screams out their religiosity. My voice teacher, a Zen Buddhist from the Bay Area (California), is experiencing a bit of culture shock. She can't believe how many fundies are in the area. She moved here about a year ago and she's already been dragged to church and shunned for a comment she made.

She went to the church my mother and one of my music profs attend: Sierra Bible Church. I've laid into that church for spending so much money on facilities and no money on helping the local needy. An acquaintance of mine was in danger of having her utilities turned off so I went around to individuals to scrape up some cash. I asked Sierra Bible Church and guess what? All they could give was canned goods. In the meantime, they have this huge-ass facility.

My Zen Buddhist voice teacher noted the little carts people can ride between buildings and said, "Gee, this is like the DisneyLand of Christianity." The neighbor who had brought her hasn't spoken to her since.

My voice teacher has been proselytized multiple times, especially at the gym we both use. There's this weird guy who takes his bible and approaches people at the pool. If he comes up to me, I'm not sure what my reaction will be.

Ideally, I should engage him in conversation. With people that deranged, it could be a lost cause.

When talking to fundies I usually keep the conversation very, very shallow and mind my own business. The other night in the hot tub I felt kind of devilish. A lady joined me who had "fundy" dripping out of every pore. I deliberate chose topics that would make a fundy uncomfortable: my cousin and I getting naked and sending webcam pics around the Internet, for example. I don't know what got into me...just couldn't help myself, I guess.

Yea, that is exactly what I am against, "I get to make the laws and you dont".

That remindes me of a Metallica lyric "You can do it your own way, just as long as it is how I say".

The citizens, which is what our government is made of make laws not on "majority rule" but "majority guides without dictating and only through advise and concent" Which gives a detractor an ability to say "Hey you majority, are violating my rights" and allows government the ability to protect that detractor.

So my issue is never about "getting along" which we should do. My issue is that people dont think about "Who gets to decide" because it may not be YOU or your label in that seat of power. That is why it is better to resolve those issues through the free market of free speech rather than demand the silence of a detractor. You may be that "detractor" at some historical point and without your free speech you can potentially allow goverment to silence you.

I would rather my neighbor say mean things about me than give my goverment the power to be mean to me via law. 

And YOU MISS MY POINT,

"Hate crime" is not only needless language in law, but also DANGEROUS. Not because of the "intent" but in terms of government gaining too much power in deciding what is or is not "hate".

FOR EXAMPLE ONLY:

If Christians pass a law saying you cant say, "Fuck Jesus" because that is "hate" many of those same Christians WOULD if in a seat of power make merely saying "Jesus is fiction" an act of "hate"

FOR EXAMPLE ONLY: 

Assault is assault weither you are punching your spouse because you found out they were cheating on you and would be the same act of assault if you punched someone because they said "Fuck Allah".

There is no such thing as "jelousy crime" laws nor should do we need them. THE LAWS ARE ALREADY ON THE BOOKS!

1. You hit somoneone in the heat of the moument, a lower form of assault, but still assault.

2. Planing out an assault is a higher form of crime but still no less assault.

That type of language "hate crime" is a bad idea. It implies that my government has the right via force to make me like someone.

Hate to burst your bubble but there ARE individuals I hate and claims people make that I hate and I dont want any law that tells me I cant express that emotion.

I can say, "I hate the pope"

I cant ask anyone to harm him or harm him myself NOR WOULD I, dispite my feelings or expression of those feelings. 

What neither an atheist or theist has the right to do is advocate violence or act out in violence FOR ANY REASON, be it on a family member, co-worker, neighbor or spouse FOR ANY REASON!

I cant punch my neighor in the face for the same reason I cant punch my mother or you in the face. And it the degree of punishment is not based on my thoughts or who I like or dont like it is based on suddend action or pre meditated action, NOT THE THOUGHTS IN MY HEAD.

I hate "hate crime" being used as law language. It is a bad idea because it will give goverment the power to screw you over someday when you want to detract.

Who gets to decide what "hate" is? As an atheist I am damned sure not going to give a Christian majority that kind of government power because tons of the things I say here, that I dont see as hate, THEY MIGHT.

Again, I am fine with the laws we have already in place that say you cant physically harm someone. Just inforce the laws we already have.

Yes, facism should be riducled. You know why? Because it violates our cival liberties. As I said, as long as the beliefs do not violate human rights, it should still be questioned of course, but not ridiculed to the point of hate speech.

I have never advocated adding or taking away ideologies. Taking away all religions for example will not eliminate the belief in God.  So no, increasing or decreasing ideologies will NOT increase or decrease tolerance in our society. Why not? Because you do not have to hold to an ideology to have a belief. There will always be differences in humans.

Now, question for you.  Do you honestly want everyone to be the same? To not be able to hold their beliefs as long as they do it within civil liberties?

I have no idea what happened in regards to Aboriginals in Australia, but in Canada, Aboriginal communities usually have high crime rates. People think it is because of their special treatment. The government gives them handouts despite what they do, these hinder the growth of their communities. Why not treat them like everyone else? If we did, they might not have such high crime rates because they would have to rely on themselves, not the government. There are plenty of good indviduals in the Aboriginal community, but when they try to do something to benifit the community, to make it self dependent, they get red tape from the government, or from the community itself.

I heard one time of an Aboriginal man wanting to start a business. This man was hardworking and wanted to rely on nobody but himself, so he set up a buisness. This would have employed many in the community and offered service, and made them more self-relient.  But it was ruined from withing the community. Why?  Because the government hands out cheques to them some don't want to work. The place was vandalized and burnt down. If there was no government handouts then the community may have embraced this man, and helped him in his pursuit. 

Of course, some Aboriginals have moved out of the reserves and are prosperous in the city. They are hardworking and willing to contribute to the community.  

So, in summary, special treatment hinders growth.  

 I would guess your point is whether or not people act on those beliefs.

I kinda agree. You can disagree with homosexual marriage, but not go so far as the Phelps family. So, I guess my response would be when those ideas are taken to the extreme it violates civil liberties. 

Cpt Pineapple.

I'm afraid you missed the point of my post. The mention of special treatment for Aboriginal students was just part of setting the scene of that unit and my frustration with it.

The point was about silencing ideas because they are not warm and fuzzy. Too many people accept that a statement can be wrong on the grounds that it's not a nice thing to say. Bad ideas should be responded to with logic and evidence, not just labelled as hate speech and assumed to be wrong because they are so labelled.

My ideal is an anarchistic society, no organized control on any level, but this is unrealistic, so I'll settle for the least possible organized control, I am quite happy for individuals to believe what they wish, but as soon as these beliefs becomes organized into an ideology which starts to infringe upon my daily life or the daily lives ofmy fellow citizens. I will, have, and will continue to rebel

 Cpt_pineapple there is a difference, between personal belief, and organize beliefs (ideology)

Personal beliefs affect nobody apart from the individual that hold's those beliefs 

Organized beliefs affect everybody within the ideology, and will also affect those that live in a society where this ideology becomes a dominant force

May I ask you to answer this question again, separating personal beliefs, from organized ideologies 

Do you believe that adding more ideologies will increase or decrease tolerance in our society ? 

Unfortunately, the mere fact that i am an atheist is enough for them to say that i am 'persecuting' theists.

The belief itself is preached in a manner that anyone that doesn't believe is offensive. Disagreeing and debating is what they refer to as persecution in my observations.

Hmmm. I don't think the simple 'god exists' is the problem either, Cpt.

I think it is the rest of it that goes along with that statement.

Things said like:

"god exists despite anything to the contrary"

"god exists therefore this and this have to be true no matter what"

But people project that irrationality to other aspects besides my Theism. 

Personally, I think the word 'mind disorder' implies insanity.  

You'd be surprised. Many people do. 

Exactly. Address the argument itself.  

I thought some of my essays were original. (At least to me.) 

Fair enough. Would you agree the same way with  'I don't think God exists'  vs 'God doesn't exist'?

If people bring it up for the sole purpose of converting or preaching, then you should defend yourself. If it just comes up in a general conversation, then let it be. 

The site forums atheist vs theist and kill 'em with kindness are obviously there for the purpose of debating Theism.

And you miss our point once again.

What you see as "hate speech" someone else might see as liberation from shackles.

That is a dangerous thing to interject into law language because what you think is one thing someone might think is another.

The common law of not physically harming your neighbor is enough. That allows me the atheist to say "|Jesus is fiction" an the Christian to say "You will burn in hell" without either of us having goverment ablity to arrest or exicute the other merely based on words.

Like I said before, it really makes my lip twitch when well intended "cant we all just get along" people on both sides want laws banning "offensive" speech". What neither side ever considers is that they may not be the cop, or DA, or Judge or Jury that would side with them on issues of "being offended".

What the Christian and atheist and any other CAN agree on is that no one likes to have their person being assaulted. That is why I personllay dont object VIA LAW, to some ignorant prick condemning me to hell. I can use my own voice to counter their ignorance. It cuts both ways.

I am not as an atheist minority going to give a Christian majority be they liberal or conservitive the power of law or jury to say, "You cant offend me". And conversely I am quite sure they would not want atheists making laws banning them from offending us.

What we can agree on is that as long as no one is saying "go kill this person" we BOTH can say what we want without fear of goverment taking away the freedom of the other.