Of course we Catholics are perfectly comfortable with the “no proselytizing” rule, LOL. We definitely tend to be of the mind that we should “show” not “tell”.

One other point concerning the religion:atheism conundrum is that ALL religious people are in a sense atheists because they reject a whole panoply of alternative deities. I do not expect that there are too many strong believers in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism, etc. who recognize the divinity of Zeus, Odin, Mithras, Baal, or a host of other deities. At least atheists are consistent.

Jason Shapiro hehehe, I’m reading the same book Another great way of putting it is that all religious people are atheists of some gods, atheists just subtract one more than the others.

As for “leaving religion at home”, well, I know where you’re coming from, especially as being an outspoken atheist can expose you to endless amounts of crap, but I can’t agree. Just because a belief is founded upon religion it cannot be condemned to be private while other beliefs are allowed to roam free, so to speak. Unless you’re willing to shut down every Gay Pride parade, every discussion of the merits of democracy over other political systems or pretty much every expression of moral opinion, you can’t expect people to “leave their religion at home”. You CAN expect them to not harass you about it, asking you if “you’ve been saved” or trying to convince you that atheism will send you to hell.
But really religious people aren’t necessarily interventionist, however, religion touches every part of their lives, they simply cannot separate it from themselves. I think those who would aggressively impose religion on others aren’t the truly pious, they use religion as a weapon to control others, not because they really can’t sleep at night thinking you might not be saved.

Actually, GOT SEX, KEEP IT A HOME seems a perfectly reasonable bumper sticker.

I might not want to spend time with whoever would display GET RIGHT WITH JESUS or some such, but I wouldn’t be offended. A bumper sticker is just a bumper sticker.

I really do not wish to offend anyone but I feel as if the balance has shifted in favor of “freedon of� as opposed to “freedom from� religion.

What you are asking for is for it to shift in the other direction rather than shifting to neutral. That tends to only provoke people on the other side to feel that they have to push further to counteract your push toward the side you prefer.

In a nutshell, it is saying, ‘GOT OPINIONS? KEEP THEM AT HOME!’

As soon as you single out any one line of thought as being inexpressible in public, whether religion, politics, sex, marriage, abortion, drugs, guns, whatever, then what protect ALL line of thoughts.

The First Amendment is easy to believe in when you agree with the viewpoints being expressed. The real test of one’s commitment to those principals is only tested when confronted with speech and thoughts you find objectionable or offensive.

Since you asked here is my beef (in brief). And really, it’s just mine and I don’t expect agreement or even sympathy. Beginning with Billy Graham during Nixon’s regime and continuing with Jimmy Carter’s “born again-isms”, through Reagan’s courting of more conservative, fundamentalist groups, and the current “faith-based everythingness” there has been a HUGE injection of religiosity into public life. It has become pervasive to the point where yes, I really do find that I am literally assaulted with religious messages on a daily basis. I don’t like it very much, but hey, that’s life in America. I accept my minority status as an atheist, I just get cranky every once in a while and this post gavem an opportunity to vent.

At the same time, the lines between church and state have become more and more blurred and indistinct as the current administration has funneled billions of dollars into religious organizations who may or may not be doing good works. Believe me, I am less offended by the Ten Commandments in the courthouse or the mention of “god” in the pledge of allegiance than I am by giving school supplies to parochial schools or outsourcing public social services to religious organizations. I really do not wish to offend anyone but I feel as if the balance has shifted in favor of “freedon of” as opposed to “freedom from” religion. Again, that’s the way it is in America and all I can do is write the odd, cranky letter and vote.

I don’t sermonize, proselytize or advertise and i just wish more people would do, likewise.

In the end, everyone’s free speech is crowding my private space.
It can’t be helped, but the dream of a deserted island is becoming more and more appealing.

Just curious-why do you find it offensive for people to express religious messages in public? Do you think that other people might have the same reaction to, say, sexually explicit messages? That some of us might wish that that type of stuff should be privately expressed? But even if we wish this, would your opinion be that we ought to say, “Got sex? Keep it at home?” Would you see this the way I see your bumper sticker, as a person who feels that he/she should be able to choose what he/she is exposed to rather than allowing people to express their own thoughts and basically ignoring the crap that we don’t want to hear or see?

Jason,
There’s a heck of a lot of things that I don’t like to be subjected to either, but I’m willing to accept that I have to be subjected to them if I also want to be able to express myself. That seems only fair to me. I believe you when you say that you wouldn’t want the state to step in to censor, but you yourself are attempting to censor by labelling certain speech as only acceptable to you if it is done out of your earshot.

CS:
I don’t know what the coiner of the phrase meant, nor the people who embrace the phrase.

Here is how I see it. We need to debate and make decisions about common issues, say, where to place a new traffic light. We have to debate the merits of one street corner orver another based on traffic conditions. When someone claims to have the right solution because God wants it that way, it attempts to stack the deck against dissenters, because they are now placed in opposition to God. It makes it much more difficult to come to a decision about the traffic light.

All our decisions are informed by our beliefs, childhood experiences, and all sorts of personal matters. But when we are trying to resolve something specific, the debate should be limited to specific pros and cons without asking God to choose sides.

If someone wants to announce that his decision is in accordance with his belief system, that’s fine (free speech). But the choice of street corner has to be based on factual evidence, not God’s will.

Poor God. He is asked to back both teams in football matches on top of looking out for both sides in all wars.

“GOT RELIGION? KEEP IT AT HOME.�
CS Displaying the bumper sticker is free speech.

Of course it is, Rudi. As is my response poking fun at what it said, because telling someone that you are perfectly OK with them having beliefs so long as it’s understood that you shouldn’t have to hear them is a funny way of handling free speech issues in my book.

Always fun to read your stream of consciousness rants, even when I have no clue of their relevance, Rudi.

Jason Shapiro said:
February 15, 2007 at 7:02 am
My response to this posting is encapsulated in a bumper sticker I recently observed: “GOT RELIGION? KEEP IT AT HOME.�

So your not a big fan of that “freedom of expression” BS, huh? Yeah, it’s highly overrated…

As for “atheism as religion,” I don’t think so. OK, I’ll accept that the non-belief in deities and supernatural forces is, in some sense, “a belief system,” but atheism has no dogma, no “received wisdom” passed down in arcane books interpreted by men (usually) wearing funny hats, no rules and regulations (“thou shalt or shalt not…”), no hierarchies, no meeting houses, etc… I could go on but you get the point.

One other point concerning the religion:atheism conundrum is that ALL religious people are in a sense atheists because they reject a whole panoply of alternative deities. I do not expect that there are too many strong believers in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism, etc. who recognize the divinity of Zeus, Odin, Mithras, Baal, or a host of other deities. At least atheists are consistent.