Why I'm angry.

[beam me up scottie]

Tennessee Amendment 1 abortion measure passes
Already lawmaker vows to back abortion regulations when legislature reconvenes



Tennessee voters by a solid margin backed Amendment 1, a measure that gives state lawmakers more power to restrict and regulate abortions.

The measure was perhaps the most closely watched and most contentious Election Day vote in Tennessee's midterm elections, which had few contested high-profile candidate races this year. It also was one of the most expensive ballot measures in Tennessee history.

...

Backers of the amendment were jubilant, embracing at the offices of Tennessee Right to Life, the campaign headquarters for the effort.

"Obviously for those of us who believe life is sacred, this was the necessary first step toward protection not only for the unborn but for women and girls who fall prey to people looking to profit from untimely or unexpected pregnancies," said Brian Harris, president of Tennessee Right to Life and a coordinator for the "Yes on 1" campaign, who has devoted much of the past 14 years fighting for the measure to get on the ballot.

Harris said his group's next step is returning to the legislature to persuade lawmakers to restore a package of laws stricken by a 2000 state Supreme Court decision, including requiring a short waiting period for women seeking an abortion, a requirement to provide educational materials and greater regulation of abortion facilities.

http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2014/11/04/amendment-takes-early-lead/18493787/

The Really Crazy Anti-Abortion Strategy on the Ballot in Tennessee
Tennessee out-crazies all the other states with its proposed constitutional amendment.
By Dahlia Lithwick


That’s right. Tennessee is trying to amend its constitution to never protect abortion, ever, under any circumstance. And how did the state get here? In 2000, the Tennessee Supreme Court ruled in a case called Planned Parenthood v. Sundquist that the Tennessee constitution affords even more protection than the U.S. Constitution to Tennesseans seeking abortions. The court determined that “a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy is a vital part of ... the Tennessee Constitution,” and it held that Tennessee could only pass very narrow restrictions on abortion as a result. As part of that decision, the court struck down several laws passed in 1998 by the Tennessee legislature, including a measure requiring hospitalization for second-trimester abortions, an informed consent provision, and a two-day waiting period. Republicans in the state legislature immediately reacted by attempting to amend the state constitution. Those proposed amendments failed to pass the state legislature until 2011. Now it’s on the November ballot.


Don’t be confused by references to rape and incest and the life of the mother in the language of the proposed amendment. As Eleanor Clift writes, “The second sentence is craftily written to leave the impression that exemptions are either in place, or could easily be put in place.” But the proposed wording would in fact allow the state to regulate all those interests out of existence. There is no question that this measure goes far beyond the proposed “personhood” language in other states to ensure that legislatures could pass any future legislation, including regulations that could ban abortions even to save mothers’ lives or to protect incest victims. It would allow laws that criminalize harm to a fetus or even ban access to methods of birth control deemed to be abortifacients.

...

The insidious beauty of Amendment 1 is that it operates as a Trojan horse to permit any and all future regulation. And as one local blogger notes, the fact that state legislators won’t disclose which kinds of measures they seek to pass establishes that this is precisely the point. As Stacey Campfield, a Tennessee senator from the 7th District (Knox County) told the Family Action Council of Tennessee: “After (Amendment 1) passes, I have several ideas but for fear of those ideas being used to help defeat Amendment 1, I will refrain from talking about those at this time. I doubt there are any ideas I would oppose that would restrict abortion in Tennessee.”

This referendum has implications that go far beyond the state borders. As all the states surrounding Tennessee passed more and more anti-choice legislation in recent years, Tennessee came to be the state that neighboring women turned to to obtain services denied to them in Alabama, Mississippi, and Kentucky. This meant that by 2010, 1 out of every 4 abortions in the state was sought by an out-of-state patient. Terrell (director of Choices, a Memphis reproductive health clinic that provides abortion services) explains it this way: “If Amendment 1 passes, the state of Tennessee would quickly join her Southern sisters in passing the kind of extreme regulations that make access to abortion impossible. This is, of course, the goal of the amendment’s drafters and supporters.”

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/10/tennessee_anti_abortion_amendment_1_voters_will_decide_whether_legislature.html

Tennessee Right to Life has been the key organizer of the campaign. Gov. Bill Haslam, General Assembly Republican leadership and the state's Republican Party also back the measure. The campaign had raised more than $1.5 million by Oct. 25. Reality television family the Duggars, who are featured in the TLC network series 19 Kids and Counting, have twice made public appearances in support of the measure. Faith groups including the Southern Baptist Convention, all three of Tennessee's Catholic bishops and a number of denominations have come out in support of the amendment.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/11/02/tennessee-abortion-measure-myths-facts/18375351/

Okay religious apologists, go ahead, I want to hear it.


Tell me that I should ignore religion because it doesn't affect me.

That I'm angry because of some childhood trauma.

That I should stfu and sit down because I'm making other non-believers look bad.

That I'm the fucking bully when they are the ones interfering with MY right to not have children and abort a fetus that may kill me if I carry it to term.

And that religious leaders like the pope don't deserve every bit of venom directed at them.



Tell me again that I'm confused, that I'm being unreasonable, that my anger is misplaced.




I dare you.

[shenmue]

1. I'm pro-choice

If you think all religious people are the same, you really don't know what you're talking about.

[beam me up scottie]

3. Where did I say that "all religious people are the same" ?

Read it again, if you still think that I'm attacking religious people then you really don't know what you're talking about.

[Curmudgeoness]

6. The gist of the OP

is that atheists are always told that religion having an influence on politics is not a problem, and we should not worry about it. This is a very good example of why EVERYONE should be concerned about religion gaining inroads into government.

[shenmue]

7. Well, what you don't see

is that most of us are not fundamentalists, and we get pretty tired of people not knowing the difference. Now that is something I get worried about.

[Curmudgeoness]

11. OK, I accept that.

Are you willing to stand with the atheists against the influence of religion on politics? Because that is what is needed, for people of religion to work to rein in the fundamentalists without apology.

[mr blur]

33. Understood. But the tone of your first post

suggested that you'd made an unfair supposition about bmus

[Warren Stupidity]

34. "most of you" are voting republican, by close to 70% every election

and that "most of you" are voting for a party that panders to the extreme theocratic fundamentalist core of the religious vote. "most of you" just don't seem to give a shit about that, "most of you" are fine with it.

[theHandpuppet]

36. What we really need are more allies like Shenmue

Who has been a staunch ally for all progressive causes, including reproductive choice and gay rights. Why the voices of religious progressives are either drowned out or their leaders don't take a more forceful, public stand is something I'm not qualified to answer. I'm sure there are many folks like Shenmue out there but the question becomes, are we ready to embrace them?

[trotsky]

37. Traditionally, at least on DU, there has been a huge disconnect.

Most liberal believers on DU see themselves as typical, even a large majority. They get this perception from their own lives - their church may be liberal, most other members of their congregation are, etc. They don't get to directly experience life with the ride range of believers out there. So much so that I've seen people's direct personal experiences with conservative believers outright dismissed because it doesn't match up with what the liberal believer has experienced.

That's not helpful. Acknowledging the numbers, accepting reality, is the first step toward doing something.

I've also seen it suggested on here that somehow vocal atheists are scaring people away from the Democratic Party. There is a certain DUer who is personally very fond of that notion, and pushes it constantly, accusing atheists of "carrying water for Republicans" and other such nonsense. I'd like to see an end to that divisive behavior for sure.

[theHandpuppet]

52. I have to disagree with you to a point

I truly believe that most liberal believers on DU know perfectly well they are not the norm. If they do not, then I have failed to credit them for a level of denial that would put Peter to shame. What is rare is finding those believers who will take a stand against the institutional bigotry and oppression of the Catholic church. Yes, I'm being very specific here because most of the denials and rationalizations I've witnessed on DU are specific to that institution.

We rightly ridicule evangelical leaders (not to mention some other faiths) for their misogyny and homophobia, for their influence in political life. Those leaders make it quite clear that their agenda with regard to certain critical social issues is diametrically opposed to those we support as democrats and progressives. Yet there is a schizophrenic nature in the way folks can rationalize their defense of the Catholic leadership, which has lobbied for and funded legislation so repressive in nature they make the most successful RW evangelicals look like mere amateurs.

The other side of that coin is that it's a fact that the majority of Catholics also vote Democratic, so in some way they can divorce themselves from their leadership at the polling place while trucking no criticism of the church anywhere else. I suspect that many of our religious allies here at DU have been intimidated into silence. As I wrote some time ago,

The fundamentalist influence on politics with regard to women's lives becomes more and more evident every day. When powerful religious leaders preach that women don't even have the right to the autonomy of their own bodies we witness its political effectiveness in the rollback of reproduction rights and the shutting of clinics. These are legislators who use God to justify outrageous levels of misogyny and fashion it into law. These same men who think women have no place in the leadership of the church also believe women have no place as equal partners in the home, the workplace, the country. They know this because the Bible tells them so, at least in their version of it. They've got to preach it in the schools, implement it in the workplace, enforce it in the bedroom, legislate it in the halls of Congress. The following example is just one of the most outrageous examples of how this works: http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/02/16/426850/democratic-women-boycott-issas-contraception-hearing-for-preventing-women-from-testifying/

Some might say I'm straying from the topic here but I disagree. What frustrates me is that there seems to exist either a lack of recognition of or an unwillingness to confront the unholy alliance of church and state in creating a misogynic society. We tiptoe around the subject as to not hurt someone's feelings. Well that's just bullcrap my friends and it's exactly what the purveyors of misogyny count on -- that we'll react well, like "women", not wanting to bruise anyone's delicate ego especially if it involves religion, even to the point of silencing ourselves. Right here on DU there are those who would contend that we have a choice -- we can support the war on poverty OR women's rights. We can fight for environmental protections OR women's rights. Etc, etc, etc. But not both. So women are asked to choose either the planet or their rights, or between the poor and their rights, or between income inequality and their rights. The arguments are posited as a choice for which women must make the sacrifice and too often, some do just that. Anything else is called selfish. I see it all the time on what is touted as a progressive forum. The fact that it should be a choice at all is a ridiculous, manipulative fallacy. It's apparently an effective one because once again I find myself embroiled in just such a debate on DU, watching way too many women fall into that same old trap, rushing to the defense of an avowed and powerful misogynist and homophobe because we must sublimate the cause of our basic human rights to whatever causes supersede them... and that list seems endless. I've got news for some of those folks --as long as we are so willing to make the sacrifice there are those who are more than willing to take it. Our turn will never come if we validate and empower the very people whose aim is to oppress us. Those in power will not grant us respect for being acquiescent; they will only despise us the more for it.

If we want to formulate strategies for how to reform a society shaped by misogynic dogmas that are in turn enforced by legislated policies, we simply must face the fact that patriarchal religions have way too much influence in the political sphere. (That holds true no matter where you go or what you believe.) We can't afford to ignore this elephant in the room, hoping that if we don't make eye contact it will miraculously disappear. The more we hint at any trepidation in confronting this issue the more WOMEN WILL DIE. Not at some point in the distant future -- TODAY, tomorrow, and every tomorrow after that. They will die because too many boys and men are indoctrinated from birth that women are lesser human beings, that women's lives and bodies were created to service their needs, that a woman's value can only be measured by the degree to which she is willing to sacrifice herself on the altar of what we are told is "the greater good".

The reluctance to acknowledge the "elephant in the room" is especially true when it comes to criticizing the dogma and leadership of the Catholic church:

Honestly, I've really given a lot of thought about why so many women seem so timid or loathe to speak out against the horribly damaging, misogynic dogmas of the church. No one seems to have a problem speaking their mind when it comes to the firebreathing evangelicals and their nonsense but then so many of them come off as blowhard bullies or clownish buffoons. It's easy to spot them and also to reject them. What's really tough is to confront the oppressor who comes to you with a sweet smile on his face and a soothing voice. He's the patriarchal figurehead of an entirely patriarchal institution, the daddy who loves you and would let you come to no harm. WRONG. This is exactly the kind of powerful, male religious leader who has been pushing those buttons for eons in order to keep women in their place and to punish those who step out of line. There are entirely too many women willing to go along with this bullcrap... or at least keep silent even as they watch other women truly suffering as the result of institutional misogyny.

Look at the current Pope. Reminds you of Edmund Gwenn from Miracle on 34th Street, doesn't he? So it doesn't matter how many times he soundly condemns contraception, abortion, equality for women, gay marriage and adoption (or the horrible things he's said about LGBTs), or even squashes the fledgling feminist efforts of progressive nuns. Try saying you're not buying this load, even on DU. You'll have more public defenders on your ass than Gwenn's Kris Kringle had defense witnesses.

I don't know what people are looking for but as for me, I don't need that kind of validation, not at that price. All I know is that millions of women and girls around the globe are suffering because they lack the basic human right to equality. Forbidden the autonomy even of their own bodies and the power to make decisions concerning the size of their families, they and their children can be thrust into abject and generational poverty. Or seeking an alternative but denied a choice, end up in a back alley abortion. If it makes some folks feel better not to dwell on this, they can just keep telling themselves that Daddy knows best.

There are, thankfully, a number of strong, stalwart women here who have not and will not remain silent. To them I can only say, I've got your back. We've got a long road to travel but one day we'll get there, together. We may just have to dump a lot of old baggage along the way.

We do have religious allies here in the ongoing fight for the basic human rights of women and gays. What I would truly like to see are more with the courage to take a public stand against their religious leaders when they know those leaders are not just wrong, but dangerously so. Such positions cannot be rationalized or defended even if the laity ignores them at the polling booth. In fact, it is their voices we need to hear most of all. To leave the task of criticism to those outside the faith (or any faith) is to create a convenient scapegoat and avoid responsibility for any part in the repression of the institutional church, of which they have chosen to be a part.

[Warren Stupidity]

57. we have been told here repeatedly that in fact

this religious fucknuttery that we keep whining about is just a small and dwindling minority.

repeatedly.

Despite being shown the results from Pew and Gallup that say just the opposite.

repeatedly.

[AtheistCrusader]

70. Your repeated use of 'repeatedly' doesn't fully convey the redundancy in that

Tired repetition.

A slightly different variant of which, is the 'fundamentalist' deflection.
There's so many of them, its impossible to handwave them away as a aberration, and retain a shred of credibility.

[theHandpuppet]

118. Oh, I'd agree with that

What is particularly dangerous is that various religious factions once operating independently (almost competitively) of one another have formed rather powerful alliances, pooling resources and finances. This is illustrated most profoundly by all of the lawsuits filed under the guise of defending "religious liberty". Whatever allies we might have in the religious community, they have by their silence conceded the floor to the fundamentalists.

[muriel_volestrangler]

126. Catholics voted more for Republicans in 2014; slightly more Repub than whole pop since 2010

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/2014/US/house/exitpoll Democrat 45%; Republican 54% (overall Dem 46%, Repub 52%)
2012 Presidential vote: http://edition.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president# Democrat 50% to 48% Republican, compared to overall D 51% to R 47%
2010: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2010/results/polls/#val=USH00p1 Democrat 44% Repub 54% (overall Dem 45%, Repub 52%)
2008 Presidential: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=USP00p1 D 54%, R 45% (overall D 53% R 45%)

So, no, "the majority of Catholics also vote Democratic" is incorrect. They're pretty much typical for Americans, though with a very slight lean towards Republicans in the past few years.

[theHandpuppet]

134. Thanks for the correction

Another myth bites the dust!

[trotsky]

132. All I can go on is what I've observed and been told in this group.

Now it could be the the believers who post here are not representative of the average DU believer. Koresh it would be nice if that were the case. Because the ones here have been some of the most judgmental and hypocritical believers I've ever had the misfortune to interact with.

[theHandpuppet]

135. You're a much better judge of that than I am.

I haven't engaged this particular group long enough to really know the posters here very well, as you do. Admittedly, my first foray into the Religion group did not go well at all and I was hesitant to even come here again.

Some names I recognize from the GD forum and I'll admit my exchanges with several on matters religious have been less than pleasant. Once you get into the smaller, non-religious focus groups, however, you can find religious allies who generally avoid the debates here or on GD. Whether or not they feel less pressured to be uncritical of church matters outside the more high-profile fora, I couldn't say. Neither could I begin to guess what their number might be. Off the cuff, I'd say outspoken allies like Shenmue -- i.e., religious folks who can also be critical of religion's failings -- aren't representative but I focus my postings on only a handful of groups.

[AtheistCrusader]

68. You are not 'most of you'.

Pretty disingenuous to suggest your political alignment is the norm among religious people.

Take away the ~15% or so of the population that is 'none', (who trend left of center) and somehow magically republicans are able to pass shit like the bill in the op, OVER you, and us. And repubs are overwhelmingly religious.

Drop the false deflection, and then we can talk.

[shenmue]

69. Oh, you

[AtheistCrusader]

71. Yes, me.

[rug]

90. Lol, yes, it's him.

[shenmue]

96. Thanks.

For the record: yes, I fully admit there are some horrible, shitty religious people who hurt and take rights away from others. But some of us, messed-up human beings that we are, still believe in human rights and decency, and we try to stick up for them, as do the non-religious.

[AtheistCrusader]

98. I don't disagree with this.

I disagree with your attempt to minimize the proportions of fellow religious travelers who DON'T share your values.

[AtheistCrusader]

97. And, now that we have established that I am me...?

[rug]

105. .

http://vimeo.com/66989097

[Alittleliberal]

107. Ya and what you don't seem to understand

is that that doesn't fucking matter if the people in charge ARE fundamentalists.

[shenmue]

113. Yes, it matters.

[Alittleliberal]

115. Clearly not as evidenced by the OP

[AtheistCrusader]

67. Strawman.

Poor form.

[randys1]

2. Right to life, what a fucking joke. No, Mam, you are not the problem, the right to life people WANT

to

K I L L

you if you dont agree with them.

They all but admit it online all day long.

Religion or no religion and we could go on all day long about how ALL religions or almost ALL are completely counter productive

[beam me up scottie]

4. Their misogyny does kill women.

And now more will die.

Women need to be protected from religious extremists, not abortion providers.

[lunasun]

116. +1

[rug]

5. You left out the last line of the original post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/123030758

I'm not in the habit of responding to A&A posts reposted in the Religion Group on a dare. But I might if you do this:

Tell me who on DU has told you those things.

I dare you.

[beam me up scottie]

8. "I would post this in the Religion forum except I know I'd end up regretting it."

Thanks for illustrating why I already do.

Nice quote mining from my safe haven, btw, but I won't be intimidated by you or anyone else.

You stay classy, rug.

[rug]

10. Happy to be of service.

BTW the horrors of "quote mining" are a fiction. Certainly nothing compared to using a safe haven to post bullshit about other members.

Since we're on the subject here's another;

1. Post it in Religion anyway

What's to regret? That a few apologists for the RCC and other fundies might get their knickers in a wad? That they might resent being called out on their bullshit (again)?

And frankly, if a DU jury would hide this, then the site has totally lost its core principles in a swill of religious privilege, and isn't worth frequenting any more anyway.

Oh, what the hell, here's one more:

5. Post it, who gives a shit what they say anymore?

I will stay classy, bmus. And since you haven't been able to answer my dare, there's not a single reasom to answer yours.

[Curmudgeoness]

13. Do you not see

that you are making the perfect example of why many people are intimidated from posting in this group? No comment or discussion of the OP, just trying to call out bmus.

So what do you have to say about the stories in the OP or the conclusion that bmus came to after seeing those stories?

[rug]

15. I'd be happy to catalog the history of intimidation in this group, and by whom.

But I won't use this thread to do so.

As to what she posted, I don't doubt that words to that effect have been said. But I don't think they were said on DU. Or that anyone on DU voted for that Amendment. Using the second person rather obscures who she's pissed off at. So it comes off more as - yet another - antireligious rant posted here, directed at members who are no less politically pro-choice than she but - gasp - have religious beliefs as well.

[Curmudgeoness]

21. That is not the point at all.

This is one of those examples of (forgive me) you are with us or you are against us. It doesn't have anything to do with whether or not someone has religious beliefs, and bmus is not trying to insinuate that anyone here voted for that amendment.

The rant is not anti-religion. But it is making the point that when people of religion refuse to stand up against the marriage of religion and government, then they are part of the problem. We, all of us, have to fight for separation of church and state. That is the message of the OP. Gasp. Nothing directed at any members here, unless the shoe would fit.

[rug]

22. Don't be disingenuous.

Okay religious apologists, go ahead, I want to hear it.

[Curmudgeoness]

23. Rug, we both know that you are not stupid.

You are acting like you don't understand every single sentence in the OP. If you are a "religious apologist", then yes, she is talking to you. But she did not say that you (or anyone) were, she just wants anyone who is ready to make excuses to go right ahead and make a good argument.

So, again, if the shoe does not fit, stop being outraged.

[rug]

25. Allow me to paraphrase it.

The TN vote is life-threatening. Agreed.

The religious right backed it in force. Agreed.

"Okay religious apologists, go ahead, I want to hear it." Wtf?

Something about the Pope (but not Uganda) Wtf?

"Tell me again that I'm confused, that I'm being unreasonable, that my anger is misplaced.

I dare you."

You:

she just wants anyone who is ready to make excuses to go right ahead and make a good argument.

Pray tell, who on DU is making those arguments?

This is easily as much about her views on religion as it is on abortion rights.

I repeat: don't be disingenous.

[beam me up scottie]

24. You're deliberately misrepresenting my posts and you tell her to not be disingenuous?

Are you an apologist?

Do you give money to the catholic church?

[rug]

26. Au contraire, I posted a link to your exact posts.

I give tons of money to the Catholic Church, at least five bucks a week, not counting Holy Days of Obligation.

Therefore . . . ?

Therefore I support Amendment One in Tennessee?

You have now demonstrated the purpose of your post but you have not yet demonstrated a passing familiarity with the concept of a non sequitur.

[beam me up scottie]

27. So that's a yes on all three counts.

So it comes off more as - yet another - antireligious rant posted here, directed at members who are no less politically pro-choice than she but - gasp - have religious beliefs as well.

Nope, it's directed at apologists (like those who support and defend the RCC) who want to silence atheists because they can't tolerate criticism of religion or religious leaders.

And religious bigots who use the angry atheist meme to dismiss that criticism.



Thank you for proving I hit the bullseye.

[rug]

28. Next time you shoot make sure the bullseye's not on your backside.

After you attend to it, explain why your non sequitur is not a non sequitur at all, preferably without a smiley.

Further explain by what byzantine path you arrived at the conclusion that the post means that anyone "wants to silence atheists because they can't tolerate criticism of religion or religious leaders."

I may have a spare cross lying around here if you want to climb up on it.

[beam me up scottie]

29. You're the one yelping, dude.

You might not have voted for the amendment but catholics used their money and influence to make sure it passed. If people want to donate to the southern baptists, the mormons and other anti-choice religious organizations, that's their right, just don't tell me that by doing so they're supporting my right to choose.

Further explain by what byzantine path you arrived at the conclusion that the post means that anyone "wants to silence atheists because they can't tolerate criticism of religion or religious leaders."

Accusing me of directing this "at members who are no less politically pro-choice than she but - gasp - have religious beliefs as well." is first of all, dishonest, and by insinuating that I attacked religious people on DU others may believe you and try to get this thread locked. That is a tactic used to silence people.


Using posts from safe havens to intimidate others is another way to silence those you disagree with.

[rug]

30. You're the one ranting, dudette.

That's a pretty lame argument. Why don't you have the honesty to state that everyone should simply leave the RCC, the SBC, the LDS or any other religion you don't like? After all, anyone who goes into a church and lights a candle is contributing to misogyny by your logic. Last I looked, those candles go for a dollar donation. That adds up. I bet 99 cents of each candle was sent to Tennessee.

Your alarm at being "silenced" is even worse. How on earth were atheists silenced before DU? I wonder if Galileo was worried about having his thread locked.

Using safe havens to post crap like this

20. Don't you love bullies?
Nothing like being stalked and seeing my posts misrepresented by people who hate me.

is just pathetic.

There's nothing private about DU Groups, especially when they're used to talk trash about DU members.

[beam me up scottie]

31. LMAO!

So in order to prove you're not stalking and bullying me, you go to my thread in A/A, copy what I posted, run back here and paste it in your reply in a sub-thread where we're discussing bullying tactics.

You do realize why I posted that?


And that if you can't stand what's being posted in another group you can just stop going there?


Watching you freak out over what we discuss is like watching a preacher freak out over a a dirty movie that he keeps playing over and over and over, just so he can rant about it on Sunday.


It's hilarious.

[rug]

40. I'm sure you consider being called out on trash talking and religious bigotry to be bullying.

I wouldn't call that hilarious in the least.

[Goblinmonger]

35. She mentions bullies

and you think she's talking about you. That's interesting.

And thanks for showing everyone following along at home that she was right.

[rug]

41. Yes she did, in post 20.

Here's post 18:

18. Hey Rug

Classy little group you host there.

I don't think there's any doubt what this entire thread shows.

[beam me up scottie]

45. Yep.

I've never seen anything like it.

Once upon a time I thought rug was above this kind of behaviour, compared to bum he seemed almost reasonable.

Those days are over.

[rug]

161. My goodness. I shall seek consolation in my diary.

[AtheistCrusader]

72. Your church is the antithesis of progressivism. Stem to stern. I hope you're proud.

They sued the government over the ACA.
They fought tooth and nail, spent, lobbied, and " target="_blank">lied to kill physician assisted suicide in my state.
They lobby and work to limit abortion, OTC emergency contraceptives and other reproductive freedoms nationwide (to say nothing of worldwide).
They lobby against comprehensive sex ed.
They lobby against same sex marriage.
They refuse employees' same-sex partners any sort of benefits.





With 'allies' like these...


Edit: I don't know what the fuck DU thinks is wrong with that link that won't render, but suffice to say (and you can find an entire entry in the WA I-1000 Wikipedia article on it) Martin Sheen, a Catholic, lied his way through the ad referenced there on youtube, from the moment he took his fake fucking glasses off in a dramatic sweep, to the very end of the video. Quell surprise.

[rug]

75. I hope you didn't spend too much time putting that together.

I won't, beyond pointing out that although the USCCB, the legal entity of the RCC in the US, is in this up to its miters, it is far from encompassing what is the Catholic Church.

There, you got a minute and a half.

[AtheistCrusader]

77. Pretty sure the RCC disagrees with you on that.

[rug]

82. Considering the knowledge you've displayed of the RCC to date, I'm confident.

[AtheistCrusader]

91. Keep in mind i specified the church, not the members.

Then try again.

The Church(tm) flat out refuses to recognize groups like 'Catholics for choice' as catholic at all.

Don't pretend you don't know exactly what I'm talking about. "catholic churches that are pro choice" doesn't return a lot of hits in Google. And this is not just a USCCB issue, this shit is worldwide

[rug]

101. Keep in mind you wrote this:

He can be as pro choice as he likes, he's still supporting shit like the bill in the OP if he gives

So much as a dime to that church.

Your dodge won't work when you contradict yourself inside the same thread.

Oh, wait, it can't be an actual breathing Catholic who donates a dime to the RCC that you're talking about.

And since you haven't been paying attention, I'll tell you one more time: pro-choice - or anti-choice for that matter - in regard to civil laws are political positions this Church, or any church, has no more authority to address than you or I. It's a political fiight. If you'd rather aim your sights at people in the pews instead of the scarlet in the lobbies, go on. But you'll be making a political ass of yourself.

[AtheistCrusader]

106. Your church has invested itself in a political fight.

I stand by that statement, and there's nothing contradictory about it. Give me the address of ONE Catholic Church that is pro choice. Just one.


I'll wait.
(actually, I'm going to eat dinner, so take your time failing to find one.)

[rug]

110. Get takeout.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/openly-pro-choice-priest-asks-catholics-to-stop-funding-lifesitenews-over-d

[AtheistCrusader]

122. Also, not a valid answer to my question.

He was forced out of politics by the RCC for being pro choice. (and he's dead)
The Diocese he was from doesn't seem to be pro choice. Granted, my French isn't great.


I ask again.

Give me the address of ONE Catholic Church that is pro choice. Just one.

[rug]

137. That's probably because your question is invalid.

Pro-choice in the context of abortion laws is a political question. I assume you agree that religions should not use their houses of worship to take political stands. The fact that some hierarchs don't follow that doesn't change the nature of a church. In theory, politically there are no pro-choice or anti-choice churches. When thy disregard that, they should be fought, politically.

Examining closer, most religions have the doctrine of free will, as a good value, as a reflection of the humanity that God created. That is the religious, not political, notion of choice. One of their purposes is to encourage people to make the right choice, as they see it. You of course are free to disagree with their choice. But the fact of the matter is that one cannot be forced, whether by torture or by statute, to make the "good" choice because that would be no choice at all.

Pro-choice positions have a religious as well as a political rationale.

[Goblinmonger]

138. Your shtick is old and obvious

Yes, abortion laws should be a political question only.

But stop acting like your church isn't involved in getting them passed. They are. Actively so. Just because you want to deflect to what the would should be like in a perfect scenario doesn't change that fact. And the fact that you keep doing this, frankly, makes it seem like you are an apologist for their horrible actions. It's OK for you to say they are going shitty things in this regard. We won't think less of you for it. Hell, it'll probably help the way people see you.

[rug]

139. And yours is predictable.

To wit, you routinely present a two-dimensional and inaccurate depiction of religions. You also, in your lust to indiscrminately attack religions, ignore the political realities of political actions by organizations, including religious ones. It's stupid. It's dishonest. And it's deliberate.

Finally, I frankly don't give a shit what the "we" think of me. If it's the same "we" I have in mind, the better they think of me, the closer I need to check myself. There are some I would not want to be stuck in an elevator with no matter the circumstances.

[Lordquinton]

32. What are your views on abortion?

[rug]

42. What are your views on masturbation?

What are your views on abortion laws?

[Goblinmonger]

44. I'm a fan of the former. Not so for the latter.

YMMV

[Lordquinton]

60. Hardly relevant to the question at hand

What are your views on abortion?

[rug]

62. Neither is your question.

Now you can answer the second question I put to you; What are your views on abortion laws?

[Lordquinton]

64. It is very relevant to the topic at hand

And it's very telling that you're refusing to answer a very simple question about said topic:

What are your views on abortion?

[rug]

65. No, it's not. Can't you answer my question?

What are your views on abortion laws? That is the only relevant question.

[Lordquinton]

100. it is very relevant to the topic

What are your views on abortion?

[rug]

104. Play elsewhere.

Come back when you can answer your views on abortion laws.

I will speak to fools but I will not repeat myself to them.

[AtheistCrusader]

109. The only limits on abortion should be health/safety medical regulations, nothing more.

Masturbation is great. Next stupid baiting question?

[rug]

111. Ask your buddy. He excels at stupid baiting questions.

And uncannily refuses to answer relevant ones.

[Lordquinton]

124. you never asked a question

You just repeated what I said and are acting like you're not the one refusing to answer the question. You also won't be repeating yourself as you have never answered the question.

What are your views on abortion?

[rug]

136. "What are your views on abortion laws?"

Maybe I should have used bold face italic with a smiley.

[Lordquinton]

144. That is the question I asked you, yes

Why don't you answer it instead of just repeating it? It's an academic question here on this liberal, progressive website, so it shouldn't be this hard.

What are your views on abortion?

[rug]

145. "What are your views on abortion?"

Are you too obtuse to see the difference?

[Lordquinton]

146. Why are you so scared to answer such a simple question?

What are your views on abortion?

[rug]

147. I see. You are too obtuse to see the difference in the questions.

Probably why you won't answer it.

[Lordquinton]

150. you are the one here refusing to answer a very simple question

I know you love playing these games, but please just answer this simple one.

What are your views on abortion?

[rug]

152. Give it up. You're embarassing yourself.

[Lordquinton]

153. what are your views on abortion?

[rug]

154. What are your views on abortion laws?

Come on, Lord, that question's a gimee. You can do it.

[Lordquinton]

155. waiting for you to answer first

What are your views on abortion?

[rug]

156. Lol, are you going to triple dog dare me too?

I told you days ago why that's an irrelevant question.

Now, I'm just going to stand here and hold my breath until you answer first. Maybe I'll stamp my feet too.

[Lordquinton]

157. What are your views on abortion?

I told you days ago that it is a relevant question, and the longer you refuse to answer the more relevant it gets.

[rug]

158. Actually, you didn't.

I can tell you in one sentence why mine is relevant and yours irrelevant.

But you first. That's your rule, right?

[Lordquinton]

159. What are your views on abortion?

[rug]

160. What are your views on parrots?

[Lordquinton]

162. What are your views on abortion?

Why do you stubbornly refuse to answer?

[rug]

163. Why do you?

[Lordquinton]

164. What are your views on abortion?

[rug]

173. What are your views on abortion laws?

[Lordquinton]

174. What are your views on abortion?

Simple question, why are you stalling and deflecting when you could just answer it?

[rug]

175. Simple question, why are you stalling and deflecting when you could just answer it?

What are your views on abortion laws?

[Lordquinton]

176. What are your views on abortion?

You didn't ask a question, you took my question (added a word) and are pretending like you asked it of me, believe me, the longer you draw this out the worse it looks for you.

[rug]

185. The additional word is the crux of the matter.

Too bad you don't grasp that.

What are your views on abortion laws?

[Lordquinton]

187. The crux is that you are refusing to answer a telling question

What are your views on abortion?

[rug]

188. "Telling"

Want to know what it's telling me about you?

[Lordquinton]

190. That I can be persistent?

For the 18th time:

What are your views on abortion?

[rug]

191. Perseverance is not persistence.

No, it tells me several things.

You haven't a clue what political secularism is.

Your interest in attacking religious beliefs is far greater than political progress, even though you're quite bad at it.

You cannot handle a substantive question without resorting to juvenile antics.

You have all the persistence of a toddler stamping his foot.

And so it goes.

What are your views on abortion laws?

[Lordquinton]

195. You're projecting

A breakdown of what you said

What does political secularism have to do with someone refusing to give any answer to a question?

I'm am doing no attacking here, just asking a question and pointing out that you are doing anything but answering it. (and nice ad-hom there)

That would be you unable to handle a substancive question, and making juvenile comments (your first reply was "What are your thoughts on masturbation&quot

And another personal attack

What are your thoughts on abortion?

[rug]

197. I'm reflecting.

What are your thoughts on abortion laws?

[Lordquinton]

232. No rug, I had it right

You ask about masturbation and then accuse me of being juvenile.

You dare to bring up political secularism in a thread about religion running roughshod over secular politics.

You come into a thread about religions passing laws restricting abortion rights accusing the poster of having ulterior motives, then when asked if you have an ulterior motive you play a childish game.

What are your thoughts on abortion?

[rug]

239. I definiterly see something right about your posts.

Now, if you knew anything about political secularism, you'd know religious beliefs are irrelevant except when they impact legislation. The focus is on the political action not the religious belief. Hence your question is irrelevant.

What are your thoughts on abortion laws?

The one relevant question in this pointless subthread remains unanswered by you.

Masturbation became relevant when you started this circle jerk.

As to this: "You dare to . . . .",

I'll give you fair warning. In two days, when this stench of a thread is a week old, this stupid little game will be over.

Until then,

[Lordquinton]

240. Ok, so you run, and run, and run

and still refuse to give an answer, you have not done anything in this thread but disrupt and dodge questions.

Use all the smileys and personal attacks you want, threaten all you want your refusal to give any kind of answer speaks for it's self.

What are your views on abortion?

[rug]

241. No, you still have two days to answer.

What are your views on abortion laws?

Do you find that to be a stupid question?

[Lordquinton]

244. Are you threatening me?

You seem to misunderstand the situation, I asked you a question, and are trying to pretend that never happened.

What are your views on abortion?

[rug]

245. Lol, yes, I'm threaening you. I'm threatening the exposure of your bullshit.

I must say, it's an enormous task.

You have thirty hours left to answer the question. Then this circle jerk ends.

What are your views on abortion laws?

[Lordquinton]

246. Ok, so you're resorting to threats instead of answering the question

What are your views on abortion?

[rug]

247. You can't distinguish a threat from a thought any more than you can answer a question.

I know you're desperately trying to turn this into something else, but you're failng miserably.

Again, what are your views on abortion laws?

There are 24 hours left.

[Lordquinton]

248. Or what?

You again resort to threats and ad-homs rather than answering the question first posed to you.

The onus here is on you to answer:

What are your views on abortion?

[rug]

249. Then I'll leave you to circle jerk all by yourself.

You're not in a position to put an onus on anyone, especially since your rationale is "I asked first!"

What are your views on abortion laws?

[Curmudgeoness]

250. For Christ's Sake, rug, just answer the question

that was asked of you first. What are your views on abortion? Very simple.

Then we can move on to the question that you countered with.

[rug]

251. As I told Lord some days ago, that is not the relevant question. It is a simple question though.

And it remains unanswered. Why don't you hector him so we can move on?

(This whole ridiculous subthread reminds me of Ed Norton playiing Swanee River.)

[Curmudgeoness]

253. But it is a relevant question.

There are people who believe that abortion should be available to any woman who finds herself in an unwanted pregnancy.
Some believe it is only acceptable to save a woman's life.
Then there are others who think that any woman who would have an abortion for any reason is a murderer.

And many views in between.

[rug]

254. No it isn't and here's why.

It has been stated many times here, and by self-identified antitheists, that (to paraphrase) they don't give a shit what people believe, no matter how deluded, as long as they don't pass laws based on it.

Beliefs are irrelevant; actions are.

That is the essence of church/state separation. It is also the bedrock of secularism.

[Curmudgeoness]

256. True

that I am one of the antitheists who has stated just that.

But beliefs are not irrelevant. I am just flummoxed that you will not answer the question. You seem to be either ashamed of your answer to it, or you want to keep the mystery of rug alive. I am not sure, at this point, which it is.

[rug]

257. He's not asking an honest question.

He's already in this subthread tried to accuse me of threatening him. He's stirring shit is all. I just have a bigger spoon.

[Curmudgeoness]

258. What my mother always told me.....

He who stirs the shit pot has to lick the spoon. I bet you aren't so glad you have the bigger spoon now.

[rug]

259. I like Tom Sawyer.

The trick is to make the other guy want to lick the spoon.

[Lordquinton]

252. What are your views on abortion?

[rug]

255. What are your views on abortion laws?

[Lordquinton]

260. What are your views on abortion?

[rug]

261. A lot more favorable than my views on you.

What are your views on abortion laws?

[Lordquinton]

262. What are your views on abortion?

[rug]

263. What are your views on abortion laws?

[Lordquinton]

264. why do you refuse to answer?

What are your views on abortion?

[rug]

265. Because it's irrelevant.

This is the relevant question:

What are your views on abortion laws?

You have left than five hours to answer before this charade ends.

[Lordquinton]

266. What are your views on abortion?

[rug]

267. What are your views on abortion laws?

Your contributions here became irrelevant some days ago.

2 1/2 hours to go.

[Lordquinton]

268. What are your views on abortion?

[NYC_SKP]

269. The fewer abortions, the less risk of medical complications, for one thing.

This alone is reason enough for a thinking person, man or woman, to wish to see fewer abortions overall.

[AtheistCrusader]

270. Do we want to see less pregnancy overall, too? Because abortion is less risky than live birth.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/23/us-abortion-idUSTRE80M2BS20120123

Personally, I'd be ok with fewer of BOTH, because if we are doing what we are supposed to be doing (as we are now with comprehensive sex ed) there will be fewer NEED for both, because there will be fewer unintended pregnancies period.

As long as we stay in front of it on the contraception side, abortions AND unintended pregnancy (particularly metrics like teen pregnancy) will continue to trend down.


But if it comes to a head to head risk comparison, abortion wins over live birth.

[Lordquinton]

271. I presume you mean Unwanted pregnancy?

Because without ready, uncritical access to abortions, unwanted pregnancy causes far more problems overall, including illegal abortions in very dangerous conditions.

I'm sure any rational, thinking person would agree that there should be no limit in accessibility to abortion, knowing what happens when it's taken away.

[beam me up scottie]

46. I think rug is pro-choice.

But people vote with their wallets too. I don't consider people who support and defend the misogynistic organization whose anti-reproductive rights policies are responsible for the deaths of women around the world my allies.

Not all catholics on DU attack people who criticize the Vatican.

[Lordquinton]

61. He's never answered the question, so it's still a mystery

I agree that people vote with their wallets, and I do wonder why people still give to an organization that works against their interests.

[beam me up scottie]

66. That's probably why it will remain unanswered.

Unfortunately for the rest of us, his organization makes life suck for millions of non-catholics around the world.

When it comes to birth control, LGBT rights, death with dignity and a slew of other liberal causes, the RCC has proven that it's not our ally.

But the pope seems like a good guy.

[AtheistCrusader]

74. He can be as pro choice as he likes, he's still supporting shit like the bill in the OP if he gives

So much as a dime to that church.

[rug]

80. What bullshit.

You go from million dollar political campaigns by bishops to a buck in the basket without blinking an eye.

I thought you gave up guilt tripping when you gave up being Catholic.

[AtheistCrusader]

83. The RCC doesnt get its lobbying $'s from an invisible man in the sky.

Sorry if the truth hurts.

[rug]

88. If you looked, instead of frothed, you'll see these political campaigns get enormous donations

from PACS and extremely wealthy hardcore conservatives, many of whom are not even Catholic.

But no, go on and bash individual Catholics, many of whom are Democrats, while the ruling class merrily looks on.

Completely disruptive ignorant drivel. Your political naiveté is as large as your anti-religious bigotry.

[AtheistCrusader]

93. Donations which are offset by operational costs covered by members, like you.

Don't play coy with me.

[hrmjustin]

9. I don't think you should be silent and I regret that they voted this way.

[beam me up scottie]

12. Thanks, Justin.

I cried myself to sleep last night, I knew the amendment was going to pass but that didn't make it any easier to deal with.

This is terrible blow for women in Tennessee and surrounding states.

[hrmjustin]

14. Indeed it is.

It is hard enough for woman in rural conservative states to get access to a clinic that provides these services.

Now it was just made 1,000 times worse.

This is what happens when democrats abandon certain states to the gop.

[beam me up scottie]

16. It's not the Democrats' fault.

They didn't abandon Tennessee, no amount of money or effort would have made a difference. Some religious leaders even spoke out against the measures.

[hrmjustin]

17. Oh.

It is a horrible beat. Hopefully the courts will step in when we need them to.

[beam me up scottie]

18. They amended the constitution to stop the courts from interfering.

Tennessee voters on Tuesday approved a controversial ballot measure that ensures the state constitution does not protect a woman's right to abortion under any circumstances. Nearly 54 percent of voters approved the measure, with 46 percent opposed, according to Politico.

Amendment 1 overrides the Tennessee Supreme Court's 2000 decision to block a 36-hour mandatory waiting period before abortions. The court had ruled the state constitution protects women's right to privacy, which includes the right to have an abortion.

Amendment 1 will give state legislature the power to pass any kind of abortion restriction without fear of intervention by the courts. Supporters of the measure claimed that women were driving to Tennessee from surrounding states to have an abortion because Tennessee was unable to pass as many restrictions. The president of Tennessee Right to Life said the 2000 court decision left the state "out of character" with its socially conservative population.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/04/tennessee-abortion_n_6104502.html

[hrmjustin]

19. Shit!

No words!

[rug]

20. This amendment overturns that portion of the decision that rested on state, not federal grounds.

http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/sites/default/files/OPINIONS/TCA/PDF/983/planned.pdf

While the Tennessee Supreme Court held the Tennessee Constitution gave greater protections than the U.S. Constitution - and that part has been struck down - federal law prevents the measures they likely have in mind. This Amendment is basically an enabling document allowing the Tennessee legislature to draft all sorts of draconian measures without interference from state courts.

When they go too far, which they will, the answer will be found in federal district court.

[AtheistCrusader]

81. Federal constitution trumps that.

Problem is, we need some rich, old men on the Supreme Court to agree. Five of those men are Roman Catholics.

(I trust Sotomayor to do the right thing.)

[beam me up scottie]

86. For now.

What are the chances we could seat another liberal judge?

[AtheistCrusader]

87. Depends. Fist, i need to know if hell is endothermic or exothermic.

[Leontius]

92. Given the fact that we have no liberal as president I'd say none.

[beam me up scottie]

119. I don't think it matters.

Not now, even if Bernie Sanders were elected I don't think the newly elected congress and senate would ever allow another liberal judge.

There are too many tea party types who have staked their claim, beat their chests and swore they'll turn this country around.

And we're all going to suffer because of it, including the idiots that voted for them.

[TM99]

38. There is nothing wrong with your anger.

But...what the hell?

Go to a fundamentalist site and attack the fundies who did this directly. Use your anger and convince the other side at Discussionist or FreeRepublic that this is wrong.

Yes, right now, right here, you are displacing your anger. You are pointing your guns at those here who fucking support the same things you do. Pssss....they are on your side. Believers or not, all of us here at DU find this shit appalling and worth fighting.

Why should any of us listen or pay attention to your valid anger when all you do is shit on people of faith in this forum? I am not a believer, and yet I am pretty sick of it as well. I am not an apologist. I am a mature person who actually sees how the world works. You do realize that you are going to need religious people to get this over-turned, right?

Why, you ask? Because there are not enough athiests, non-believers, etc. to vote against this. A coalition of liberal believers AND not-believers with progressive values and politics are who will be fighting this kind of idiocy whether it is in Tennessee or New York.

As long as you continue to broad-brush with your rage, who would want to stand beside you, let alone even listen to you? Do something fucking constructive with that rage. Don't just throw it at those here who believe as you do, want what you want, and are willing to fight and vote for it as much as you are.

[Goblinmonger]

39. Here's how liberals help bring this about.

Those that chastise others that mock religion put religion on a different plane on which criticism is not valid. Once the bell that is rung is one of "you can't criticize other's beliefs" you are not just protecting the beliefs of the liberal believers, you are also, then, saying that the beliefs of conservative believers are not touchable either. Yet it is those beliefs that are the cause of the bullshit that happened in Tennessee. We can't afford to give religion a special place in which it is not OK to criticize it. Even harshly.

Let's even look closer to home. Several here are members of the RCC. The RCC is a horribly bigoted organization. (Note: I did not say that an individual Catholic is bigoted--the organization is). But once someone says that, the shit flinging starts about how horrible that is to say. You talk about how the atheists here are just religion haters. No. We aren't. We're bigotry haters. We're basing politics on irrationality haters.

But, go ahead. Keep doing what you're doing. But next time you afford religion a special place where criticism is deemed "shitting on people of faith," you are also protecting the bigoted bullshit fucking religion that caused this amendment to be a reality.

[rug]

43. That's how drivel works.

You conveniently leap over the mockery and focus on the mockery being called out.

But, go ahead. Keep doing what you're doing. Divide progressives over bullshit so you can go commiserate in some dark corner of the internet about how liberal believers are responsible for abortion laws.

Here, I'll borrow your words with a slight change:

This is a horribly divisive trolling tactic. (Note: I did not say that an individual poster is a troll--the tactic is).

[beam me up scottie]

48. Thanks for clarifying.

The RCC is a horribly bigoted organization. (Note: I did not say that an individual Catholic is bigoted--the organization is)

Many catholics on DU realize that and have no problem with criticism of the Vatican. Some even join in.

Others absolutely refuse to tolerate it and attack us, trying to intimidate and smear critics, misrepresenting our posts and accusing us of being intolerant of religious people.

Intolerance of religious bigotry is not bigotry.

[beam me up scottie]

47. My anger is not directed at "people of faith in this forum"

It's directed at people who dismiss my anger against religion and insist there's something wrong with me for being angry.

If you are not an apologist the op is not directed at you. I may not have been clear enough but if Justin gets it I know I haven't been broadbrushing all believers.

Religious leaders came out against the amendment at great personal risk, and I commend them. They and DUers like them are my allies.

I am an anti-theist, I make no apologies for that.

If you think that I targeted you or other liberal believers who fight for my rights, I apologize for my lack of tact.

I am very, very angry, but not for the reasons you think.

[TM99]

49. Your choice of words

did suggest that you were broad-brushing against liberal believers and even liberal non-believers.

I may not agree with your anti-theism stance, however, I can say we are on the same side against fundamentalists.

Please consider though that your anger, no matter how just or valid, is coming across here today as an attack on members of DU.

There are zero apologists for fundamentalists or this type of backwards legislation on DU.

[beam me up scottie]

50. All of the comments I cited in the op have indeed been posted here.

Not always in those exact words, but that's a matter of semantics. I reacted to the anti-atheist bigotry and lashed out at those responsible for it.

Again, my anger is directed at religion and its apologists, not religious people in general.

Here is one of Greta Christina's 9 Questions Not To Ask Atheists:

9: “Why are you atheists so angry?”

The answer: I’ve actually written an entire book answering this question (Why Are You Atheists So Angry? 99 Things That Piss Off the Godless). The short answer: Not all atheists are angry about religion — and those of us who are angry aren’t in a constant state of rage. But yes, many atheists are angry about religion — and we’re angry because we see terrible harm being done by religion. We’re angry about harm being done to atheists… and we’re angry about harm done to other believers. We don’t just think religion is mistaken — we think it does significantly more harm than good. And it pisses us off.

Why you shouldn’t ask it: This question assumes that atheists are angry because there’s something wrong with us. It assumes that atheists are angry because we’re bitter, selfish, whiny, unhappy, because we lack joy and meaning in our lives, because we have a God-shaped hole in our hearts. The people asking it seem to have never even considered the possibility that atheists are angry because we have legitimate things to be angry about.

This reflexive dismissal of our anger’s legitimacy does two things. It treats atheists as flawed, broken, incomplete. And it defangs the power of our anger. (Or it tries to, anyway.) Anger is a hugely powerful motivating force — it has been a major motivating force for every social change movement in history — and when people try to dismiss or trivialize atheists’ anger, they are, essentially, trying to take that power away.

And finally: The people asking this question never seem to notice just how much atheist anger is directed, not at harm done to atheists, but at harm done to believers. A huge amount of our anger about religion is aimed at the oppression and brutality and misery created by religion, not in the lives of atheists, but in the lives of believers. Our anger about religion comes from compassion, from a sense of justice, from a vivid awareness of terrible damage being done in the world and a driving motivation to do something about it. Atheists aren’t angry because there’s something wrong with us. Atheists are angry because there’s something right with us. And it is messed-up beyond recognition to treat one of our greatest strengths, one of our most powerful motivating forces and one of the clearest signs of our decency, as a sign that we’re flawed or broken.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2013/06/11/9-questions-not-to-ask-atheists-with-answers/

[TM99]

53. Please provide links to back the claims.

Also, as a non-believing ignostic, I am quite comfortable asking anti-theists why they are so damned angry.

Anger is fine - it is about hurt. Rage is not. I see more rage being expressed, and it is toxic & rather non-productive.

Burning your wood is fine just remember it is your wood.

[beam me up scottie]

54. Atheists who post here regularly are intimately familiar with the angry atheist meme.

I'm not alone in my anger, and I don't presume to speak for all of them, I speak for me.

I have been very specific about what I'm raging against, the fact that you haven't witnessed such behaviour isn't a reason to dismiss my anger.

Just like feminists, LGBT people and other minorities on DU who experience the intolerance, I rage against the source.

[TM99]

55. Meme's like stereotypes have some basis in reality.

You still have not provided proof of your claims.

I have not dismissed your anger. I have countered your rage.

[beam me up scottie]

56. And they're found on DU more than people would like to admit.

My op was directed at the people who stereotype atheists, spread misinformation about them and dismiss their anger.

If someone on DU were to post the following statement:

I learned over the last few years that some number of women/LGBT people/racial minorities, hopefully not representative of women/LGBT people/racial minorities generally, are really defensive and exhibit many of the same signs we see in cases of child abuse, spousal abuse, and PTSD generally.

no one would wonder why women, LGBT people and racial minorities were outraged.


But if you want to believe that I hate religious people and that no anti-atheist bigotry exists on DU, that's fine with me too.

[TM99]

59. People love to get outraged.

Of course, there are women/LGBT's/racial minorities who are and do exhibit the hallmarks of misdirected rage. To call them on it does not de-legitimize their hurt and anger.

So that argument, I am sorry, falls flat. There are also ragers who are white, male, and straight. Rage is rage. And it is never helpful and rarely appropriate.

Calling out individual rage is not dismissing hurt and anger. Challenging anti-theists is not spreading misinformation about them.

I have seen zero instances of anti-atheist bigotry. I see loads of what appears like anti-religious bigotry. Why? Because it is misdirected rage. Your OP is rife with it as I pointed out already.

You hate religion. Do you disagree with that? You hate those who are 'apologists' for religion? Do you disagree with that?

Having all of that hate aimed at religions and the religious is going to sure make you look like you hate religious people. It is also going to make you look like you are very bigoted against religious people.

[beam me up scottie]

63. Bullshit. I don't hate anyone.

Trying to make me look like I hate religious people when I have specifically directed my anger towards religious bigots and apologists proves my point.

I see loads of what appears like anti-religious bigotry

Where?



eta: I just realized who you are, after a search of your posts I see I was wrong to give you the benefit of the doubt. I didn't recognize you and didn't know you had an agenda.

So, after reading a few of your old posts, and re-reading the ones in this thread, yes, you are exactly the kind of DUer I had in mind when I posted the op.

So why then would you have a problem with whom and what I am speaking out against unless you actually agree with all of those things yourself. Do you?

[skepticscott]

73. The code words "broad-brushing" and "coalition"

should have told you exactly where this poster is coming from, and what clan's refreshments they've been imbibing.

Nice, too, that they've deigned to evaluate your mental state over the the Internets, despite their frothing at anyone else attempting such a thing. But no doubt they have perfected a method for distinguishing "anger" from "rage" in people they've never seen, never met and never spoken to.

[beam me up scottie]

78. People who discuss my mental state make me want to drink heavily, kill someone and commit suicide.

And a real professional would know better than to discuss such things here.


Seriously, I wasn't here for quite some time and I really thought TM99 was offended because I wasn't specific enough in my op.

I don't want to offend people like shenmue because I like and respect her, but the rest of these yahoos, meh.

[skepticscott]

84. No, your current instincts are correct

This is standard boilerplate for the clan-based faitheists and apologists.

[TM99]

125. Hardly.

You chose your own words. You continue to choose your own words. They are not words of tolerance, respect, or understanding for those here who are not anti-theists like yourself - believers or non-believers - or fundamentalists who are doing the things that you (and we all) dislike and vote against.

But, sadly, it appears that you are just another wounded anti-theist with a chip on her shoulder and more emotion than reason.

I am quite certain we will butt heads again in the future. Until then.....

[beam me up scottie]

167. Yes, I'm just a wounded emotional/hysterical woman with no reason to despise religion.

Last edited Sat Nov 8, 2014, 05:01 AM - Edit history (2)

it appears that you are just another wounded anti-theist with a chip on her shoulder and more emotion than reason.

Your post is EXACTLY what I was talking about in the op when I referred to religious apologists who tell me:

that I'm confused, that I'm being unreasonable, that my anger is misplaced.

Your strawman argument is lame, but I'm not surprised.


Accusing me of being intolerant when there was no broadbrush attack in the op, when it was specifically directed at religious apologists whose behaviour was described in detail is hypocritical and disingenuous.



So, let me make this perfectly clear, I am intolerant of religious apologists and anti-atheist bigots.



And if my op appears to be intolerant of you, then maybe you should reconsider why you're so offended.



Because I'm not the one with a problem.

[TM99]

168. Hyperboles?

Yes, emotion over reason. Why? Because you created a strawman of the 'hysterical woman with no reasons to despise religion' to maintain your misplaced rage.

I have not dismissed your hurt or anger. I have said that you might be better served directing it at those who actually do support religious fundamentalism.

Since you apparently like dares, I dare you to name one regular poster here in the Religion forums on DU that actively supports religious fundamentalism and would have or did vote for that proposition in TN. Can you?

No. Therefore, yes, your 'rage' is misplaced and some, including myself, don't tolerate rage at someone else being pointed at us when we are not the original offender. I particularly dislike seeing atheists who are anti-theists beat up and bully religious believers on these forums because they despise religion, think it is a mental illness, and are incapable of separating out their rage from their reason long enough to recognize that broad-brushing an entire class of people based on the actions of some of that class is BIGOTRY.

If you are pissed off at fundamentalists and come here to express that rage at those that are not fundamentalists and try to lump them in with fundamentalists, you are no different than the person who is angry at their boss but comes home and yells at the dog or kids instead.

So, I am not an 'anti-atheist bigot' because I call out yours and other individuals bigotry in this forum. I have done it with others, and yes, I will continue to do it with more including yourself if that is road you head down.

But you will believe what you will because it is not based on reason, it is based on your hurt and anger. Even more bluntly, the staunch anti-theist is as fundamentalistic and literalistic as the worst Christian, Muslim, etc. that they have pitted themselves in opposition against.

Finally, if you want help fighting those who are going to be truly bigoted towards you and potentially hurt you further, it might behoove you to not be such a nit with those here who, believers or not, are on your fucking side politically.

Absolutely, you are the one with the problem.

[skepticscott]

170. And you apparently feel fully qualified to "diagnose" this "problem"

over the Internet (Bill Frist, eat your heart out!). And this despite not even being able to concretely define the difference between "anger" and "rage", not being able to justify telling the difference by long distance, in someone you've never seen, met or spoken to, or being able to prove that bmus's statements here unequivocally qualify as one and not the other. Oh, and just for the record...did you or did you not say that it was inappropriate to offer opinions on someone's mental state without a proper clinical evaluation?

And yes, as a matter of fact, there are posters on this board who are adamantly opposed to gay marriage and abortion choice, because of their fundamentalist religious beliefs. They just don't have the courage to say so. But when you ask someone a dozen times whether they are pro choice or support gay marriage, and they avoid giving a straight answer every single time, it's not hard to figure out what they really think.

[okasha]

178. Spot on.

[skepticscott]

181. Oh yeppers..spot on..except that he can't back up his accusations

of "bigotry" with a single example. He fails miserably at that, just like every other member of the clan, and everyone sees it. But you all think that if you just fling that crap enough, it will stick.

[Warren Stupidity]

58. tone trolling.

The tone argument is to dismiss an opponent's argument based on its presentation: typically perceived crassness, hysteria or anger. It is an ad hominem attack, used as a derailment, silencing tactic or by a concern troll.

The tone argument in practice is almost always dishonest. It is generally used by a tone troll against opponents lower on the privilege ladder, as a method of positioning oneself as a Very Serious Person.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tone_argument

Most typically the tone troll is used against feminists. "If only you weren't so shrill...".

[skepticscott]

76. And the sub-species of the tone troll

The psychoscold…who doles out condescending clinical evaluations of the mental state of posters they wish to discredit, while expressing faux concern for them.

[beam me up scottie]

79. "The psychoscold"

Oh, man, that is freakin perfect!

[AtheistCrusader]

85. Does the phrase 'women can buy their rubbers at 7-11 like everyone else' ring any bells for you?

If you think the number of apologists is zero, you must not read this folder at all.

[beam me up scottie]

89. Oh, he does read here, and posts too.

Do a search going back a year. Or check out the comments on this thread

Topics started by non-believers and believers alike on atheist topics tend to be more agreeable. Why? Because at heart all progressives posting here are inclusive, anti-fundamentalist, agree that religion should not be endorsed by governments, etc.

The remaining topics posted by the anti-theists are insulting, mocking, and frankly sometimes just disturbing (like the new old meme about religion = mental illness). These are not discussion topics. These are mind games.

Note the hypocrisy when it comes to discussing mental illness.


I made the mistake of thinking this was a casual observer that I had offended.

[AtheistCrusader]

102. Exhibit A in the body of evidence in this thread why i have to use the word 'Disingenuous' so much.

Thanks for linking that.

[NaturalHigh]

51. No, I won't try to tell you anything.

Your mind is pretty much made up already.

[yeoman6987]

94. For some reason the voters wanted this

Remember the voters voted for minimum wage in 3 state and pot in 2 states and a penny increase per ounce of soda in one of the county. Voters approve and disapprove measures all the time. Not really shocking. Next election try to put some mesures up that would appeal to the voters.

[AtheistCrusader]

95. 'some reason'.

Insert disgusted snort here.

[yeoman6987]

99. Still the same outcome and result

Voters wanted this period. Do you think every voter wanted pot in their state? I imagine more then one didn't. Measure and approved and denied every election according to the voters.

[AtheistCrusader]

103. the op delves into WHY.

This is not difficult.

[yeoman6987]

108. Well I never added that GOP voters tend to vote emotionally and not with their brain (NOT ALL)

They never realize that eventually their daughter or son's wife or their wife might be in deep trouble and now won't be able to do anything about it.....I am talking medically. They figure the guy upstairs has this all planned out.....I don't get it, but I do apologize for not supporting you on this thread. I was very glib and on the side of rude in fact and I apologize.

[AtheistCrusader]

112. I think the reason why is important, so we disagree materially, i think.

But I will apologize to you for my abrasiveness.

[yeoman6987]

114. No biggies....emotions are high and very understandably for all of us.

Have a great night!!!!!

[beam me up scottie]

120. "Next election try to put some mesures up that would appeal to the voters."

What are you trying to say?

[MADem]

117. Because there are NO "anti-abortion" atheists?? Oh...wait....that's not true, is it?

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pro-life-atheists-invade-the-american-atheist-convention

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/03/11/yes-there-are-pro-life-atheists-out-there-heres-why-im-one-of-them/

http://www.godlessprolifers.org/

http://www.secularprolife.org/

Looks like there are busybodies on all sides of the "belief" spectrum....

[beam me up scottie]

121. Are you really suggesting that atheists are equally responsible for passing this amendment?

That's the stupidest defense of anti-choice religious organizations I've ever seen.


From lifeNews:

Brain Harris, the Tennessee Right to Life president, told LifeNews previously that the 2000 ruling in Planned Parenthood of Middle Tennessee v. Sundquist made it so “common sense protections were immediately stripped from state law books including informed consent for women considering abortion, a 48 hour waiting period and a requirement that second and third trimester abortions be performed in regulated hospitals rather than out-patient abortion facilities.”

“We are grateful to God and to the good people of Tennessee for this victory,” Harris said. “Despite millions of abortion dollars flooding our airwaves with deceptive ads, the people of Tennessee saw through the falsehoods and made their voices heard.”

Harris told LifeNews that Yes on 1 coordinated a statewide grassroots campaign heavy on volunteers and smaller financial contributions from individuals, churches and pro-life organizations.

“We recognized that we would never have the financial resources of the abortion industry so began planning long ago to build a team of advocates who could educate and organize their local communities,” Harris said. “That effort paid off, especially in rural regions of the state where volunteers raised funds and awareness of both the amendment and the 2000 court ruling in Planned Parenthood of Middle Tennessee v Sundquist, a decision which claimed a fundamental right to abortion.”

Harris also gave special credit to clergy and religious leaders throughout the state who made support for the Amendment a priority.

“In the end this could be characterized as pastors and pulpits in opposition to Planned Parenthood’s abortion-profiteering. We owe a debt of gratitude to men and women of faith who refused to accept Tennessee’s designation as an abortion destination and who actively used their influence to promote the protection of innocent human life.”

[MADem]

130. No, I'm not. I'm simply saying that not all atheists are pro-choice, and not

all religious people or agnostics are anti-choice. That's all I am saying.

That broad brush coats sloppily. I think these religious people are idiots, frankly, but there are atheist idiots out there, too.

Not sure where you're getting "defense" from, because I am not "defending" anyone .... I'm simply trying to inject a little nuance into the conversation. I don't know why I bother, really--the cartoonish, big broad arguments are the only ones that seem to resonate here.

[beam me up scottie]

166. Go peddle your strawman somewhere else.

all religious people or agnostics are anti-choice

The nalt argument doesn't apply here since NO ONE in this thread EVER FUCKING SAID THAT.

My anger in the op is directed at religious apologists.

The fact that you're so defensive is a good indication that you fall into that category.



And since there was no broad brush used, your so-called "nuance" is just the religious apologist equivalent of:


"Some black people are racist too!"



Way to prove my point, MADem.

Thank you and please do feel free to stop in and help me out in the future.







And just like AoR, I use the f-word when I'm pissed.

How fuckety fuck fuck fucking rude of me.

[MADem]

201. Ooooh, someone's upset!! PISSED, as you said. I think you're wearing the "defensive" hat, y'know.

Get over yourself--your team is as imperfect as the other one. That's the only point to be taken, here.

It's plain you can't capture that notion--but I really don't care that your grasp was weak.

Nice job playing that race card, though! You just needed to pull it out and slap it down! Makes your post worth saving, that.

OhhhKaaaay.

I see you.

beam me up scottie
166. Go peddle your strawman somewhere else.
View profile
all religious people or agnostics are anti-choice


The nalt argument doesn't apply here since NO ONE in this thread EVER FUCKING SAID THAT.

My anger in the op is directed at religious apologists.

The fact that you're so defensive is a good indication that you fall into that category.



And since there was no broad brush used, your so-called "nuance" is just the religious apologist equivalent of:


"Some black people are racist too!"



Way to prove my point, MADem.

Thank you and please do feel free to stop in and help me out in the future.







And just like AoR, I use the f-word when I'm pissed.

How fuckety fuck fuck fucking rude of me.

[AtheistCrusader]

123. "Best viewed with Netscape at 800x600 and true (32-bit) color"

Thanks for that laugh.

[MADem]

131. Hey, I'm not averring those idiots are any more sophisticated than other idiots. nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

127. Since you seem to have ignored what's in the OP:

for those of us who believe life is sacred
...
Faith groups including the Southern Baptist Convention, all three of Tennessee's Catholic bishops and a number of denominations have come out in support of the amendment.

Let's see the reaction of the head of the main organisation for the amendment:

“We are grateful to God and to the good people of Tennessee for this victory,” said Brian Harris, president of Tennessee Right to Life, in a press release.”Despite millions of abortion dollars flooding our airwaves with deceptive ads, the people of Tennessee saw through the falsehoods and made their voices heard.”

Harris gave credit to those praying people. “In the end this could be characterized as pastors and pulpits in opposition to Planned Parenthood’s abortion-profiteering,” Harris said. “We owe a debt of gratitude to men and women of faith who refused to accept Tennessee’s designation as an abortion destination and who actively used their influence to promote the protection of innocent human life.”

http://www.knoxnews.com/opinion/columnists/greg-johnson-rural-antiabortion-voters-turned-tide_25676899

And the reaction of that smug columnist?

Amendment 1 to the Tennessee Constitution passed even though America’s biggest abortion provider and big-city lawyers poured millions into efforts to defeat it. Call it the revenge of the church ladies — and men — who sat in pews and folding chairs, some fingering rosaries, others bowed in prayer, beseeching the Almighty to intervene on behalf of the unborn.

I cannot believe a DUer is pretending this was anything other than religious groups pushing a religious amendment. Have you no shame? Have you no grip on reality? People with no religion are more pro-choice than Liberals, Democrats, any age group, region, ethnicity, or gender:

[MADem]

129. Of course it is a religious group pushing an amendment that appeals to some religious factions.

My only point was that it's not EXCLUSIVELY religious people that take an anti-choice view. There are a shitload of organizations that are secular and atheist that also take an anti-choice view.

To tie the anti-choice attitude exclusively to the religious is a false paradigm and it also facilitates demonization across the board. I do know people who are religious and who are strongly--indeed, fervently, pro-choice. Ted Kennedy, for example, was one. John Kerry is another.

[Act_of_Reparation]

140. What a load of bullshit.

My only point was that it's not EXCLUSIVELY religious people that take an anti-choice view. There are a shitload of organizations that are secular and atheist that also take an anti-choice view.

A shitload? I can think of four, and they're all fringe organizations.

To tie the anti-choice attitude exclusively to the religious is a false paradigm and it also facilitates demonization across the board. I do know people who are religious and who are strongly--indeed, fervently, pro-choice. Ted Kennedy, for example, was one. John Kerry is another.

This is what makes engaging you and your ilk so fucking frustrating. Four fringe organizations is a "shitload"; the political positions of two Catholic politicians--one of whom is dead--upsets the perception that Catholics, in general, are anti-choice. Where did you study statistics?

Time and time again, the research shows anti-choice positions correlate strongly with religiosity. Those who attend church are more reliably anti-choice than those who do not; those who attend church often are more reliably anti-choice than those who attend every once and a while. The differences between denominations are minimal; overall, a majority of both Catholics and Protestants are anti-choice.

No, not all anti-choice assholes are religious, and not all religious people are anti-choice assholes; but the evidence suggests religion is likely the single most important factor determining a person's position on abortion (Emerson 1996). You literally cannot discuss this issue honestly without addressing its connection to religiosity.

There are nearly 319 million people in this country. It is impossible to know, exactly, what every one of them thinks about everything; but statistics allows us, within a margin of error, to get a pretty good indication of what our fellow countrymen are feeling, and why. While they are by no means absolute, statistics are far more reliable for drawing meaningful conclusions from population than your erratic fucking anecdotes.

It is not dishonest, therefore, to address religious people when discussing the issue of abortion, because the two are linked with a high degree of statistical significance. What is dishonest, on the other hand, is berating someone because they didn't, to your satisfaction, address less-significant or insignificant correlations.

[MADem]

141. Just because you can only think of four organizations, that makes the point invalid?

Your ability to recall, or not, determines the validity of all arguments, eh?

And the minute you start with "you and your ilk" and "erratic fucking anecdotes" verbiage I just have to disengage. You've lost any high ground you might have crawled to when you start talking rudely and personally like that.

You have biases against simple truths, and you're trying to denigrate me for trying to bring nuance into the conversation.

How dare anyone see anything in something other than stark GOOD V. EVIL, BLACK V. WHITE, BELIEVER V. UNBELIEVER terms? What nerve to point out that there are shades of gray in all that mix! You know, because that's how life works?

You have a swell day with your statistical insinuations, and all.

[Goblinmonger]

142. So what are the shitload of atheist organizations that support pro-life legislation?

If there is a shitload, certainly providing us with 10-15 would be no problem. And I'm sure they won't be fringe organization, but ones where we'll say "The FFRF supports pro-life legislation--get the fuck out!" and not "Hey, that 100 member 'John Galt Hates Abortion' group supported Tennessee Amendment 1--go figure."

Do you think that the overwhelming number of surveys and statistics that show a grossly large correlation between pro-life and religion are wrong? Are those numbers someone unable to see some particular nuance? And, if so, what is the nuance that is being missed?

[MADem]

143. I gave you several, and you've got Google. Go for it.

This isn't a "might makes right" (or wrong) argument.

The point is that this view is held by people of varying religious beliefs and NONE AT ALL...just as the CHOICE view is held by people of varying religions as well as those who say they hold none at all.

Most of the people I know who are religious are also pro-choice. So let's use MY surveys and statistics, then, shall we?

No one group owns these views. To try to reduce the debate in that kind of simplistic fashion misses the trick.

[Act_of_Reparation]

148. If you don't know what you're talking about...

...then the responsible thing to do is stop talking.

The point is that this view is held by people of varying religious beliefs and NONE AT ALL...just as the CHOICE view is held by people of varying religions as well as those who say they hold none at all.

So. Fucking. What.

Seriously.

What is it about this that you fail to comprehend?

If 99% of Republicans take bribes, to only 1% of Democrats, with whom does the greater responsibility for corruption lay? With which political leaning is corruption more strongly correlated? Does diverting attention away from the Republicans to pursue corrupt Democrats even remotely fucking sensible?

Most of the people I know who are religious are also pro-choice. So let's use MY surveys and statistics, then, shall we?

Get your results published in a peer-reviewed journal and I'll consider it.

No one group owns these views. To try to reduce the debate in that kind of simplistic fashion misses the trick.

So, in the interest of preserving this asinine and ultimately futile pseudo-progressive circle jerk everyone seems to enjoy so much, we'll take the Luke Russert approach to social issues: we'll just pretend both sides are equally culpable.

Yeah, fuck that.

[MADem]

149. There ya go with the personal insults. Have a nice life, there and take your f bombs with you. nt

[Act_of_Reparation]

165. Spare us your scolding.

We're talking about an important issue, here. Lack of ready access to reproductive health care is probably the most significant barrier to upward mobility. Generation after generation is condemned to intractable poverty because they are forced to have children before they are financially ready to care for them. Oh, and let's not forget: these policies the anti-choicers are pushing kill women.

BMUS has every right to be angry, and the data shows her anger is not misplaced. But you chose to dismiss that anger with a simpering whine about how "atheists are anti-choice too", along with the usual odious implications of intolerance and accompanying self-congratulatory backslapping.

Let's get something straight: you are not adding "nuance" to this discussion. You are pulling our attention away from what is, without argument, the single most important factor contributing to the proliferation of anti-choice opinion in this country to focus on an infinitesimal demographic that, if balanced from the equation, would bring this country no closer to a state of reproductive freedom. No, you are adding distraction to this discussion; and distraction doesn't help anyone but the anti-choice assholes you claim to oppose.

You were made aware of all of this, but rather than give a moment's time to reflect, you decided to double-down on your bullshit, treating us to an embarrassingly Agnew-esque assault on the integrity of the social sciences.

So, yeah. I said "fuck"; and I'm not in the least bit sorry about it.

[MADem]

189. Looks like you're the one doing all the scolding.

What a rant! You like to tell people what they think and how they feel about issues, too. Thing is, you aren't accurate. So yeah, take your diatribes, and your F-bombs with you when you step off.

[Act_of_Reparation]

194. What a powerhouse retort.

[MADem]

200. I wasn't going for a "powerhouse retort" there, sport.

I was simply conversing--you're the one that wanted to turn this into a hot-breathed, earnest, huffing and puffing "team sport" and draw sides.


So off you go to play--I think you are uninterested in mature conversation, based on your replies to me thus far.

[AtheistCrusader]

151. No you didn't.

One of those links is just a single dude, and the site was made when Netscape was still a browser. One person does not an 'organization' make.

The pro-life atheist you are searching for is actually a rare and elusive creature, not an appreciable fraction of atheists. And ALL of them lose their shit and their arguments fall apart for early term abortion, because no person is present at early forms of development. No person, no personhood, and thus, no rights.

[MADem]

202. One is, so?

Age equals irrelevance, that's your argument?

They outnumber (by a substantial margin) the number of people who voted for the Green Party in USA... but hey, there are plenty of people who ascribe great import to them here--so ... whatever!

But waaaah---you want more, More, MORE!!!!!!!! To give you something ELSE to carp about! Here--read!!!

Famous pro-life atheist--a hero here, too amongst some: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens

http://www.prolifehumanists.org/tag/pro-life-atheists/

http://www.newsweek.com/beliefwatch-pro-life-atheists-85273

"I think there is nothing beyond this life—but life in and of itself is unique and special," explains Matt Wallace, a UPS package handler in North Carolina who started an online group for pro-life atheists in 1999. "In abortion, a human being ends up getting killed for no other reason than he or she wasn't planned or wanted. One should always err on the side of innocent human life." Wallace is likely one of the very few atheists who voted against Barack Obama, largely because of his abortion views.

Christopher Hitchens, the bombastic and verbally double-jointed atheist intellectual, says the articulation of such points of view represents progress, a reaching for common ground after 30 years of oppositional acrimony. Hitchens, known for his defiant and politically incorrect positions, takes an uncharacteristic middle path on abortion. When asked whether he is "pro-life," he answers in the affirmative. He has repeatedly defended the use of the term "unborn child" against those on the left who say that an aborted fetus is nothing more than a growth, an appendix, a polyp.

http://atheism.about.com/od/abortioncontraception/p/AtheistsAbort.htm

https://richarddawkins.net/2014/09/at-anti-abortion-rally-non-religious-speaker-urges-audience-to-accept-atheists-who-share-their-views/

Polls show that at least 15% of people who say they have no religion also call themselves “pro-life.” If you do the math on that, that’s millions of Americans — at minimum 6 million Americans.

If you don't think that "atheists" are one of the new "target demographics" of the anti-choice movement, to say nothing of the "conservative movement," I have a bridge for sale. You're just blinded by your own biases and wedded to old arguments.

Next up, Conservative, Republican Atheists. People who prefer those nutzo wingnut arguments out of, I dunno--greed and an "I got mine" attitude.

But....BUT.... BUT!!!!!!!! That could NEVER HAPPEN!!!!! Why, the "Progressive Team" -- they "OWN" the atheists!!! Only they don't.

http://thehumanist.com/commentary/wait-youre-an-atheist-and-a-conservative

While the numbers to back this claim are not staggering, there is some truth to the statement. According to a recent Pew Forum survey, 19 percent of conservatives are unaffiliated with any particular religion, and 14 percent of atheists identify as conservative.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/02/whats-so-weird-about-a-conservative-atheist/284092/

The American Atheists disagree. "America’s religious conservatives can deny it all they want, but soon they’re going to realize that ignoring the growing number of atheist constituents is a losing proposition,” the organization's president, David Silverman, said in a press release. He says his group had been in conversation with conference's planning committee about 2015, offering up ideas for future atheist keynoters. Despite this year's snub, the Atheists are willing to reopen dialogue with CPAC about "the importance of religious equality," Silverman said.

Look at what Charles CW Cooke had to say on the topic:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/372060/yes-atheism-and-conservatism-are-compatible-charles-c-w-cooke

If atheism and conservatism are incompatible, then I am not a conservative. And nor, I am given to understand, are George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Anthony Daniels, Walter Olson, Heather Mac Donald, James Taranto, Allahpundit, or S. E. Cupp. There is no getting around this — no splitting the difference: I don’t believe there is a God. It’s not that I’m “not sure” or that I haven’t ever bothered to think about it; it’s that I actively think there isn’t a God — much as I think there are no fairies or unicorns or elves. The degree to which I’m confident in this view works on a scale, certainly: I’m much surer, for example, that the claims of particular religions are untrue and that there is no power intervening in the affairs of man than I am that there was no prime mover of any sort. But, when it comes down to it, I don’t believe in any of those propositions. Am I to be excommunicated from the Right?

Oh yeah? Oh yeah. You ignore this movement AT YOUR PERIL.

As someone who is pro-choice, I can see which way the wind is blowing. You can put your fingers in your ears, and scrunch up your eyes so that they're closed up tight, and refuse to see what's happening and how the GOP is retooling, and when you finally open your eyes and have a look, you probably will not like what you see.

The GOP are doing their own triangulating and "Third Waying." And while everyone on this little board are carping about how this Democrat or that one isn't "pure" enough, the GOP--to include those anti-choice atheists--are eating our lunch.

[mr blur]

171. Ah, the old, "You've got Google!" gambit, eh?

As in, "Well, I can't actually but I'll push the onus on to you to prove my point...because, you know, that's what intelligent debaters do when they've painted themselves into a corner and have nothing relevant to say".

(Usually followed by an "I'm not talking to you any more, you don't respect me!" exit.)

[MADem]

172. Because no matter how many links are provided, they're never enough.

I got the Google ball rolling upthread--and there were plenty more where that came from.

I don't do homework. But I will say that your "Google gambit" snark is exactly what people say when they want to engage in a pointless circular argument.

Here's the proof.

Well, that's not enough proof to suit MEEEEE.

You've got google, it's all there, go get more if that's not enough.

Ahhh--the Google gambit...you're not "intelligent" ... you've "painted yourself into a corner..."

Please.

[mr blur]

180. When you're stuck in a deep hole, best to stop digging.

Bye.

[okasha]

183. Someone will lower a flashlight to you.

[rug]

186. They'll need a longer rope.

[mr blur]

199. Sadly, you don't even have the saving grace of being amusing.

Just so, so boring.

[okasha]

214. Apparently my comments are interesting enough

that you find it so, so necessary to opine on them.

[Dorian Gray]

128. I understand your anger

I was very depressed about the election results myself. Disheartened. I'm thankful I live in the Northeast where the issues that you face probably won't face me and my loved ones.

I also think that you are, for the most part, preaching to the choir here. Even the religious on this board have worked and voted for liberal and democratic candidates. I have. So, while I understand the anger, I do think that most of us are 100% with you when it comes to politics.

[trotsky]

133. When it comes to the political position, yes there is agreement.

That's not what is at issue here, however.

Many people here have chided atheists for caring about the religious beliefs of others. Some have gone so far as to declare the beliefs of others don't affect us at all. Mocking atheists who post in a "Religion" forum. And so on.

bmus' post addresses those individuals. Here is a real-world example where the religious beliefs of others are going to have serious consequences on the rest of us.

[LeftishBrit]

169. I hate the political pro-life movement too!

My MP was elected in part due to their interference, and I once had a lovely dream that she was eaten by a crocodile!

So they do make me angry, especially as they are rarely pro-life once people are born. I suppose I just don't equate them with all religion.

[okasha]

179. Eaten by a crocodile?

No crocs available, but I'lll have a word with the gators of my acquaintance.

[NYC_SKP]

177. I fully support a man or woman's decision to be intractably and adamantly Pro Life!

.
As long as they aren't trying to pass laws that legislate what OTHERS do with their bodies.

In a healthy culture, abortions would be very rare. Of course, in that same culture there would not be rape or violence or failure of birth control measures.

Tennessee and the other 49 states of this union are imperfect cultures, some more imperfect than others on certain matters.

We live in reality and while I'm Pro Choice, I'm far too respectful of the individual life view that each person has, as an expert in their own experience, to insist that they agree with ME!

Like religion, I leave them all free to believe what they choose to believe, or disbelieve.

I'm too tolerant not to, and too sane.

[skepticscott]

182. So does everyone you upbraid, so your smug superiority is misplaced

not to mention more than a little nauseating. The critics of religion here criticize the imposition of religious beliefs onto others that don't share them, and the voicing of hateful and bigoted attitudes.

If the religionistas kept their shit to themselves, completely, no one would mind. But they just can't seem to, can they?

[NYC_SKP]

184. So, then, we agree! Fabulous!

Let's have a hug, then!

[beam me up scottie]

192. "I'm too tolerant not to, and too sane."

Really?

Didn't you post this lovely example of gun porn in GD after the Newtown school shooting?: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022002711

"would you kiss your mossberg with that mouth"

What you want is a Mossberg 500 Special Purpose 12 ga with Extended Magazine.
EarlG instructed us to let gun posts stay in GD and to generally let it all hang out.

I don't actually own a Mossberg 500 Stainless Steel Shotgun with 9 round capacity, but I'm likely to order one based upon my personal environment.

Carry on if you don't want to discuss the relative plusses/minusses of a shotgun versus handgun or rifle, it's not my point.

First, read this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1240187710

Now, allow me the very same freedom to invite discussion about the merits or disadvantages of such a weapon.

For myself, I don't own one but am ordering one tomorrow.

It's stainless steel and I live on the water.

It's a shotgun, so I don't have to aim, and it won't go 1/4 mile like my long guns (ooh he has long guns, banish him! :rofl.

In honesty, I'm testing the DU system.



If it's OK to post gun hater threats and insults in GD, per EarlG, then my humble opinion on the Mossberg 500 is surely fair.

Thanks DU!

Loveya!

In light of that horrendous massacre and the outrage that so many innocent lives were lost, you decided that you just couldn't tolerate all of those nasty posts about guns and retaliated with that disgusting exhibition of What Is Really More Important to you.

Whether that was the reaction of a person who is "too tolerant" and "too sane" is debatable.

I leave them all free to believe what they choose to believe, or disbelieve.

I'm too tolerant not to, and too sane.

If I ever need lessons in tolerance and counseling on my emotional distress, I'm probably not going to turn to DU's Mossberg Man.

[NYC_SKP]

193. The Serenity Prayer comes to mind.

.
You might want to think about it, think about your expectations and how realistic they are, and just give it a little try.

Just leave out the "God" part and put yourself, your most peaceful and rational self, in it's place.





~

[immoderate]

210. balls!

--imm

[beam me up scottie]

212. !

[trotsky]

196. Whoa, that's nasty.

"Worst post ever." Way to go, SKP!

[beam me up scottie]

213. And he thinks atheists are mentally ill?

This needs to be brought up every time this guy decides to "counsel" atheists.

[trotsky]

215. Like everyone in the "holier than thou" brigade,

he torpedoed his own credibility. Glad it's all on the record.

[beam me up scottie]

218. And they applaud this guy for telling outspoken atheists that they're mentally ill.

While arguing against the strawman that atheists think religious people are mentally ill.

Makes perfect sense.


But in a way, it's good to have bigotry like that out in the open.


And see which hypocrites reward him for his behaviour.

[mr blur]

198. What the hell do you mean by a "healthy culture"?

Is that what you have on your planet?

You really do spout the most risible waffle.

[NYC_SKP]

203. "You really do spout the most risible waffle."

What a splendid retort!



Now, as a calm and centered person not given to insult, I'll be happy to answer the question in your subject line.

In a "healthy culture", all adults, men and women, of childbearing age would have received an education and instruction in the use of contraception and the consequences for not using it, misusing it, etc.

In a "healthy culture", all pregnancies would be "wanted", leaving very few "unwanted" pregnancies, but we can expect that the best attempts won't succeed in bringing that number to zero.

In a "healthy culture", there would be no rape, no date rape, no married rape, no drunken or drugged party rape, and thus no pregnancies due to sexual assault.

It's an ideal, no culture is 100% healthy, it's not just the US.

[trotsky]

204. In a "healthy culture" does every adult own a Mossberg? n/t

[NYC_SKP]

205. Oh, aren't you a treat?!

Well, a fair and reasonable person would either discount the creepy post mentioning that for lacking a good link providing context.

For other readers, and for those who care for accuracy over lame attempts at character assassination, I'll explain:

Admins changed the rules about gun topics in GD.

I disagreed and posted, purposefully, a protest OP.

Skinner asked me nicely to self-delete, which I did happily, having made my point. Today, GD is not the gun-nutty forum it had become, there are limitations, my work is done.

How hard is that to understand, or is it not understanding you seek?

I always wonder about that with the two, now three people who bring up the Mossberg protest post.

Maybe it's not about understanding, maybe it's about willful misunderstanding to some unknown end.

[trotsky]

206. So, how many guns do adults own in a "healthy culture"? n/t

[NYC_SKP]

216. That healthy, idealized, culture I describe would have as many or as few guns as people like.

People wouldn't be suffering economically and from participating in wars, or want to belong to gangs, there would be no suicide, and our government would be benevolent.

There might be no guns or there might be a few guns.

My guess is that there would exist *some* guns, but a far smaller number than this country has today.

I think folks wanting to live off the land and do some hunting would want a gun or two, and historians and collectors might want them, and some people entertain themselves with target practice.

Me, I haven't even held a gun in over ten years, easily.

[trotsky]

230. Thank you for a civil and thoughtful response. n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

219. "I disagreed and posted, purposefully, a protest OP. " - in the aftermath of newtown.

It was a truly vile and reprehensible post. it caused a shit storm of titanic proportions on DU.

"which I did happily, having made my point" - your point being what exactly? That you could post one of the vilest posts ever seen on DU and get away with it? yes you made that point. Keep up the good work. Make some more "points".

[beam me up scottie]

207. Bullshit. Abortions shouldn't be rare, stop adding to the stigma that it's about fault.

Women will always get pregnant and not want to carry the fetus to term, it has nothing to do with a "healthy culture".

So abortion on demand is healthy for any and every reason, not just the ones you think are acceptable.


Fuck the "liberal" men who still don't get it.



Just like religious misogynists, they are the reason amendments like these get passed.

[NYC_SKP]

221. Becoming pregnant is usually a participatory act.

~(The amendment in your OP notwithstanding, it's a stupid battle and wrong, we agree there)~

Pregnancy and abortion each carry medical risks.

Either can be experienced without medical consequence, but that doesn't make them safer than never becoming pregnant at all.

"Abortion on demand is healthy", is, therefore, misinformation, a falsehood, scientifically impossible to be true.

Subjecting oneself to pregnancy and abortion, not to have children but just because abortions are easy to come by, is risky behavior.

It's very sad what you've written. My only comfort is in knowing that it represents only a teeny tiny segment of the population.

Bullshit. Abortions shouldn't be rare, stop adding to the stigma that it's about fault.

Women will always get pregnant and not want to carry the fetus to term, it has nothing to do with a "healthy culture".

So abortion on demand is healthy for any and every reason, not just the ones you think are acceptable.

Fuck the "liberal" men who still don't get it.

Just like religious misogynists, they are the reason amendments like these get passed.

[beam me up scottie]

223. "Subjecting oneself to pregnancy and abortion...just because abortions are easy to come by"

Yes, women get pregnant and have abortions for fun and profit.

You must know about our super secret Abortion of the Month Club.

We give out awards at the end of the year for the most morally objectionable reason to have an abortion.


And yes, culturally speaking, abortion on demand is healthy.



Like I said, fuck the men who don't get that.

[NYC_SKP]

226. Your words: "So abortion on demand is healthy for any and every reason"

.

That's frightening.

I would say "abortion on demand without a woman having to defend the circumstances should be an immutable right".

But I think every doctor on the planet would agree that it's healthier to avoid pregnancy in the first place.



I would never say "So abortion on demand is healthy for any and every reason".

You said that. Wow.

[beam me up scottie]

229. Men who want women to suffer the "consequences" for getting pregnant are frightening.

And by frightening I mean misogynistic losers.

In a "healthy culture", all adults, men and women, of childbearing age would have received an education and instruction in the use of contraception and the consequences for not using it, misusing it, etc.

In a "healthy culture", all pregnancies would be "wanted", leaving very few "unwanted" pregnancies, but we can expect that the best attempts won't succeed in bringing that number to zero.

In the context of a "healthy culture", yes, abortion on demand is healthy for any and every reason.

Not just the ones you deem appropriately moral.

[NYC_SKP]

242. You frighten me with your ability to make shit up. Nobody said they "want women to suffer".

You seriously need to actually read the words that are written and not react to boogie men that aren't there.

Guess what? There are consequences for ignorance or careless use or non use of contraception. Do I want that to happen? Hell no.

Are you telling me that unwanted pregnancies are never a problem, never a burden, not a consequence of carelessness or poor choices?

Really??? I mean really really really?

Do you have children? Do you tell them, "don't worry, pregnancy is no problemo, have all the sex you want".

Maybe you do, I don't know.

Guess what, intercourse and pregnancy and use or dis-use of birth control... Do you even KNOW what these are?

They are choices. With choices there are risks, where there are risks there may be consequences.

Come on now, admit it, we're on the same side here.

[beam me up scottie]

243. "Maybe you do, I don't know."

That's right, NYC_SKP.

You know nothing about me.

And yet you find it amusing to "counsel" me about childhood trauma.

So maybe you should stick to the issues and stop making up shit about me.

[Warren Stupidity]

220. so women who have abortions are culturally "unhealthy"?

What a fabulous piece of judgmental crap that is.

Abortions from non use of contraception include abortions for medical reasons.

[NYC_SKP]

222. You've just set a new record for pulling something out of your noodle that was never, ever, said.

You know damned well what I said, it's up there in black and white.

Abortions would be rare in a world with better education and access to reproductive care, including but not limited to birth control, quality education, quality social care.

There would still be abortions that should be performed, as in medically necessary abortions, it goes without saying.

I'm talking about a truly healthy culture, and all the participants being healthier as a result of it.

Educate men and women, improve healthcare and counseling, provide access to resources, and the number of elective abortions will fall dramatically.

.

Now I think you have something else to do, so I won't keep you.

[Warren Stupidity]

225. You doubled down on the moral shaming.

here:

Subjecting oneself to pregnancy and abortion, not to have children but just because abortions are easy to come by, is risky behavior.

That's it skippy, those womins are just running out having sex and abortions just 'cause it is so easy and fun and risky and shit.

Keep it up.

[NYC_SKP]

228. The blame is placed not on women, but on the institutions that fail to serve men and women.

.

You can make whatever you want of it.

That you can turn my statement laying blame at the institutional lack of resources in our culture into one that blames women says a LOT about you, not me.

Out of your imagination came this:

those womins are just running out having sex and abortions just 'cause it is so easy and fun and risky and shit.

Wow, that's disturbing that your mind went there when I'm talking about the need for more supportive social services.

[beam me up scottie]

209. I sure hope they don't let this guy counsel pregnant women.

"healthy culture"?

WTF?

Yes, women should edumacated about contraception.

And then always use it.

And use it properly.

Or face the "consequences for not using it, misusing it, etc."

And if they don't, well they deserve to get judged by assholes who think abortions should be rare.

[NYC_SKP]

234. Do you know how poorly funded some programs are? Thankfully, abortions are on the decline.

Let me help you.

Conservatives that want to outlaw abortion clinics also want to do away with other reproductive rights services.

Did. You. Know. That?



But there may be some good news, better use of contraception, perhaps?

Abortions are at a 30-year low:

The US abortion rate fell by 13 percent from 2008 to 2011, according to a new study.

The study, released by the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion-rights think tank, concluded that nearly 1.1 million abortions took place in the United States in 2011, some 700,000 fewer than in 2008. That's the equivalent of 16.9 abortions per 1,000 women between 15 and 44. During the same time, the number of abortion providers fell by 4 percent and the number of abortion clinics fell by 1 percent.

"The national abortion rate appears to have resumed its long-term decline," conclude researchers Rachel K. Jones and Jenna Jerman. The rate of abortions in the United State has decreased almost every year since 1981, when, according to Guttmacher spokeswoman Rebecca Wind, there were 29.3 abortions per 1,000 women. The decline halted from 2005 to 2008. As of 2011, the abortion rate not only began to drop again, it also hit its lowest point since 1973.

snip~

The increased use of contraceptives is thought to have played a role by reducing the number of unintended pregnancies—in particular among women living in poor economic circumstances who may have used birth control more consistently during the recession and the sluggish recovery period that followed.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/02/abortion-rate-record-decline-map

So we have a national patchwork of inconsistent policies and services, but I do think that young people are becoming wiser and more careful about becoming pregnant.

Imagine if we could restore abortion services AND promote educational programs designed to reduce the incidence of unwanted pregnacies.

Imagine that, fewer unwanted pregnancies.

I don't know of anyone who wants to experience an unwanted pregnancy, do you?

[beam me up scottie]

237. Don't lecture me about contraception, this is about abortion.

Nice try but when it comes to this issue, I've got your number.

And I'm not the only one.

[NYC_SKP]

238. You can't have an intelligent discussion about one without the other.

Access to abortions needs to be preserved and expanded.

But some number of abortions are had due to unexpected or unwanted pregnancy and it's reasonable to conclude that some of these were due to a lack of education or lack or contraceptive resources, this is just plain fact.

As a consequence, where we are able to provide these kinds of resources, we can expect to see less need for the procedure.

Abortions carry risks, all medical procedures do, and really nobody wants a pregnancy that has to be terminated if they can avoid it.

So full access, I think we can agree with that.

But lets' fund the full range of reproductive services and try to reduce the number of procedures of all kinds, shall we?

I know you're smart about these things and have to agree on that point, at least.

[beam me up scottie]

211. So the faithful voters of Tennessee have the right to sacrifice my life because of their "beliefs"

What is wrong with you?

Women will die because of this amendment, it strips us of our right to choose.


But I guess religious people's right to make me live according to their misogynistic ideology trumps mine.


If you think forcing women to have children is "a liberal stance" you're on the wrong website.



Thank you for proving that this thread was so fucking necessary.

[immoderate]

217. So you think imposing your religious beliefs on others is "the liberal stance of tolerance?"

Why should I have to respect someone's conscience, uberlibertarian? Where's the "freedom" in that?

--imm

[beam me up scottie]

227. Why are you here?

Most people here, religious and non, have NO tolerance for forced birthers who "vote their conscience".

They don't deserve any.

[beam me up scottie]

236. If you don't support liberal causes you're in the wrong place.

I and many others would respect your conscience if the pro choice side had won. We wouldn't be happy with it but we would respect it. As for freedom that is what the voters of Tennessee exercised, freedom of thought and freedom of conscience. To paraphrase President Obama, liberals lost conservatives won. You will have another chance in two years, maybe the election will go your way. In that case congratulations. In the mean time how about some of that tolerance your side is,always promoting.

You're obviously not a liberal, so again, why are you here?

And thanks, but I don't want your kind of "tolerance", I want reproductive rights for women.

Anything else is unacceptable.

[mr blur]

231. What ridiculous nonsense you do spout.

Enjoy your visit.