Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
Visit Grisham's column >>

GRISHAM

Home Page
There is no need for temples, no need for complicated philosophies. My brain and my heart are my temples; my philosophy is kindness. Dalai Lama
Articles Posted: 312  Links Seeded: 187
Member Since: 11/2010  Last Seen: 5/16/2012

What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Why I Defend Atheists...

Sun Feb 12, 2012 10:30 PM EST
religion
By Grisham
Advertise | AdChoices

An entire list of reasons would make for a book, but I will attempt to outline some of the reasons why I defend atheists without a lot of meaningless rhetoric and will attempt to use real data, quotes and other ways of demonstrating my point.

Blasphemy Laws

Speaking out against religion or holding an atheistic view of religion can still result in death or incarceration. In many cases, holding a religious view in opposition of the predominant religious view in the area can result in the same. Here are the countries that still have blasphemy laws:

1) Afghanistan – Execution by hanging

2) Algeria – Incarceration

3) Australia – On the books but hasn’t been used since 1919

4) Bangladesh – Incarceration and possible hard labor

5) Brazil – Up to a year’s incarceration and/or a fine

6) Canada – Blasphemous libel is punishable by up to two year’s incarceration, although the law is not really in use

7) Denmark – Blasphemy law hasn’t been used since 1938 although it’s still on the books

8) Egypt - In Egypt, the law against blasphemy is one of the instruments which the government and the Sunni majority use to victimize Egypt's minorities. The most persecuted minorities are Shia, Sufi, Christians, Baha’i, and atheists. The persecution may involve surveillance, harassment, prolonged detention, mistreatment, and torture.

9) Finland – Can result in a fine or incarceration

10) Germany – Incarceration or a fine

11) Greece – Punishable by up to two year’s imprisonment

12) India – Blasphemy laws were rescinded in 1860 so that Christian missionaries could proselytize. They are back on the books now and are applied to any and every religious or non-religious group

13) Indonesia – Maximum 5 years imprisonment

14) Iran – Can result in torture and incarceration

15) Ireland – Maximum $25,000 fine

16) Israel – Up to 1 year imprisonment

17) Italy – Fine

18) Jordan – Up to 3 years imprisonment and a fine

19) Kuwait – Imprisonment and/or a fine

20) Malaysia – Up to 3 years in prison and a fine

21) Malta – Fine

22) Netherlands – Up to 3 months in jail and a maximum fine of $3800

23) New Zealand – Up to 3 years imprisonment, although the law hasn’t been used since 1922

24) Nigeria – Execution or imprisonment

25) Norway – Fine, although it hasn’t been used since 1912

26) Pakistan – Life imprisonment or execution

27) Poland - While Poland's penal code makes no reference to any sort of blasphemy law, it states that "Whoever offends religious feelings of other people by publicly insulting an object of religious cult or a place for public holding of religious ceremonies, is subject to a fine, restriction of liberty or loss of liberty for up to 2 years"

28) Saudi Arabia – Execution

29) Sudan – Imprisonment, fine and up to 40 lashes

30) United Arab Emirates – Unknown

40) United Kingdom – Fine but hasn’t been used since 1977

41) Yemen – Execution

It’s fair to note that blasphemy in non-Christian (majority) countries is often used to persecute other faith groups like Christians. However, the fact remains that while religion is given preferential, hands off treatment and as long as free speech and human rights is suppressed by the religious, blasphemy charges will continue to remain on the books in many countries around the world.

Blasphemy laws are the enemy of free thought and free speech.

Anti-Atheist Bigotry

Many religious people don’t want to face the fact that atheists face bigotry of all kinds. They are generally depicted as moral-less scoundrels. This perception is demonstrated and proven in studies as well as the popular media.

Here’s an example:

A new study by the University of Minnesota Department of Sociology has found that Americans perceive Atheists as the group least likely to embrace common values and a shared vision of society.

Worse yet, Atheists are identified as the cohort other Americans do not want to see their offspring marrying!

These are just some of the result from a forthcoming article slated for publication in the American Sociological Review by Penny Edgell, Joseph Gerties and Douglas Hartmann. The research is part of the American Mosaic Project which monitors attitudes of the population in respect to minority groups. AANEWS obtained an advanced copy of the study that was based on a telephone survey of more than 2,000 households.

Researchers concluded: "Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in 'sharing their vision of American society.' Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry."

Disturbingly, Atheists are "seen as a threat to the American way of life by a large portion of the American public," despite being only 3% of the U.S. population according to Dr. Edgell, associate sociology professor and the lead researcher in the project.

Edgell said that Atheists "play the role that Catholics, Jews and communists have played in the past" in that we provide "a symbolic moral boundary to membership in American society."

 

And if that wasn’t enough evidence for you, here’s some more:

 

Americans find atheists a particularly repugnant minority. According to Gallup, they are more disliked than any other major religious group, with the exception of Scientologists.

Research by Gallup also indicates the majority of Americans would not vote for a well-qualified atheistic presidential candidate. Even a gay candidate, the data suggest, would face less formidable discrimination.

But what is it about atheists that make the American public revile them so intensely?

To illustrate anecdotally, in 2007, a Sunday-school teacher asked a class of fifth and sixth graders to draw a Christian and a non-Christian. One student drew his Christian as a cheerful-looking man holding a cross and declaring, “I LOVE GOD!!”

His non-Christian was unkempt, tattooed, covered in piercings, holding a bottle of “drugs” in one hand and displaying angry eyebrows. His speech balloon read, “Cussing! God isn’t real!”

This is, to my observation, actually a pretty accurate depiction of the popularly perceived dichotomy between theistic and atheistic character. The atheist is beheld as a hopeless individual roaming a world which, devoid of gods, is without purpose or potential for the morality that would ward him away from swilling down bottles of “drugs.”

The prevalence of this sort of stereotyping, particularly in highly conservative areas like Oklahoma, is unfortunate.

These aren’t out of sight out of mind instances. These studies and polls show a consistent, widespread bigoted attitude towards atheists similar to what homosexuals (sadly another minority that is often targeted by the religious) and criminals. This attitude is not just prevalent in America, but presents itself all over the world.

Political Interference

Religion is often used to politically denigrate and marginalize atheists and other freethinkers. This has happened throughout humanities existence and continues to happen worldwide. Even the rise of Nazi Germany saw atheists targeted:

In Germany during the Nazi era, a 1933 decree stated that "No National Socialist may suffer detriment... on the ground that he does not make any religious profession at all".[13] However, the regime strongly opposed "godless communism",[14][15] and most of Germany's atheist and largely left-wing freethought organizations were banned the same year; some right-wing groups were tolerated by the Nazis until the mid 1930s.[16][17]During negotiations leading to the Nazi-Vatican Concordat of April 26, 1933 Hitler stated that "Secular schools can never be tolerated" because of their irreligious tendencies.[18] In a speech made later in 1933, Hitler claimed to have "stamped [atheism] out".[13] The actual word Hitler used was "Gottlosenbewegung" which refers specifically to the communist freethought movement, not atheism in general.

Today, you can find many American news stories about Religious Political Leaders who wish to have their brand of religious morality shoved down the throat of every citizen. It’s not hidden. This sort of discrimination doesn’t live in the shadows, as many atheists, women, Pagans, agnostics, humanists and homosexuals (to name a few) can attest too.

A fair number of Christians believe that you need religion to have any type of morality. Some believe that atheists are value-less and live only to sin and cavort in any manner that will please us. This isn’t true but it’s a myth that continues to persist because some wish to demonize the atheist and brand them as sub-human and not worthy of serious consideration.

Some claim that atheists are too loud and disrespectful. Granted, there are some that cross the line between challenging belief systems they perhaps see as dangerous and being a complete douche bag. However, that number doesn’t make up the majority nor does it mean that their concerns are any less valid because of their ‘noisiness’.

It’s time that Christians stop playing the victim card. For hundreds of years, Christians have sent out missionaries, put up billboards, used televangelists, knocked on doors, used politics, demonized non-believers, built palaces called churches and enjoyed a largely unchallenged,  privileged status in North American society and still do. Around the world, religious ideas also share many of those traits and in greater degree than North American society.

Let’s not pretend otherwise. Christians aren’t victims in North America. In many cases, they’re the aggressors.

There are Christians who are kind hearted and loving. There are atheists who also embody those traits. There are also douche bags on either side. But let’s not pretend that atheists somehow hold the upper hand while Christianity as a whole is cringing beneath the power of the 2% (or so) who claim they’re atheists.

It’s not true.

So, why do I defend Atheists?  

  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Grisham's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: Atheism Debates, Skeptic Vine, Theocratic Life
  • Regions: none
  • Public Discussion (116)
Grisham

Just a few of the reasons, among many that I could use.

CoH will be enforced. I hope you enjoyed the article and I welcome any comments you might make. As always, thanks for reading my thoughts.

  • 19 votes
#1 - Sun Feb 12, 2012 10:31 PM EST
Silvaria

But let's not pretend that atheists somehow hold the upper hand while Christianity as a whole is cringing beneath the power of the 2% (or so) who claim they're atheists.

I once engaged in an online debate with a Christian who claimed that atheists alone were destroying the country.

I pointed out the same thing you said here, that atheists are truly a tiny minority. If they alone are managing to undermine the mass majority who are Christians, what did that say about the strength of the faith of the Christians themselves?

Not much, to be blunt.

  • 24 votes
#1.1 - Sun Feb 12, 2012 11:21 PM EST
Grisham

Agreed, Silvaria. The victim card is used to whip up the moderate religious into a frenzy so that they can squash opposition. To think that 2%-3% of the population is somehow going to destroy the country is ridiculous. Besides, if someone can't defend their own opinions, how strong is the foundation? If you have to incarcerate or execute people who disagree with you, your position can't be very strong.

  • 16 votes
#1.2 - Sun Feb 12, 2012 11:37 PM EST
DarwinWasRight

You da man Grisham! :)

I'm so tired of the faux Christian persecution complex!

What do they have to put up with? Perhaps someone pointing out that the tenets of their religion can at times be irrational or perhaps even immoral. BFD... boo-hoo... cry me a river!

The problem is that Christians take their faith so personally that they perceive the advancement of any notion that their faith is not valid as a person attack.

As you so aptly pointed out Grish, atheist every day face a much more real threat. For all practical purposes we have been denied any participation in government as an elected official. Even though they are unconstitutional, some states even have laws on the books prohibiting atheist from hold public office.

A former president, George H. W. Bush, even went so far as to claim that atheists are not really Americans. Could you imagine the outrage among Christians if a president claims if you are Christian you're not really an American?? The outcry would be nuclear in scale!!!

Only recently, we had a young lady that had the "unmitigated gall" to exercise her Constitutional right to have a prayer that had been posted in her school removed. For this, she was forced to endure countless death/rape threats from the "benevolent" Christian populace.

I, for one, can't remember the last time I saw a death threat from an atheist directed toward a young Christian girl... can you?

  • 16 votes
#1.3 - Sun Feb 12, 2012 11:59 PM EST
Grisham

Only recently, we had a young lady that had the "unmitigated gall" to exercise her Constitutional right to have a prayer that had been posted in her school removed. For this, she was forced to endure countless death/rape threats from the "benevolent" Christian populace.

I, for one, can't remember the last time I saw a death threat from an atheist directed toward a young Christian girl... can you?

Yeah, I wrote about that story. It's still going on. She's had to endure many, many threats and even the mayor of her city called her an 'evil little thing'.

Imagine calling a 16 year old girl 'evil' for upholding the law. We usually use words like that for people like Hitler or Stalin.

On the flip side, another story I wrote about was an atheist teen who went on Reddit about a book her mother had bought her for Christmas. She also endured rape threats on the atheist sub-group. Obviously, that doesn't mean that they were all atheists saying those disgusting things to a teenage girl, but we need to draw attention and call out things like that in the atheist community as well.

A former president, George H. W. Bush, even went so far as to claim that atheists are not really Americans. Could you imagine the outrage among Christians if a president claims if you are Christian you're not really an American?? The outcry would be nuclear in scale!!!

Good point. It shows the culture of privilege that Christians enjoy.

Thanks for your comment, DWR.

  • 14 votes
#1.4 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:13 AM EST
DarwinWasRight

She also endured rape threats on the atheist sub-group.

Yes I saw that article as well, and if I recall correctly, the comments that were in that blog concerning this girl were merely lewd in nature... not threatening. I may have missed a comment or two; however, the overall tenor of the thread was sort of... I'd hit that... or I'd like to do her. Lewd, crude and completely inappropriate, to be sure... more like something someone would see written on that walls of a bathroom stall; however, not really threatening to the extent that she would have reason to believe her life was being threatened. However, in any case, it was not coming from an atheist and directed at a Christian because of their beliefs or the exercise thereof.

  • 5 votes
#1.5 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:28 AM EST
Grisham

I agree, Darwin. If I remember correctly, the FBI was looking into a few of the comments because they said something along the lines going across the border and grabbing her because it wouldn't be considered rape, just an adoption or something like that. Totally paraphrased of course and you’re right that it wasn’t about her belief set.

Blasphemy laws are an affront to human dignity and freedom.

  • 7 votes
#1.6 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:39 AM EST
Silvaria

If you have to incarcerate or execute people who disagree with you, your position can't be very strong.

That's an interesting point...why DO so many Christians (no, not all of course) feel the need to squash any and all opposition, if their faith is so strong?

  • 10 votes
#1.7 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:41 AM EST
Grisham

why DO so many Christians (no, not all of course) feel the need to squash any and all opposition, if their faith is so strong?

This is just a guess, but I think it's because they are emotionally invested. Many have spent their entire lives believing in it. They also have time invested etc. It's a shaky premise and I bet many believers aren't as sure about their ideas as they outwardly show. Lack of confidence usually leads to more anger towards dissenting opinions.

  • 12 votes
#1.8 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 1:01 AM EST
JackOL-1666973

Grisham -

I agree with your previous post. I have seen seeds and posts by certain Christians which seem to underline their insecurity and their need to push their religion onto others. Only then will they feel safe and secure.

  • 10 votes
#1.9 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 1:07 AM EST
JackOL-1666973

She's had to endure many, many threats and even the mayor of her city called her an 'evil little thing'.

Sadly, there is nothing like a Christian soldier. Sigh.

  • 10 votes
#1.10 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 1:09 AM EST
Silvaria

I bet many believers aren't as sure about their ideas as they outwardly show. Lack of confidence usually leads to more anger towards dissenting opinions.

Agreed completely. What I find the most disturbing, though, is that even our discussing this is viewed by so many as being "hostile" to Christianity, or even "Christian bashing".

As an atheist, the ONLY time I consider someone to be bashing atheists is when they say things like atheists have no morals, which is definitely insulting.

In any case, yet another good article, Grisham. You're one of my favorite posters here. 8)

  • 10 votes
#1.11 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 1:31 AM EST
cowboygrandpa

Grisham:

I see no need to defend either belief. Sadly, many people force confrontations through their lack of love and understanding.

I myself usually try to rise above people who wish to say that athiests, or religious believers are the reason for the problems. As I realize that individuals are still the ones making the decisions, I try to approach it on an individual basis.

Now I will admit that I have problems with the RCC. Because they are so vocal, and their actions are so evil, while they try to claim higher moral ground, they hide their evil within them and allow it to continue.

I find that to be more dangerous than any athiest saying they don't believe. Because the RCC is saying they do believe but that their ways are unquestionably the way of God.

I say their way is unquestionably the way of satan, who tries to appear as a beacon of light, but is actually a black hole of evil denying the love of people.

Good article Grisham.

  • 8 votes
#1.12 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 2:08 AM EST
Grisham

Silvaria: Thank you very much. That means a lot to me coming from such a great Viner as you.

CG: You know I'm with you on the RCC for the most part. :) Great comment and thanks for visiting my little corner of the Vine.

  • 6 votes
#1.13 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 2:46 AM EST
Zydor

I myself usually try to rise above people who wish to say that athiests, or religious believers are the reason for the problems. As I realize that individuals are still the ones making the decisions, I try to approach it on an individual basis.

Gets my vote .... individual behaviour and ego based motivations cause excessive personal attitudes and excessive personal behaviours, the latter two being the principle reason the Puritans got the heave ho in the 17th Century in the UK .... Puritan Movements fermenting a civil war was the last straw!

We are all kinda more civilised these days all round thank goodness, but those 17th Century activities are the reason why christian faiths in all their vast flavours are so prevelant in the US, more a parent to family traditional hand-me-down than anything else.

However, whatever anyone's history, beliefs or background, all people have to do is be decent human beings ..... its not rocket science :)

  • 8 votes
#1.14 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 4:54 AM EST
Wandered

Silvaria asks:

why DO so many Christians (no, not all of course) feel the need to squash any and all opposition, if their faith is so strong?

It's much easier to hold a belief when everyone around you takes it as given.

Even if they are very confident in their own beliefs, they want to 'protect' those who might not be. It's easier to indoctrinate children and others who might have doubts when you don't have to worry about other viewpoints coming around to muck it up. Many of us former believers never gave it a second thought until we were exposed to other ideas. If my own experience is any indication, their fears are well founded.

Almost by definition, many tenets of faith simply do not stand to reason. That's why they require faith in the first place.

  • 8 votes
#1.15 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 9:35 AM EST
bonos_rama

It's time that Christians stop playing the victim card. For hundreds of years, Christians have sent out missionaries, put up billboards, used televangelists, knocked on doors, used politics, demonized non-believers, built palaces called churches and enjoyed a largely unchallenged, privileged status in North American society and still do. Around the world, religious ideas also share many of those traits and in greater degree than North American society.

Let's not pretend otherwise. Christians aren't victims in North America. In many cases, they're the aggressors.

I just had to retype that, Grisham. The entire article is amazingly spot on and well-written. But that's my favorite part.

As for the polls you cited, showing how little regard Christians have for atheists, and how low they place them on the totem poll, it's interesting to me, b/c I wrote an article that asked peole if they would rather live next door to an atheist that had never been in trouble with the law or a known child molester or murder that also happened to be Christian. most of them acted enraged at the question, but your polls show that many of them think along those lines - that there is nothing worse or more immoral than an atheist. Maybe they don't like being faced with their own prejudices.

  • 7 votes
#1.16 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 9:53 AM EST
Shuklack

Just the other day I found some hate literature in the bathroom stalls where I was working, just so happened to be a government facility.

It was one of those little comics, the guy in it was an atheist and portrayed as completely rude and nasty (and all his arguments were total strawmen of course)- also several lines about anti-evolution - he then dies in a horrific and rather graphic accident and his last words are "I'm burning"... the rest of the comic portrays him being tortured in hell.

I can't report this to anyone because it was probably someone in management who put it in there, and even if it wasn't one of them I get the feeling that it would be a poor choice to come out as an atheist among my coworkers and risk being looked down on and having their bigotry taint their view of me as an employee.

  • 10 votes
#1.17 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 10:03 AM EST
bonos_rama

You should have crapped on it and left it there.

:)

  • 7 votes
#1.18 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 10:51 AM EST
Night Hawk

Grisham

Great and well written article.

When asked I state I am Episcopalian ( don't like being lumped in with all the cogitations that come with saying I am a Christian) I have a hard time dealing with people that go to church and when they walk in take off their civilian robe and put on their religious one, pound themselves on the chest say a few prayers confess their sins ( ?) and then on the way out put the civilian robe back on and go right out and do the same things that they did before. Mind you I am not saying they are all the same, just saying. Being an Episcopalian doesn't mean that I follow all the doctrine of my church nor do I find the need to go every Sunday,nor do I find the need to preach to people about what and why I may believe in something. By the same token I find no fault what so ever in people that don't believe in religion or god or any of the other doctrines. Believe in or not in a god or great creator of everything is irrelevant to me. I look to the goodness in each person regardless. I believe in evolution and the bible for me is a history of a nation (old testament) and of a good hearted person with very good teachings as to how to live life, Particularly,do unto others as you would like others to do unto to you ,or words to that effect( new testament). I don't believe you have to be a religious believer to live that way. I try to live my life this way, as many non believers that I know also do.

Me? I don't care what a candidate may or may not believe in, I try to pick the best one I am capable of. I believe that my religious beliefs are just that personal, not to be thrown or preach at others, just like I don't really like people talking to me about their faith, because I have my own . I would rather talk with a person like you about worldly things then talk with a religious person that has a closed mind. anyway great article ! Thank you.

  • 6 votes
#1.19 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 11:46 AM EST
C. Y.

I look to the goodness in each person regardless. I believe in evolution and the bible for me is a history of a nation (old testament) and of a good hearted person with very good teachings as to how to live life, Particularly,do unto others as you would like others to do unto to you ,or words to that effect( new testament). I don't believe you have to be a religious believer to live that way. I try to live my life this way, as many non believers that I know also do.

Well said.

Whenever I find people who shun atheists, I have to wonder what they are truly afraid of, especially if they knew and liked the person before finding out they were an atheist. Declaring oneself an atheist doesn't change a person who has always been an atheist. All I can think is that those who shun them are afraid that they're wrong.

I don't care what religious belief (or non-belief) a person has. I care that they try to be a good person and treat others with respect and integrity. To me, religion/spirituality is a personal matter and no one else's business as long as the person in question isn't hurting other people.

  • 7 votes
#1.20 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 11:55 AM EST
stoney-1938546

cowboygrandpa 1.12 wrote; "I see no need to defend either belief."

Atheism isn't a belief. Its a lack of belief in god(s)/goddess(es). The only difference between a theist and an atheist is the theist's deity[ies] are among those not believed in.

Religion can be a beautiful thing. Too bad its main use is as a weapon. Christians (in the main in the US) consider that to be 'Christian Love'. When your religion is more important than people it opens the door for all sorts of atrocities. Diversity makes a country strong and vibrant. [Un]common courtesy makes a country humane.

  • 8 votes
#1.21 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:28 PM EST
Silvaria

even if it wasn't one of them I get the feeling that it would be a poor choice to come out as an atheist among my coworkers and risk being looked down on and having their bigotry taint their view of me as an employee.

THIS is exactly why atheists do need defending in this country. How often does a Christian fear "coming out" to their fellow employees compared to how often an atheist does?

  • 8 votes
#1.22 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:35 PM EST
Shuklack

You should have crapped on it and left it there.

I replaced it with a little note reminding whomever put it there to do their annual Freedom of Religion training via the web portal. lol

  • 6 votes
#1.23 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:56 PM EST
Grisham

HIS is exactly why atheists do need defending in this country. How often does a Christian fear "coming out" to their fellow employees compared to how often an atheist does?

The only two groups I can think of that have the term 'coming out' is atheists and homosexuals. Both persecuted by religion. You don't come out as a Christian or a heterosexual.

Shuk, I hope you're able to 'come out' in the near future. It's too bad the bigotry is so great that you have to hide your thought and feelings.

  • 8 votes
#1.24 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 4:36 PM EST
Reply
Moby's ManCave

Holy cow… that list is amazing, and depressing. Why on earth some feel they must punish someone for blasphemy is beyond reason… it must be insanity.

  • 13 votes
Reply#2 - Sun Feb 12, 2012 11:21 PM EST
Grisham

Many blasphemy laws in the ME that result in death penalties are extended to include criticizing the State. The two (political and religious) are intertwined to become one. And yes, it's very depressing.

  • 10 votes
#2.1 - Sun Feb 12, 2012 11:33 PM EST
Reply
imsovain

Why I defend every group...Because we are all tied together,intrinsically.That is to say,someone else's freedom cannot be denied without simultaneously diminishing my own.This is not poetic claptrap,it is unavoidable fact,cold and hard."Therefore,send not for whom the bell tolls.It tolls for thee."

  • 6 votes
Reply#3 - Sun Feb 12, 2012 11:35 PM EST
Grisham

Agreed. I would stand up for the rights of the religious to hold their beliefs and spread their message as well. In fact, what many Christians seem to miss is that atheist (read Secular groups) groups fighting for the separation of church and state are also fighting for them. There is no guarantee that Christianity will remain the dominant religion. Imagine if the new religion (or non-religion) treated the now majority Christian population as they treat other minority groups.

  • 8 votes
#3.1 - Sun Feb 12, 2012 11:39 PM EST
MoCowgirl-1193719

Agreed, imsovain and Grisham.

Another outstanding, thought provoking article, Grisham.

  • 6 votes
#3.2 - Sun Feb 12, 2012 11:47 PM EST
Grisham

Thanks, Mo for the kind compliment.

  • 4 votes
#3.3 - Sun Feb 12, 2012 11:58 PM EST
G StevG

Hey Gris, I see you are still always on the fence post :-), I,m with you, religion or not is a choice we have as citizens of this country, to deny those rights either way is not what this country is all about, blasphemy are one group telling another what they can or can not say by their convictions that you may or may not hold so you in their eyes, are second class citizens not worthy of your own feelings, screw them.....



  • 6 votes
#3.4 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 9:17 AM EST
Reply
lost in America-3937007

I certainly have to agree, atheists are persecuted. And actually, Christians should expect persecution but we should never persecute others. Voted up.

  • 5 votes
Reply#4 - Sun Feb 12, 2012 11:45 PM EST
Grisham

And actually, Christians should expect persecution but we should never persecute others.

Ideally, neither would be persecuted but would be free to exchange and promote their seperate ideas and worldviews. Thanks for the vote, Lost. :)

  • 7 votes
#4.1 - Sun Feb 12, 2012 11:59 PM EST
Reply
BD Styers

There are also douche bags on either side.

Step aside douche! Make way for Droppa da Deuce bag!

Love your work, Grisham, but I'm not all that big on numbers, like the 'blasphemy law' part. Frankly I don't see the point. Seems to me that's an issue for separation of church and state.

  • 2 votes
Reply#5 - Sun Feb 12, 2012 11:51 PM EST
Grisham

but I'm not all that big on numbers, like the 'blasphemy law' part. Frankly I don't see the point. Seems to me that's an issue for separation of church and state.

I think the point is that when some Christians call us ignorant and hateful because we oppose their religious views and pretend that they're persecuted, the blasphemy charges bit shows what real persecution is and usually, it's not being done at the hands of the atheist. That certainly doesn't mean that all religious people are in favor of instituting blasphemy laws, but I've met some who do endorse them on religious principles. I've even had comments on my articles by religious Viners who say they would be in favor of blasphemy laws.

Love your work, Grisham

Thanks, man. I appreciate it.

  • 7 votes
#5.1 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:07 AM EST
ryoushi12

BD, the ONLY reason some of those laws, particularly in western "christian" states, are in abeyance, is because of the SECULARIZATION of the state, and the defanging of christians.

With in the last TWO HUNDRED YEARS, people were still put to DEATH in christian countries for blasphemy, and with in the last 70 years or later, as grisham notes, people were still CONVICTED of blasphemy.

And, the muslim countries provide the PERFECT example of what could happen, TODAY, if reactionaries like santorum achieved ANY sort of REAL power in a western country - thumbscrews, the rack, the stake.

  • 6 votes
#5.2 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 8:06 AM EST
BD Styers

I'm thinking 'Salem Witch Trials'.

  • 5 votes
#5.3 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 8:14 AM EST
Hecate's Daughter

BD See, this is what I mean about "scary" as a Wiccan eyewitness. When I brought that up on the other article, I was told "Why bring up something from 400 years ago?". I said something about that quote...forgetting, condemned, repeat, you know...
Let me tell you, it's much safer over here.
:) HD

  • 7 votes
#5.4 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 8:25 AM EST
Brite

Here's the thing about the Witch Trials -

  1. Blasphemy had nothing to do with them.
  2. Greed, boredom and repression within the society of the time were the main causes.
  3. Empirical evidence was allowed... until the girls started accusing the Governor's wife...

Blasphemy is a catch all charge. And covers a multitude of (if you will pardon the expression) sins. The Witch Trials of Salem were about rooting out witches and not about blasphemy. You can save a blasphemer, you can't save a witch.

Witches were hung, because they were already condemned to hell. A blasphemer was burned, because fire was the great purifier, and a blasphemer could recant his blasphemy and return to the Church and to God.

Huge differences.

My biggest problems with either side is being told that I stupid or wrong for believing as I do. I am neither. I just don't believe as you do. :)

  • 7 votes
#5.5 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 1:00 PM EST
Hecate's Daughter

I hear you, Brite. But on that other article, it was pointless. My response was more directed at BD Styers, and his article, which is really good. I wasn't going to go into all the detail; I figure most people are at least somewhat familiar with Miller's "The Crucible". Check out Styers' article. It's a satire; you might need to read the piece that inspired Grish to write this, tho. It's called "Why I Defend Christians" by Socrates1.
Styers' is "Polka14's Militia Called In" or something like that...just go to Styers' page.
I'd link but I'm in the middle of something...
Blessed Be! HD

  • 7 votes
#5.6 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 1:21 PM EST
C. Y.

The Witch Trials of Salem were about rooting out witches and not about blasphemy.

I read an interesting article once that theorized that there may have been a bad batch of rye around that time that when ingested created hallucinations, which may have contributed to some of the accusations of witchcraft. I had a copy of the print article somewhere. I wonder if I still have it. There is a tidbit about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergotism.

  • 3 votes
#5.7 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 2:47 PM EST
BD Styers

Brite

I get that too, but there's the third choice from the 'multiple choice condemnation test':

  1. Ignorant
  2. Stupid
  3. Wrong

You might guess they'd include 4. all the above, but no, they're not that creative. It's mostly either/or.

Sidenote: I mentioned Salem in response to persecution.

Oh, also C.Y. the ergot -- good link!

I also find that spreading misery is often easier than sharing joy. I'm mostly pretty happy, and it is contagious, but the misery index is very high, and they like company.

  • 2 votes
#5.8 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 4:25 PM EST
Brite

The ergot poisoning is probably true, up to a point. The girls responsible for the hysteria weren't necissarily eating rye bread, though. They weren't in that economic tier.

BUT... what I was getting at is that there was charges of blasphemy at Salem. That's a spearate charge, and one that the Church deals with, while the charge of witchcraft is often a civil charge.

  • 5 votes
#5.9 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 4:37 PM EST
Reply
Polka14

This is an impressive opinion piece. Very well written in my own opinion. Christians have always held a privileged status in the US and in many other nations so the notion that they are "oppressed" in any way is a pathetic attempt to gain attention and to motivate Christians to oppose secularism. The politicians that pander to the Christian populations see the need to oppose secularism to protect their standing with the right wing. The opposition of secularism is a form of ignorance and it will lead to oppression against all non-Christians. And to see the types of "blasphemy" laws in place in so many nations is very unfortunate. No nation can be free with restrictions on its people's natural right of free speech. The same applies to the US too. We must be vigilant against those groups that would see that our freedom of speech is undermined.

  • 10 votes
Reply#6 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:29 AM EST
MoCowgirl-1193719

The opposition of secularism is a form of ignorance and it will lead to oppression against all non-Christians.

It will eventually lead to oppression of "Christians" of the wrong flavor, also. The approximately 38,000 Christian denominations fight among themselves on who is a real Christian and who is a cult. Eventually, it would come down to a winner take situation if there was not a secular government in place that maintained the separation of church and state.

Check out the link below and see just how many different denominations exist in the Catholic Church alone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

Some groups included do not consider themselves a denomination (e.g., the Catholic Church considers itself the one true Church, and as pre-denominational). Regarding the use of the word "church," the Catholic Church does not consider any groups or denominations to be true "churches" unless they have maintained apostolic succession and observe the seven sacraments (by this definition, the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, and a few other churches (PNCC, some Old Catholics, etc.) are, for the most part, the only other Christian groupings considered by the Catholic Church to be true "churches").[1]

Some groups are large (e.g. Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans or Baptists), while others are just a few small churches, and in most cases the relative size is not evident in this list. Also, modern movements such as Fundamentalist Christianity, Pietism, Evangelicalism, Pentecostalism and the Holiness movement sometimes cross denominational lines, or in some cases create new denominations out of two or more continuing groups, (as is the case for many United and uniting churches, for example). Such subtleties and complexities are not clearly depicted here. Additionally, some groups viewed by non-adherents as denominational actively resist being called a "denomination" and do not have any formal denominational structure, authority, or record-keeping beyond the local congregation; several groups within Restoration Movement fall into this category.

Note: This is not a complete list, but aims to provide a comprehensible overview of the diversity among denominations of Christianity. As there are reported to be approximately 38,000 Christian denominations,[2] many of which cannot be verified to be significant, only those denominations with Wikipedia articles will be listed in order to ensure that all entries on this list are notable and verifiable.
Note: Between denominations, theologians, and comparative religionists there are considerable disagreements about which groups can be properly called Christian, disagreements arising primarily from doctrinal differences between groups. For the purpose of simplicity, this list is intended to reflect the self-understanding of each denomination. Explanations of different opinions concerning their status as Christian denominations can be found at their respective articles.
Note: There is no official recognition in most parts of the world for religious bodies, and there is no official clearinghouse which could determine the status or respectability of religious bodies. Often there is considerable disagreement between various churches about whether other churches should be labeled with pejorative terms such as "cult", or about whether this or that group enjoys some measure of respectability. Such considerations often vary from place to place, where one religious group may enjoy majority status in one region, but be widely regarded as a "dangerous cult" in another part of the world. Inclusion on this list does not indicate any judgment about the size, importance, or character of a group or its members.
  • 6 votes
#6.1 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 1:00 AM EST
Grisham

And to see the types of "blasphemy" laws in place in so many nations is very unfortunate. No nation can be free with restrictions on its people's natural right of free speech. The same applies to the US too. We must be vigilant against those groups that would see that our freedom of speech is undermined.

I completely agree. It's abhorrent that in the 21st century, blasphemy laws still exist in a good chunk of the world.

Thanks for dropping by, Polka. I'm happy you enjoyed the article and thanks for the kind comment.

  • 6 votes
#6.2 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:24 AM EST
PeaceBlessing

Hi Grisham,

It's abhorrent that in the 21st century, blasphemy laws still exist in a good chunk of the world.

I agree Grisham, simply because it is not what has been instructed to do based on what is written in the Holy Bible:

Matthew 12:31-32

12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost (Spirit) shall not be forgiven unto men.

12:32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost (Spirit), it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

This clearly tells those who believe in God that people, regardless of belief, can say whatever they like/think/believe in this period of time up to the point of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. When one studies God's written word, one learns that there is only one specific time that this can occur, and that time is not yet, but we are in that period of time's generation which began in 1948 when Israel became a Nation again. Keeping in mind that there are three specific generations spoken of in God's written word...40 yrs., 70 yrs., 120 yrs.

One can easily do the math to determine where we are now using the year 1948 as a starting point, but another key is understanding what has to occur first before blasphemy against the Holy Spirit can occur, and that is what hasn't happen as of yet and without the one, you cannot commit the other? Also, what many do not understand is that if it does occur it will be committed by one who claims belief in God, and that my friend Grisham, rules you out.

Grisham, I understand why you feel the need to defend that which you believe, however, I also understand why some also feel the need to defend that which they believe, it's just human nature, wrong or right, it is what humans do. However, I agree with you, there is no real need in this period of time for blasphemy laws according to what is written. Blasphemy "laws" are not God's instructions, they are man's.

  • 4 votes
#6.3 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 1:27 PM EST
Grisham

Grisham, I understand why you feel the need to defend that which you believe, however, I also understand why some also feel the need to defend that which they believe, it's just human nature, wrong or right, it is what humans do.

Agreed. This article was a response to another one. I have no problem with people criticizing atheists. I do it myself sometimes. The key is to do it fairly and actually listen to the responses. If I write about or criticize religion or atheism, I try to explain my position, provide proof of my position and listen to the responses.

Thanks very much for stopping in, Peace. :)

  • 3 votes
#6.4 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 4:30 PM EST
BD Styers

some also feel the need to defend that which they believe, it's just human nature, wrong or right, it is what humans do.

At risk of being out of line, since I see you address Grisham directly, and I am not defending anyone, I just have a question or maybe a rhetorical question.

Defend against what? Often I'm seeing more aggressive behavior disguised as defense when no attack was initiated. Seems like it's also human nature to attack what we don't understand. Change that and erase the need for the defense. Seems we're our own worst enemy.

  • 2 votes
#6.5 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 4:30 PM EST
Reply
tweetheart44

Everyone in the world has a right to believe or to NOT believe in God. I don't know any Christians that haven't had their own doubts about Jesus and God. I have nothing against atheists. I find their views to be interesting. I don't know why someone would be condemned for having their own views and logic for not believing. Let's face it. No one has seen God. If there is a God, why does he let people, especially children, die horrible deaths? Why doesn't he protect us all? If there is a God, why does he allow us to worry about dying while we are here on Earth? These are just a few of the questions I have about Christianity. Other religions have some pretty unusual views as well.

  • 7 votes
Reply#7 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 1:54 AM EST
Grisham

Those are good questions, tweet. I hope you continue to persue the answers.

  • 7 votes
#7.1 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 2:42 AM EST
tweetheart44

The sad thing is that no one really knows until they die.

  • 1 vote
#7.2 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 12:22 PM EST
DarwinWasRight

The sad thing is that no one really knows until they die.

Only IF there's an afterlife... otherwise, not so much... ;)

  • 3 votes
#7.3 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 1:51 PM EST
Reply
CL1

I don't know, Grish, I think the Atheists have Blasphemy pretty well under control with UN support:

Civil society activists now have the final legal authority of the United Nations on their side as they press governments to come into compliance with their treaty obligations and bring an end to the criminalization of blasphemy.

  • 4 votes
Reply#8 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 2:05 AM EST
Grisham

IMO the UN is one of the most ineffectual organizations on the planet. I doubt they'll be able to do anything about blasphemy. Countries will just ignore any edict they make.

Thanks for stopping in, CL. It's nice to see you.

  • 8 votes
#8.1 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 2:40 AM EST
CL1

Hi Grisham, I know what you mean, but we have seen cases where International Law supersedes many state laws in the US.

I think they might be more effective than we sometimes realize. I believe they will gain momentum, despite being atleast 50% Muslim in representation.

(as an aside, I'm not a fan of the UN due to the influence that David Rockefeller has on them, but then that just emphasizes my point on how powerful the organization can be.

Nice to you, as well. :)

  • 4 votes
#8.2 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 2:47 AM EST
CL1

According to paragraph 48, “Prohibitions of displays of lack of respect for a religion or other belief system, including blasphemy laws, are incompatible with the Covenant, except in the specific circumstances envisaged in article 20, paragraph 2, of the Covenant.” Article 20, paragraph 2 calls on states to prohibit “advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence.” The Comment is careful to require that any restrictions must not violate the Conventions’ guarantees of equality before the law (Article 26) and freedom of thought, conscience, and religion (Article 18).

  • 4 votes
#8.3 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 2:51 AM EST
Grisham

I hope you're right and the UN resolution actually works. Somehow, I doubt it. When you can be executed for making a cartoon about Muhammad and/or Jesus that isn’t flattering, you know you have some zealots on your hands. Those zealots are the ones who hold the reins of power in those countries. I hardly think a resolution will stop them from putting other faith groups or atheists to death. They're about to put an atheist in jail for 5 years in Indonesia, for example, because he wrote on his FB page that God didn't exist. He was hunted down by a mob and beaten. He went to the police station for help and was arrested for blasphemy. Clerics are calling for him to be beheaded and no one was arrested for beating him within an inch of his life.

Yet, atheists are somehow the evil people because some loudly challenge theistic beliefs. Go figure.

  • 9 votes
#8.4 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 3:01 AM EST
CL1

Incredible they get away with such atrocities! This new mandate is punishable in 165 member states, but I don't know to which countries they pertain, but according to the report, it's now a much bigger deal than the previous four paragraphs that had addressed the situation:

Unlike the highly-publicized resolutions produced by the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly, the provisions of the ICCPR are legally binding to its more than 165 parties.

The detailed 52-paragraph statement, General Comment No. 34, is the outcome of two years of intense debate among representatives of governments and civil society organizations. The Committee’s previous comment on freedom of opinion and expression, in 1983, was only four paragraphs long. In addition to taking up such matters as treason, defamation of heads of state, “memory laws” enforcing an official version of history, and the rights of bloggers, Comment 34 comes down strongly against religious limitations on speech. It does so not only by asserting that the right to free speech is foundational to a free and democratic society as well as to the protection and promotion of other rights. It also appeals explicitly to the values of freedom of conscience and equality before the law.

  • 2 votes
#8.5 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 4:24 AM EST
Grisham

I like it. I hope it works. I love the last part. It rings very true.

It also appeals explicitly to the values of freedom of conscience and equality before the law.

Love it! Thanks for putting in work and producing this great information, CL. Kudos to you and thank you.

  • 3 votes
#8.6 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 5:01 AM EST
Hecate's Daughter

Grisham, doesn't freedom of religion = freedom from religion? I always assumed it did...
??? HD

  • 3 votes
#8.7 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 5:04 AM EST
CL1

No...it doesn't, HD.

  • 2 votes
#8.8 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 5:06 AM EST
Grisham

I think the two go hand in hand, yes. Although, some from both sides take it too far sometimes. I believe in a secular country and don't want government endorsed religion. However, I also support peoples rights to believe what they want and be able to endorse their own views. I would no more like to be charged for blasphemy than see a religious person be charged for speaking their minds about religious ideas. I don't expect never to run into religion, see a religious sign etc.

Does that make sense?

  • 7 votes
#8.9 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 5:08 AM EST
Hecate's Daughter

Yeah, I agree. Otherwise, what, we all have to believe? WTF? Hey, Check your email, okay?
HD

  • 3 votes
#8.10 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 5:19 AM EST
Grisham

Hey, Check your email, okay?

I sure will. I'm at work now for the next 1.5 hours and email is blocked through the company computer, but I'll check it as soon as I get home. :)

  • 3 votes
#8.11 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 5:23 AM EST
Hecate's Daughter

Vielen Dank, Grisham! (I work nights too. I've always kept a weird schedule)
:) HD

  • 3 votes
#8.12 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 5:34 AM EST
Reply
Hecate's Daughter

Quick question about Germany. Where did you find a blasphemy law? The German Constitution, Section 1, Article 4, states this:
[Freedom of faith and conscience]
(1) Freedom of faith and of conscience, and freedom to profess
a religious or philosophical creed, shall be inviolable.

Then this, also Section 1:
Article 7
[School system]
(1) The entire school system shall be under the supervision
of the state.
(2) Parents and guardians shall have the right to decide
whether children shall receive religious instruction.
(3) Religious instruction shall form part of the regular curriculum
in state schools, with the exception of non-denominational
schools. Without prejudice to the state's right of supervision,
religious instruction shall be given in accordance
with the tenets of the religious community concerned.
Teachers may not be obliged against their will to give
religious instruction.
(4) The right to establish private schools shall be guaranteed.
Private schools that serve as alternatives to state schools
shall require the approval of the state and shall be subject
to the laws of the Länder.

No specific religion is mentioned. And this was ratified May 8, 1949; made applicable to all of Germany at the time of reunification.

Then there's this:
FROM WIKI
According to organizational reportings based on projections in 2008 about 34.1% Germans have no registered religious denomination. According to a poll by Der Spiegel magazine, 45% believe in God, and just a quarter in Jesus Christ.[16]

And this:
FROM Source: Zuckerman, Phil. "Atheism: Contemporary Rates and Patterns", chapter in The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, ed. by Michael Martin, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK (2005).

Germany Population 82,425,000
% of People who claim no belief in a God 41%-49%

All of which pretty much matches what I have seen there. So I don't think they're enforcing too many blasphemy laws.

I like your article, tho. There's another one on the Vine titled "Why I Defend Christians" and as a Wiccan, some of the comments scare me. As long as I keep my beliefs to myself, (which we are pretty much required to do in Wicca) can I hang out with you guys? I feel so much safer with atheists. Ya know, I've had a few Xtians come up to me and ask me if I was "saved", tell me I'm "hell-bound", tell me their book says I'm "a tool of Satan(?)"...I've even had one or two tell me how much God loves me, as their eyes glowed with hatred. Atheists usually just stick with "Hello", or sometimes, "Hi". I like that so much better...
:) HD

  • 5 votes
Reply#9 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 2:22 AM EST
Grisham

You can hang with me anytime, HD. I really wish there was a Wiccan writer on the Vine. There are a few Pagan articles, but I'd love to learn more about them from their point of view.

In Germany, blasphemy is covered by Article 166 of the Strafgesetzbuch, the German criminal law. If a deed is capable of disturbing the public peace, blasphemy is actionable. In 2006, Manfred van H. (also known as "Mahavo") was prosecuted for blasphemy

Some countries have blasphemy laws on the books but don't enforce them. I'm glad you liked it. This article was sort of a response to the other one you mentioned. I knew that if I made a post there, it would just be misrepresented as more 'proof' that I'm a hateful, abominable atheist.

I figured this was a more appropriate response.

  • 5 votes
#9.1 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 2:35 AM EST
Grisham

Crap. Forgot the link: Blasphemy laws

  • 4 votes
#9.2 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 2:44 AM EST
Hecate's Daughter

O_o I understand about "disturbing the peace" but this goes way, way, way too far. I have had friends (and admittedly, family) in Germany tell me this all occurred because "there are too many Muslims", and das Länd is "giving in to", "catering to" (some other really nasty things I'm not gonna type) them, but this law...oh wow. This is just really, really bad.
What is wrong with people!?!
Can we find another planet? Soon???
AAAHHH!
HD

  • 5 votes
#9.3 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 3:04 AM EST
Hecate's Daughter

Oh, and there probably aren't that many Wiccan writers because
1. We are taught to keep our beliefs to ourselves and
2. We don't want to lose our jobs, have bricks thrown through our windows, have acquaintances who don't know we are Wiccan turn against us, be ridiculed...you know the drill.
Btw, I can't speak for all Pagan/Wiccan people, but you guys can marry my kids, be elected my President, hold positions on our school board, etc.
I do not understand why people think you must believe in a god to be moral. That basically says human beings are such garbage that if we didn't have the fear of a god punishing us, we'd act like a bunch of @!$%#s. W. T. F.
If a person needs "fear of god" to act morally, that person has a real problem, Imo.
HD

  • 5 votes
#9.4 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 3:18 AM EST
Grisham

I agree. IMO it's religions last gasp at relevancy. If they can propgate the myth that you need religion to be moral, then they can remain relevant. To do that, they need to demonize those of us who don't believe. Many of them do a good job at it.

I'm sorry you have to go through that because of your faith. Hopefully, in the near future, we can end that sort of bigotry.

btw: I respect and understand the keeping it to yourself thing. However, I can't help but feel (and this is why I write about religion and atheism) that it works to their benefit. It's easier to demonize a group that never talks about their faith or views. I try my best to oppose that by presenting our views. I think we need to add it to the social consciousness.

I sometimes think of it like feminism - in the past they were told to shutup and that they were second class citizens. In time, they've managed to raise social consciousness to the point that most of us no longer think or feel like that. If they had just shut up and went along with the social norms of the time, they'd still be second class citizens.

  • 4 votes
#9.5 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 3:29 AM EST
Reply
caballojoe

Thanks, Grisham, for sharing your thoughts in this article. It is well-reasoned and shows, once again, that controversy can be addressed with compassion for our fellow human beings and with open arms. The contrast between your article and the one entitled "Why I Defend Christians," is quite stark. That other article was basically a hate-fest with a disaffected point of view that generated feelings of disgust and outrage, while your article shows maturity and equanimity and provokes mostly thought instead of emotion. If it does gererate any emotion, it is a feeling of warmth and understanding and acceptance. You demonstrate that there is a right way to approach the subject of religious differences. If only all people claiming religious conviction were as highly moral and upright as you appear to be, we would see on the horizon an end to the persecution that's represented in all those blasphemy laws.

BTW, a couple years ago, there was a story about a comedienne that was facing a 5 year prison sentence in Italy for making a joke about the pope. I haven't researched it, but if that report was accurate and the law is still on the books, there is apparantly more than just a fine possible in Italy for some kinds of "blasphemy."

  • 6 votes
Reply#10 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:06 AM EST
Grisham

Thanks Joe. And thanks for speaking out in that other article. I thought this was a more appropriate way for me to respond to it than to respond directly.

I'll have to try and find that comedian story. I'd bet there are more countries than the ones listed that have some sort of blasphemy laws in the books as well.

  • 2 votes
#10.1 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 8:47 AM EST
ohiogal-479871

The contrast between your article and the one entitled "Why I Defend Christians," is quite stark

Same thing I was thinking. Grisham, this was well put together and unlike the "other" it wasn't filled with logical fallacies, but with links to reputable studies.

Thanks for the article.

  • 5 votes
#10.2 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 9:17 AM EST
caballojoe

Here's a link to the story in Italy about 5 years for criticizing the pope:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=5829430&page=1

  • 3 votes
#10.3 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 1:19 PM EST
Reply
sunshine girl-685508

Sometimes I defend atheists so much, I am often mistaken for one.

Ironically, I am also mistaken for Christian when I defend values that are indeed Christ-like.

The bottom line is, I am a staunch defender of FREEDOM OF BELIEF (or non-belief) and FREEDOM of expression of your belief (or non-belief) and representation in civil society and public policy that ensures nobody is forced to abide by another's belief.

  • 5 votes
Reply#11 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 8:46 AM EST
Grisham

And you do a good job of it and your articles are always so very good. I agree with your points, Sunshine - freedom is the key word. Thank you for taking the time to make that excellent comment.

  • 4 votes
#11.1 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 8:50 AM EST
BD Styers

Sunshine, I get that, the labeling thing, or being accused of defending someone else as if I don't have a point of view of my own...most people can take care of themselves pretty well. Some have difficulty with views they disagree with, the selective rights police.

  • 3 votes
#11.2 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 8:52 AM EST
sunshine girl-685508

Grisham & BD,

I think a lot of theists have more in common with atheists than they realize. The vast majority of theists are also atheists of other Deities and faiths (reject them outright for lack of evidence) and certainly do not want nor would appreciate other religions being imposed upon them. We see this all the time when Christians who press for Christian literature or worship in schools under the arguement of religious freedom immediately get affronted when non-Christians using the same arguement of religious freedom want their literature and worship recognized as well.

  • 4 votes
#11.3 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 9:20 AM EST
Future History

The vast majority of theists are also atheists of other Deities and faiths (reject them outright for lack of evidence) ...

That's rich - Christians rejecting other Deities for lack of evidence. More like Christians rejecting other Deities because those other Deities were not part of their own mystical, evidence-free indoctrination into Christianity.

  • 8 votes
#11.4 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 3:35 PM EST
BD Styers

Actually the views of a monotheistic deity are common among the Jewish, Christian and Muslim faiths. The differences are subtle. I heard the argument is central over whether Jesus was a prophet or the Messiah.

  • 1 vote
#11.5 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 4:38 PM EST
Reply
markpup

The term atheist can be a pretty big umbrella. Grisham you had the phrase Deist in another thread which refers to someone who believes in a higher power ("Intelligent Design" - but on the multi-billion year plan) but doesn't belong to or adhere to any organized religion. The average Christian would clearly label me an atheist - but the term has "theist" in it which implies a belief in a higher power. A bit of contradiction there.

Most of the Founders looked at it this way. Franklin did openly and we're reasonably sure Washington also.

It's interesting to me the distaste for atheism as described in the article is really a rejection of someone in a comfortable bucket of generally accepted belief, not a rejection of the concept of a higher power.

  • 3 votes
Reply#12 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 9:30 AM EST
Future History

The word abnormal has the word normal in it ... so is it normal to be abnormal? The word atypical has the word typical in it, so is it typical to be atypical? There is no contradiction, you are just thinking too hard. The english language commonly tacks letters on to a word in order to make the opposite of that word.

As far as a higher power goes, that doesn't have to have anything at all to do with a god concept. The collective actions of a group of people could be considered a higher power, which clearly is not a god.

  • 6 votes
#12.1 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 3:44 PM EST
markpup

When me or most Deists are considering a higher power, we really really are considering a spiritual all encompassing entity, not a group of chemical/biological processes interacting.

And yet, Christians would still consider us atheists because we don't fit one of the religious worship big buckets.

You're right I might be overthinking this!! But I thought the concept of considering a group that actually does have a concept of a spiritual higher power as atheists was worth throwing out there.

  • 2 votes
#12.2 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 4:24 PM EST
Future History

My understanding of AA is that originally they surrendered themselves to God for help in sobriety, but later they revised their dogma (for lack of a better term) to reference a higher power, so that those alcoholics that dont believe in God could participate in their sobriety program. As an atheist, one would have to get creative to come up with this higher power, and it could be anything from a particular doorknob that has some personal symbolic value, to the AA group itself. I suppose an atheist or agnostic member of a Unitarian Church might consider humanity in general to be a higher power. I recently wrote an article where I invented a religion where knowledge itself is the ultimate higher power.

  • 3 votes
#12.3 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 5:59 PM EST
markpup

As much good as AA does, there have been controversies and issues related to their Christian oriented approach.

I can't speak to the experience of being an alcoholic and an atheist, but I'd have to imagine other alternatives than AA in that case are better.

The definition of religion is a tricky one - I'd simply define it as proceeding on axiomatic assumptions of faith - i.e. something not proven. Is a movement based on pure knowledge as the ultimate higher power a religion by that definition? Frankly - I'm not going there. It would require writing something novel sized.

  • 1 vote
#12.4 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:21 PM EST
Future History

I can speak to being an atheist, but thankfully I can't speak to suffering from alcoholism. That is a miserable fate, and I personally find it disingenuous to give God credit for conquering something so personally challenging.

My exercise in creating a new religion was done in an effort to combine a somewhat rational explanation with some degree of mysticism that seems to be a requirement for those of faith. The beauty of that effort was that the result was somewhat galvanized from the deteriorating effects of discrimination, fear, and empty promises associated with most mainstream organized religions. If that seed were to take off and go mainstream, I would gladly give up my atheism in a heartbeat to join it. The world could use a religion whose goal is to unify. Unfortunately, we are stuck with a host of religions that charletains and politics have adopted as tools to accomplish selfish agendas.

    #12.5 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:02 PM EST
    Wandered

    A quick search turned up some alternatives:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_Recovery
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_Organizations_for_Sobriety
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LifeRing_Secular_Recovery
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMART_Recovery
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_For_Sobriety

    • 1 vote
    #12.6 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:15 PM EST
    Reply
    Luther28

    In my case, it is the simple matter that more people have died in the name of one god or another, than from any other cause (other than a natural death). Humans have been killing one another over who's god has the biggest wenis, since the concept of a god was founded. If he (or she) existed in the main stream sense, I would think he (or she) would be mighty p.o.'d at the behavior of the faithful and hurl thunderbolts up our butts, if for no other reason than our own stupidity. As usual a thoughtful piece.

    • 3 votes
    Reply#13 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 9:43 AM EST
    aeonpax

    I do not like to judge others based on polls, popular beliefs and majority opinions. I base any kind of judgment on what I see and experience. While I am guilty of my own personal biases in regards to certain groups of people, I make an effort not to let such things cloud my objectivity. My own beliefs are somewhat eclectic but if I need to categorize myself on them, I call myself a “Tantric” or more precisely, a “Neotantric” which is loosely based on Hinduism and Buddhism.

    I have been very fortunate to know more than a few people who call themselves an Athiest and who I consider to be more moral than many Christians. On top of that, they are infinitely more tolerant of those organized religions, especially those who consider them an anathema.

    What has confused me is the difference between those atheists I personally know and those I see online, the latter, whom seem to be preoccupied with useless battles with Christians rather than trying to find common ground for discussion. In my humble opinion, it only widens the chasm and reinforces already false beliefs and myths about atheists.

    To quote Mahatma Gandhi; “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

    • 3 votes
    Reply#14 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 10:09 AM EST
    tesla013

    United States....No listing.

    And from what I gather here on the Vine, folks are leaving the church in droves. Why according to some here; religion, and the Christian God are nearly extinct( that Allah fella he seems to be alive an doing well). So with superior numbers and apparently growing every day why should they need protection at all? Hmmmm.

    • 1 vote
    #15 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:25 PM EST
    Wandered

    When did atheists claim superior numbers? I smell straw.

    • 6 votes
    #15.1 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:34 PM EST
    tesla013

    Don't know what you smell but apparently you do not read the comments here on this site. Next person with something of actual import to say?

    • 1 vote
    #15.2 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:39 PM EST
    ohiogal-479871

    When did atheists claim superior numbers? I smell straw.

    Anytime someone starts off with any paraphrase of "I heard from some (unnamed) person(s) . . ." you can go ahead and chalk it up as a strawman being constructed.

    • 6 votes
    #15.3 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 1:30 PM EST
    tesla013

    Yet no one here has done such other than yourself ohiogal. I guess you already have a spot in the field to place your lil strawman?

    • 1 vote
    #15.4 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 1:53 PM EST
    Grisham

    Why according to some here; religion, and the Christian God are nearly extinct( that Allah fella he seems to be alive an doing well). So with superior numbers and apparently growing every day why should they need protection at all? Hmmmm.

    Religiosity is dropping. That's a far shot from extinct. Atheists make up about 2%-3% of the population. Hardly a majority. If you'd read the article you'd know that.

    • 3 votes
    #15.5 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 4:38 PM EST
    ohiogal-479871

    *wating for tesla to name these "unnamed" viners, in fact still wondering why anyone would use comments on the vine as evidence for anything*

    • 2 votes
    #15.6 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 9:03 AM EST
    C. Y.

    in fact still wondering why anyone would use comments on the vine as evidence for anything*

    Ditto!

    • 1 vote
    #15.7 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:42 AM EST
    tesla013

    Grisham I was hoping my sarcasm would draw you over. I had to endure the straw people for a minute. I am intrigued by the atheist crowd. I find anyone willing to stand for what they believe in admirable, even (choke gasp wheeez) liberals. I am puzzled, does an atheist have a belief system or something in which they believe?

    Ohiogal stop telling me I have to play by rules you ignore at the drop of a birth control pill ok? Don't ask folks to do what you yourself are not even capable of. And if you have not noticed my comments were designed with a purpose in mind(not the least of which is to get you to comment on what you deem stupid which of course doesn't really say great things about your own credibility) that has been served.

    • 1 vote
    #15.8 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 3:17 PM EST
    Grisham

    I find anyone willing to stand for what they believe in admirable, even (choke gasp wheeez) liberals.

    Thank you. I'm an atheist but I wouldn't say I'm a Liberal. I'm a mix of the two, really.

    . I am puzzled, does an atheist have a belief system or something in which they believe?

    Some do. Depends. What do you mean by belief system?

    • 3 votes
    #15.9 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:00 PM EST
    tesla013

    Damned if I know I only have examples to go by. Religious examples and science are the only ones I know about. I believe in the end every thing we thought we knew will turn out to be just half the story. I believe in a God but my idea of whom God may be is rather over the left field wall. I keep it to myself; folks already think I am crazy, no need to help them out. Other than that I believe in myself. Does that even resemble an explanation?

    • 1 vote
    #15.10 - Fri Feb 17, 2012 12:55 PM EST
    Grisham

    It does. You sound like a deist. You believe in a God but not the dogma's that go along with organized religion? If so, that would be what I would be if there was any evidence of God. I truly don't understand how anyone can read the Bible or Koran (as examples) and believe what it says is divinely inspired. It seems obvious to me to be man-made and fallible.

    I rarely debate or argue with deists. The Bible can be dis-proven and the attributes are described in the book. A deist doesn't have to rely on such flimsy 'evidence' and their God or belief in God can't be dis-proven. In a way, the atheist and deist have a lot in common and are two ends of the spectrum. Both don't rely on dogma and are free to choose their own belief systems to go along with or compliment their base belief in a deity or non-deity.

    Hope that makes sense. :)

    • 5 votes
    #15.11 - Sat Feb 18, 2012 7:51 AM EST
    tesla013

    It would if I knew what a deist was. I apologize but I am not very familiar with the many labels associated with, well many things. I rarely pay attention to such things other than the comedic value many of them represent. I base my belief on the only statement I found to be curious in the Bible: "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end." I have spent a while trying to find something that fits that. I believe I have. But like I said tis waaaay over the left field wall. Bibles Korans religions in general always seemed to me, even as a boy, to just be clubs that folks belonged to. Something to inspire hope in themselves when they could not find it elsewhere. It is also a great excuse for outrageous behavior. But At 8 yrs of age I asked why do the the separate religions believe in the same God, but also believe that only their club is getting in to heaven? No one had a good answer for that. That and assigning benevolence to an omniscient being seemed a stretch. Rather like insects assigning benevolence to humans no?

    • 1 vote
    #15.12 - Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:22 AM EST
    Grisham

    A deist is someone who believes in God but not any of the organized religions. They just believe in 'something' even if that something isn't clearly defined. If you ask someone if they believe in God and they say they do but not one that fits within the many organized religions, then it's likely you're talking to a deist.

    To me, it's the most rational of the God beliefs because it doesn't rely on dogma to get the job done and no certainty is attached to what such an entity wants or expects from humanity.

    • 3 votes
    #15.13 - Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:28 AM EST
    tesla013

    OKie dokie. That makes sense. Thanks. You know I have always found it humorous mans inclination to believe he is the superior being based solely on his physical characteristics.....

    :-) dna

    • 1 vote
    #15.14 - Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:46 AM EST
    BD Styers

    tesla, your words are soft spoken and well founded. My experience with religion, including the atheistic sort who oppose religion, is that they want to be part of something larger than self, or they want to align themselves with the 'superior being', albeit in the case of the atheist, often they see themselves as the 'superior being'.

    I don't self-align or self-identify as a deist or atheist and so on, but I do sense that there is an intelligence beyond our understanding and it is benevolent toward us. I haven't identified a proper control in the scientific format to create proof of its existence. There are so few things I actually believe I know.

    I know it is always now.

    I know I get exactly what I ask for.

    I know I have changed, but I am still 'me'.

    The questions are more important than the answers. Answers ultimately lead to more questions.

    • 1 vote
    #15.15 - Sat Feb 18, 2012 8:16 PM EST
    C. Y.

    This conversation is definitely striking a chord with me. Trying to define what I believe to believers is very difficult. I think there's something more out there than us, but I reject organized religion as I see too much crap going on in the name of religious dogma.

    At any rate, I thought this definition of deism from Wiki might be helpful to Tesla:

    Deism (i/ˈdiː.ɪzəm/[1][2] or /ˈdeɪ.ɪzəm/) is a religious philosophy which holds that reason and observation of the natural world, without the need for organized religion, can determine that the universe is the product of an all-powerful creator. According to deists, the creator rarely, if ever, either intervenes in human affairs or suspends the natural laws of the universe. Deists typically reject supernatural events such asprophecy and miracles, tending instead to assert that a god (or "the Supreme Architect") does not alter the universe by intervening in it. This idea is also known as the clockwork universe theory, in which a god designs and builds the universe, but steps aside to let it run on its own. Two main forms of deism currently exist: classical deism and modern deism.

    • 1 vote
    #15.16 - Mon Feb 20, 2012 1:15 AM EST
    ohiogal-479871

    Ohiogal stop telling me I have to play by rules you ignore at the drop of a birth control pill ok?

    Quit, projecting tesla. I don't make up comments about what i've read on the vine in order to make a point. All comments on the vine are public knowledge, if what you say is true you should have no problem finding evidence of me using comments on the vine as evidence for a post.

    Unfortunately, you are lying about me and you know it. If you are quick to lie about what I say then you are probably not to far from lying about comments you have seen on the vine regarding the Christian God being nearly extinct.

    • 1 vote
    #15.17 - Mon Feb 20, 2012 10:17 PM EST
    Reply
    Wandered

    edited

      Reply#16 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:54 PM EST
      Duvalkingpin904

      Socrates1 isn't a real atheist! He said if we strip this nation of all Religious fallacies we would be left with no Morals.WTF

      • 7 votes
      Reply#17 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 1:11 PM EST
      Hecate's Daughter

      You got that right! He is in no way an atheist. No way in hell.
      HD

      • 6 votes
      #17.1 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 1:23 PM EST
      demo scout

      Uh, I don't want to burst your bubble, but if Socrates used the words "all religious fallacies" that was hardly an endorsement of religious beliefs. He drank the Hemlock rather than conform to the religion and mores of his time or to obey orders to stop teaching the young to think for themselves.

      • 1 vote
      #17.2 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 4:17 PM EST
      Reply
      demo scout

      I don't make a big deal about it, but I am not ashamed to let anyone know that I am an atheist. I am not a militant atheist because I cannot prove my conclusion about gods any more than a faithful person can prove his or hers. And I am a true believer in freedom of conscience, which means that I must respect the right of others to worship as and if they chose.

      As for morals and ethics, I am fully aware that they are not the exclusive possession nor the invention of religion. They are the product of philosophical thinking through the ages, and religion is in fact a subset of philosophical thinking. In fact the prime atheistic organization in my city is called the "Ethical Society." I believe in those of the Ten Commandments that do not mention god. I believe in the Golden Rule. I believe in compassion, charity, nobility of character, strength of mind and body, loyalty, bravery, and clean living. And I believe that it is as much a sign of high character to chose these ways to live as a matter of wanting to make this world better as it is to live them as a way to earn a ticket to another world as a reward. But if a ticket to the heavenly after life is your motivation, then more power to you.

      I do not make war on religion even though I recognize the bad that has come into the world as the spawn of unreasoning religiosity. I recognize that all religions have gaping flaws, but that they have nevertheless motivated great good as well as divisiveness and violence.

      When I talk about atheism, all I attempt to say is that I wish people took a more reasonable approach to the mysteries of life and the living world. In this universe of unfathomable distances where it takes light sometimes billions of years to travel from point A to point B it is a little hard to find Heaven or even to know where to look for it, and it is, frankly inconceivable to me that there could be any intelligence directing the moment to moment details of such a mind boggling enterprise. But no matter what we learn through science we will always have more to learn. And if some people cope with the unknowable by assigning it to the operations of a supernatural being, well, let them.

      I think that the antipathy toward atheists is motivated by several factors. First, the clergy has a vested interest in putting down any dissent from their dogma. Second, true believers perceive that atheism is indeed blasphemy. Third community peer pressure provokes displays of religious defensiveness. And finally, most people are born into a given religion and raised in it by their parents and simply feel guilty when they entertain any thought contrary to the religion of their heritage. It is a very emotional thing to abandon childhood ties to parents and religious training. This is why I don't push atheism. It is not my goal to alienate anyone. If my example and my opinion can in any way be persuasive, that would be wonderful. But each of us must find his own belief using his own intellect and his own heart.

        Reply#18 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 4:03 PM EST
        Wm. Sanders

        Food for thought Grisham...

        A true measure of a country is how it treats it's so-called "dregs" of society...the untouchables and undesirables that wouldn't merit a second thought. The worst of the worse always either oppresses them and makes them scapegoats, or exploits them. Nazi Germany comes to mind. Same for the Soviet Union. And the scary thing is that America is sliding dangerously close to that primrose path.

        Our country used to be solidly on the other side of the scale. While it did have it's serious flaws (slavery and the treatment of Native Americans), it was more welcoming to immigrants than many other industrialized nations at the time. Religious freedom abroad was essentially sparked by the seeds that took root here in America, and our Bill of Rights (based on many other state constitutions) was the guidestone for other democratic nations. Now however we are in crisis mode...and we even have convenient scapegoats (Latin immigrants, "welfare queens" and those damn Occupy brats! The nerve!). We have fallen far behind our civilized bretheren, and our cumulative standard of living is rivaled by (wait for it...) Mexico. Yes, THAT Mexico.

        Anyone who knows me, either in real life or the 'Vine, knows I'm not pro or anti-religious. I just believe no one should force their own point of view on someone else, either by gunpoint or by bullying and browbeating them into acceptance. To quote a fictional robot..."Freedom is the right of all sentient beings!"

        • 3 votes
        Reply#19 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 1:20 AM EST
        Leave a Comment:
        You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
        You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
        (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
        Newsvine Privacy Statement
        As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
        FUN STUFF:
        • Leaderboard |
        • E-Mail Alerts |
        • Top of the Vine |
        • Newsvine Live |
        • Newsvine Archives |
        • The Greenhouse |
        COMPANY STUFF:
        • Code of Honor |
        • Company Info |
        • Contact Us |
        • Jobs |
        • User Agreement |
        • Privacy Policy |
        • About our ads
        LEGAL STUFF:
        • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
        • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
        • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com