Religion’s surprising emotional sense: New atheists are wrong again

[rug]

Non-believers call me dogmatic, self-righteous, judgmental. Maybe they are. Here's what they miss about belief

Saturday, Nov 2, 2013 08:00 AM EDT
By Francis Spufford

My daughter has just turned six. Some time over the next year or so, she will discover that her parents are weird. We’re weird because we go to church.

This means—well, as she gets older there’ll be voices telling her what it means, getting louder and louder until by the time she’s a teenager they’ll be shouting right in her ear. It means that we believe in a load of bronze-age absurdities. It means that we don’t believe in dinosaurs.

It means that we’re dogmatic. That we’re self-righteous. That we fetishize pain and suffering. That we advocate wishy-washy niceness. That we promise the oppressed pie in the sky when they die. That we’re bleeding hearts who don’t understand the wealth-creating powers of the market. That we’re too stupid to understand the irrationality of our creeds. That we build absurdly complex intellectual structures, full of meaningless distinctions, on the marshmallow foundations of a fantasy. That we uphold the nuclear family, with all its micro-tyrannies and imprisoning stereotypes. That we’re the hairshirted enemies of the ordinary family pleasures of parenthood, shopping, sex and car ownership. That we’re savagely judgmental. That we’d free murderers to kill again. That we think everyone who disagrees with us is going to roast for all eternity. That we’re as bad as Muslims. That we’re worse than Muslims, because Muslims are primitives who can’t be expected to know any better. That we’re better than Muslims, but only because we’ve lost the courage of our convictions. That we’re infantile and can’t do without an illusory daddy in the sky. That we destroy the spontaneity and hopefulness of children by implanting a sick mythology in your minds. That we oppose freedom, human rights, gay rights, individual moral autonomy, a woman’s right to choose, stem cell research, the use of condoms in fighting AIDS, the teaching of evolutionary biology. Modernity. Progress. That we think everyone should be cowering before authority. That we sanctify the idea of hierarchy. That we get all snooty and yuck-no-thanks about transsexuals, but think it’s perfectly normal for middle-aged men to wear purple dresses. That we cover up child abuse, because we care more about power than justice. That we’re the villains in history, on the wrong side of every struggle for human liberty. That if we sometimes seem to have been on the right side of one of said struggles, we weren’t really; or the struggle wasn’t about what it appeared to be about; or we didn’t really do the right thing for the reasons we said we did. That we’ve provided pious cover stories for racism, imperialism, wars of conquest, slavery, exploitation. That we’ve manufactured imaginary causes for real people to kill each other. That we’re stuck in the past. That we destroy tribal cultures. That we think the world’s going to end. That we want to help the world to end. That we teach people to hate their own natural selves. That we want people to be afraid. That we want people to be ashamed. That we have an imaginary friend; that we believe in a sky pixie; that we prostrate ourselves before a god who has the reality status of Santa Claus. That we prefer scripture to novels, preaching to storytelling, certainty to doubt, faith to reason, law to mercy, primary colors to shades, censorship to debate, silence to eloquence, death to life.

But hey, that’s not the bad news. Those are the objections of people who care enough about religion to object to it—or to rent a set of recreational objections from Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens. As accusations, they may be a hodge-podge, a mish-mash of truths and half-truths and untruths plucked from radically different parts of Christian history and the Christian world, with the part continually taken for the whole (if the part is damaging) or the whole for the part (if it’s flattering)—but at least they assume there’s a thing called religion there which looms with enough definition and significance to be detested. In fact there’s something truly devoted about the way that Dawkinsites manage to extract a stimulating hobby from the thought of other people’s belief. The ones in this country must be envious of the intensity of the anti-religious struggle in the United States; yet some of them even contrive to feel oppressed by the Church of England, which is not easy to do. It must take a deft delicacy at operating on a tiny scale, like doing needlepoint, or playing Subbuteo, or fitting a whole model-railway layout into an attaché case.

http://www.salon.com/2013/11/02/religions_surprising_emotional_sense_new_atheists_are_wrong_again/

Excerpted from “Unapologetic: Why, Despite Everything, Christianity Still Makes Surprising Emotional Sense.” Copyright © 2013 by Francis Spufford. Reprinted with permission from HarperOne, a division of HarperCollinsPublishers.

[atreides1]

1. I don't have a problem with Christianity!

My problem is with the followers of Christianity who preach hatred and defend themselves with the Bible while they do it!

I have family and friends who are Christians, some emulate the teachings of Christ, while others aren't afraid to let their fear and hatred shine and are proud of it!

[Trajan]

2. Poppycock ...

[niyad]

3. codswallop. yet more whining about how xians are being persecuted. please. . .

[rug]

4. He's not whining about being persecuted. He's reciting a common litany.

[niyad]

5. whining

[rug]

8. That's persuasive.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. Why is 'reciting a common litany' not 'whining'?

Or were you making a joke?

[rug]

13. Observing tedious, canned and derivative criticisms is not whining.

No, it is not a joke.

Read that paragraph aloud if you want to see the litany reference.

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. Which paragraph? I can see 2 in which he's whining

"My daughter has just turned six. Some time over the next year or so, she will discover that her parents are weird. We’re weird because we go to church."

"This means—well, as she gets older there’ll be voices telling her what it means, getting louder and louder until by the time she’s a teenager they’ll be shouting right in her ear. It means that we believe in a load of bronze-age absurdities. It means that we don’t believe in dinosaurs"

Whiny, whiny, whiny. But it is a common litany.

[rug]

19. It's the third paragraph.

Here, I'll reproduce it for you.

It means that we’re dogmatic. That we’re self-righteous. That we fetishize pain and suffering. That we advocate wishy-washy niceness. That we promise the oppressed pie in the sky when they die. That we’re bleeding hearts who don’t understand the wealth-creating powers of the market. That we’re too stupid to understand the irrationality of our creeds. That we build absurdly complex intellectual structures, full of meaningless distinctions, on the marshmallow foundations of a fantasy. That we uphold the nuclear family, with all its micro-tyrannies and imprisoning stereotypes. That we’re the hairshirted enemies of the ordinary family pleasures of parenthood, shopping, sex and car ownership. That we’re savagely judgmental. That we’d free murderers to kill again. That we think everyone who disagrees with us is going to roast for all eternity. That we’re as bad as Muslims. That we’re worse than Muslims, because Muslims are primitives who can’t be expected to know any better. That we’re better than Muslims, but only because we’ve lost the courage of our convictions. That we’re infantile and can’t do without an illusory daddy in the sky. That we destroy the spontaneity and hopefulness of children by implanting a sick mythology in your minds. That we oppose freedom, human rights, gay rights, individual moral autonomy, a woman’s right to choose, stem cell research, the use of condoms in fighting AIDS, the teaching of evolutionary biology. Modernity. Progress. That we think everyone should be cowering before authority. That we sanctify the idea of hierarchy. That we get all snooty and yuck-no-thanks about transsexuals, but think it’s perfectly normal for middle-aged men to wear purple dresses. That we cover up child abuse, because we care more about power than justice. That we’re the villains in history, on the wrong side of every struggle for human liberty. That if we sometimes seem to have been on the right side of one of said struggles, we weren’t really; or the struggle wasn’t about what it appeared to be about; or we didn’t really do the right thing for the reasons we said we did. That we’ve provided pious cover stories for racism, imperialism, wars of conquest, slavery, exploitation. That we’ve manufactured imaginary causes for real people to kill each other. That we’re stuck in the past. That we destroy tribal cultures. That we think the world’s going to end. That we want to help the world to end. That we teach people to hate their own natural selves. That we want people to be afraid. That we want people to be ashamed. That we have an imaginary friend; that we believe in a sky pixie; that we prostrate ourselves before a god who has the reality status of Santa Claus. That we prefer scripture to novels, preaching to storytelling, certainty to doubt, faith to reason, law to mercy, primary colors to shades, censorship to debate, silence to eloquence, death to life.

Oh, that's not whining, to be sure.

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. Did he not write the other ones, then?

The way you excerpted them made it look as if he did. The way Salon prints them makes it look as if he did too.

[rug]

22. The whole thing is an excerpt from his book.

I'll be happy to buy you a copy.

[muriel_volestrangler]

23. So the whiny stuff, rather than where he's repeating what he thinks other say, is his too?

I will give you that it's not whining about being persecuted. It's about not getting the respect he thinks he deserves.

[rug]

24. Whiny is in the eye of the beholder.

[niyad]

26. like I said, keep trying. we really need the laughs.

[rug]

32. Yes, you (singular, not plural) certainly do.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

45. He is not whining

He is repeating accusations that have been made by Dawkins et al. If you don't see that, then you should re-read it -- but with an open mind, this time.

[cleanhippie]

91. Your whine is noted

[gcomeau]

58. No he is not

He is making a laundry list of every accusation he can think was ever leveled at any individual or group of people who were religious and then presenting it as if they are blanket accusations issued by the "new atheists" against all the religious.

Or in other words, he's whining and indulging his persecution complex.

[rug]

59. Are those common accusations?

Is compliing a list of them whining?

Unlike you, I am not prone to making internet psychological diagnoses but if I were, I would have to rule out projection.

[gcomeau]

61. Any individual accusation on is list...

...could be called "common" only against certain subgroups.

Don't believe in dinosaurs is common (and CORRECT) when directed at various young earth fundamentalist creationist groups. It is sure as hell not commonly applied to the general group of "people who attend church".

Don't understand the wealth creating powers of the market? Heard the accusation, never seen it directed specifically against church goers. That's generally a right wing --> left wing thing being thrown around.

Etc...


And yes, compiling a list of them while pretending like they're all directed at you just because you go to church is whining. Or perhaps more accurately, saying those are the accusations directed at "people who attend church" is LYING with a whining overtone while acting like he's oh poor persecuted him being attacked from all sides by society because he's a member of the religion that makes up like three quarters of that society.

[rug]

62. I suspect you missed the point.

These are all sloppy, imprecise epithets too often used stupidly, indiscriminately, and divisively, not critically or pointedly.

The reactions suggest he's correct.

[gcomeau]

63. I suspect I don't give a shit about his point...

...when he opens with a rant that idiotic and deceptive.

[rug]

64. Stop whining.

[gcomeau]

65. Ha.... Ha..... Ha.... -eom

[niyad]

6. his dismissive comments about those who do not believe exactly as he does are even more insulting

and obnoxious than the statements he claims are being made against his beliefs. but I guess that part is okay?

[rug]

10. For someone who says he's whining about persecution, it's curious you feel insulted.

[niyad]

25. keep trying, we all need the laughs today. the sheer hypocrisy of him whining about all the terrible

things non-believers supposedly say, and how dare they, but it is apparently perfectly okay for HIM to go off on non-believers, is breathtaking.

[rug]

33. Let me understand you. You are objecting to someone ridiculing those who ridicule?

I hope it doesn't sting.

[niyad]

35. . .

remdi95

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

46. That's exactly right

He wants to have his cake and eat it too. He wants to whine that the Christian is whining, and he wants to be insulted because the Christian is ridiculing accusations that atheists regularly make about Christians.

You see, it is OK for atheists to ridicule and insult Christians, but it is not OK for Christians to reply in kind. Oh, and at least some atheists believe hypocrisy is restricted to Christians; they, themselves, never indulge in it.

[AtheistCrusader]

50. The objection is in regard to a factual error.

The theist is calling it a hobby. Intentionally misconstruing motives to belittle the opponent.

And it is entirely transparent, and all too common cover for theists these days.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

51. Your whine is noted.

Would you prefer "avocation"? Or would you whine about that too?

[cbayer]

7. I read this a few days ago... well, I tried to read it but couldn't get through it.

I liked the first paragraph and thought it covered pretty much every negative thing the anti-theists throw at any and all religious believers. Maybe we could number them and turn them into some sort of list comparable to the "logical fallacies". Then again, maybe we could just realize that most of them are lame and weak offensive positions that don't even deserve notice.

Anyway, the article was too long and too tedious and didn't have enough paragraph breaks, imo. That's too bad, because I though the writer was making a valid point.

[rug]

9. That's interesting because he teaches Creative Writing.

I think that paragraph is so dense and unbroken to mimic the tedious way those comments are repetitively brought up.

[cbayer]

17. I initially thought that as well, but he seemed to continue this style in

following paragraphs.

Maybe I will try again.

[Goblinmonger]

11. It must be tough to be a Christian in western culture

Whatever must it feel like to be in the vast majority? And how dare those who don't believe in the same thing as the majority actually feel they can say something.

Get off the cross, Francis, Jesus needs his spot back.

[rug]

14. If you read it closely, he's not commenting about what they're saying.

He's commenting that they do not say it well.

[niyad]

27. no, his whine is that they say it far too well--to the point where a lot of people get it. but we

are not supposed to notice, just like we are not supposed to notice that his whine about non-believers really is not written well.

[rug]

31. "they say it far too well"

I must have missed it.

That we think everyone who disagrees with us is going to roast for all eternity. That we’re as bad as Muslims. That we’re worse than Muslims, because Muslims are primitives who can’t be expected to know any better.

[Lordquinton]

87. Thanks for the irrelevant quote

Christians are not a persecuted group. Theists aren't a persecuted group, they (you) are a privileged group. Theists have been persecuting atheists for millennia, and never the other way around. That's the difference, he's whining that someone hurt his feelings, and lists a bunch of arguments that are either valid in context, completely misrepresented, or said by people who are atheist, but don't speak for all.

[rug]

88. Thanks for a relevant whine.

they (you) are a privileged group. Theists have been persecuting atheists for millennia

Do you feel persecuted, my Lord Quinton?

[Lordquinton]

89. You don't get it do you?

Oppressed groups calling their oppressors on their crap is not whining. That's the problem theists have with "new Atheism" people are no longer just quietly "Politely" taking it when they get told their objections are just whining. That's it. If you have a problem with that take it up with your anti-atheist pope, and see if he can give another feel good sermon about it.

[rug]

92. I get you quite well.

You should learn the difference between an objection, a whine, and failed, sullen snark.

[longship]

15. Gees. Whatta maroon!

The usual demonizing Dawkins and Hitchens. (What? Nothing about Sam Harris? Dennett? Victor Stenger? Robert M. Price?)

What this guy, and many similar thinking people do not understand is that the atheists mentioned do not proselytize atheism except to reach out to people who are already in the unbelieving camp. Why? Because believers love to deny non-believers the legitimacy or advantage which they have enjoyed for centuries.

They don't get it. That's why I don't take any of their arguments or apologetics seriously. It's also why we speak out.

Get used to it, Mr. Spufford.

[rug]

18. Well, to be fair, there's a picture of three out of four of them at the link.

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. British writer - he's got to stick to the targets his market is more likely to know

You don't hear about Harris, Dennett or the others much on British TV.

[Leontius]

28. That third paragraph sounds like what passes for intelligent discussion by some Du antitheists.

[cleanhippie]

44. Not half as idiotic as what DU Theocrats tend to spew.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

47. Less idiotic than what some DU atheists spew.

[cleanhippie]

57. Idiotic, nonetheless.

QED

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

60. Clearly, you do not know what QED means

Quod erat demonstrandum is what you say after you have proven something logically. You made an assertion without any sort of evidence to back it up. An unsupported assertion is not proof.

[cleanhippie]

66. Your whine is noted.

[stopbush]

29. Yawn...

Lighten up, Francis.

[dimbear]

34. American readers may need to be alerted that Subbuteo is a table top version of cricket and other

field games.
BTW, being oppressed by the Church of England is going to be received well on this side of the pond. It's exactly the reason we burned so many of their churches during the American Revolution.

[AtheistCrusader]

36. Yet another example of theists masquerading as a poor, put upon victim.

"In fact there’s something truly devoted about the way that Dawkinsites manage to extract a stimulating hobby from the thought of other people’s belief."

We spend time opposing it, not as a hobby, but as a matter of self defense, because religion, bisected with the power of the state, is DANGEROUS to us, and even to people of different faiths.

When religious people quit using the power of the state as a weapon against non-theists, then I'll be making a lot less noise about them. Wasn't that long ago my state had 'blue laws' against things like selling alcohol on Sunday.

Yeah, poor pitiful theists, just getting picked on for no reason by less than 20% of the population. Give me a fucking break.

[Promethean]

37. Thank you

This is exactly the train of thought that was passing through my mind as I was reading the article. Though you say it much better than I could have.

[rug]

38. Who is claiming to be "a poor, put upon victim"?

We spend time opposing it, not as a hobby, but as a matter of self defense, because religion, bisected with the power of the state, is DANGEROUS to us, and even to people of different faiths.

When religious people quit using the power of the state as a weapon against non-theists, then I'll be making a lot less noise about them. Wasn't that long ago my state had 'blue laws' against things like selling alcohol on Sunday.

I'm glad you can now buy booze on Sunday.

[AtheistCrusader]

39. I can also hold public office now.

The author is posing as a victim, flummoxed as to WHY IT COULD BE that atheists have this unexplainable fascination with them.

He describes it as a hobby, a form of entertainment. I describe it like a lab worker, examining and working on a cure for some deadly superbug.

[rug]

40. Make sure you wash your hands.

[AtheistCrusader]

41. I do. CONSTANTLY.

Trust me.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

48. Ah, a whine from an atheist

We spend time opposing it, not as a hobby, but as a matter of self defense, because religion, bisected with the power of the state, is DANGEROUS to us, and even to people of different faiths.

Thank you for that whine.

[AtheistCrusader]

49. Adjust your antennas, your reception is off.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

52. No, you whined

Your whining is considerably more intense that the "whining" you pretend to see in the original article.

Or are you one of those whiners who refuses to see his own whines?

[AtheistCrusader]

53. I pointed out a logical error in his complaint.

Pretend it is a 'whine' all you want. You're wrong.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

54. You whined about what you claim is a logical error

You are the one pretending that YOU did not whine.

Clearly, you are one who believes that only other people can whine, especially when whining the loudest.

The author of the original article is not "whining". On the other hand, you have done nothing BUT whine in this thread.

[AtheistCrusader]

55. I didn't say he was whining.

I accuse him of feigning offense, and misdirection.

Your 'whine' argument is with someone else upthread that accused him of it, not me.

[eqfan592]

67. You really feel that's a "whine?"

We live in a country where there is still institutionalized discrimination against atheist, yet highlighting this is a whine to you? How disgusting. I'll also take note at the lack of response from the progressive Christians of the forum.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

68. You have done nothing BUT whine throughout this thread

While whining that non-whiners are actually whining.

In your latest, you are doing the "Oh, I'm a persecuted atheist" whine.

[eqfan592]

69. Where there are laws on the books that literally keep us from holding public office...

...because we are atheists, it's less a whine and more of a demonstrable fact.

But please, give me the post numbers of all the other posts on this thread where I was "whining."

[okasha]

70. Torcaso.

Again.

Look the damned case up, will you, instead of repeating the endless Internet whining on the subject.

[eqfan592]

71. You do understand that six state constitutions still include provisions that would...

...effectively bar atheists from holding office, in spite of that ruling, right? Would the laws hold up in court? Most likely not, but it doesn't change the fact that they are still there

FFS, I can't think of another group in this nation where that could exist and it would be OK to say that group was "whining" about it here on the DU forums. The attitude you and others have displayed here underscores just how much work is left to be done.

[okasha]

93. You do understand that a SCOTUS decision trumps any state constitution, don't you?

As for why those provisions are still there--in Texas' case, and for reasons quite beyond the issues of Torcaso, attempts have been made for the last 30 years to get the antiquated thing revised. Meantime we just keep amending it and amending it.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

72. Apparently, you missed the Supreme Court decision

Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961) which struck down those laws as unconstitutional.

As for post numbers where you whine, we can start with #69. After all, you are whining about a situation that has not been true for over 50 years.

[eqfan592]

73. You understand those constitutional provisions are still on the books, right?

Over fifty years my ass. Also, you were likely incapable of finding any other posts to note because I had posted exactly once when you replied initially. You were so quick to spew your nonsense that you didn't realize it was a different person posting.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

76. Yes, but as the article YOU cited in your previous post points out,

Those provisions are unconstitutional, and have been held to be so for over 50 years.

My point that you are simply whining about poor atheists being persecuted. And you are continuing to whine.

[eqfan592]

74. Here ya go, some reading material.

http://americanhumanist.org/HNN/details/2012-05-unelectable-atheists-us-states-that-prohibit-godless

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

75. As the article you cite points out

These laws are unconstitutional, the same point I made. So my point stands: You are WHINING about something which has not been true for over 50 years.

Go ahead, whine all you like about "Oh, we poor atheists are persecuted". Just don't expect anyone to take your complaint that Christians are whining seriously.

[eqfan592]

77. Are you serious? i didn't realize it was possible to be that obtuse.

Did you not read the entire article? In spite of the laws being unconstitutional, atheists are still being given trouble by them, as recently as 2009. So no, it's not "whining" to highlight this fact, but your constant use of the word in regards to this issue is VERY telling, indeed.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

78. Yes, I read the entire article

It says, clearly and distinctly, that the laws saying atheists cannot hold office are unconstitutional. What's more, they have been held to be unconstitutional since 1961. In other words, my obtuse friend, they may be on the books, but they cannot be enforced. I can even give you a reason they are still in the various state constitutions: Because changing a state constitution is a major chore. I suggest that you look up the requirements for amending the state constitution in your state. Thus, I believe that it is inertia that keeps these laws in the state constitutions, rather than "let's dump on the poor, persecuted atheists, cackle, cackle".

So, as I've said at least twice before, your whining about unenforced laws is simply that, whining.

[eqfan592]

79. Your unabashed bigotry is noted, as is your new position on my ignore list.

I deal with enough drooling mouthed, bigoted morons on a daily basis where I live. I'll be damned if I have to deal with any on a supposedly progressive site.

EDIT: And since you clearly have a reading comprehension problem, I'll share this again for you.

However, these laws are still on the books and have given atheist candidates trouble in the past. Cecil Bothwell, an atheist who in 2009 won an election for a Asheville, North Carolina city council seat, was almost unseated by local critics who pointed to a provision in North Carolina’s constitution that prohibited nonbelievers from being elected. This provision of the state constitution is similar to provisions in Arkansas, Maryland, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas.

I think that the legislatures of these states have a duty to eventually get around to removing these provisions and any other elements of their state constitutions that institutionalize discrimination. Now might not be the time due to the large number of pressing issues that plague this nation, but the change ought to eventually be made. Atheists, or any other religious minority for that matter, shouldn’t have to go to court after winning an election just so that federal law is upheld and discrimination is rejected.

[Goblinmonger]

80. So I looked up the arduous task of changing North Carolina's constitution

In a legislative action, an amendment must pass by three-fifths in both houses of the General Assembly and also obtain a majority of a popular vote.[4]

Wow. How would that ever come about? Both houses would need to pass it and they'd have to stick it on a ballot on one of the elections days. Oh the humanity.

Plus, it seems that North Carolina made significant changes to their constitution in 1971. So even if the above method is just too damned difficult but they wanted to make sure their state constitution was in line with SCOTUS rulings, they could have just made that change then.

But they didn't. So perhaps the theory above is utter bullshit and there are other reasons the laws are still on the books.

[Heddi]

81. Someone alerted on your post

It's nice to see that the jury got this one right


At Sun Nov 10, 2013, 06:26 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Your unabashed bigotry is noted, as is your new position on my ignore list.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=100024

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Calling someone a "drooling mouthed, bigoted moron" seems to be a pretty clear personal attack.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Nov 10, 2013, 06:39 PM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Exasperation may sometimes be warranted.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Well the poster *is* a drooling mouthed, bigoted moron so I don't see how that is a personal attack. If calling the atheists who post in the religion forum "you atheist arseholes" isn't considered a personal attack, then this isn't. Goose and gander and all that stuff
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I like Pie
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[cleanhippie]

82. I love how juror #3 reminds him of his "you atheist arseholes" comment.

Oh, the hypocrisy!

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

83. Which part of "almost unseated" gives you trouble?

She was seated because that part of the North Carolina constitution was held to be unconstitutional under Torcaso v. Watkins, which I cited in post #72.

Your last post is DEFINITELY whining, "Oh, we poor atheists are so discriminated against!" In the particular case that you are referring to, you aren't.

[cleanhippie]

85. The only one whining here is you. And your whine is noted.

[struggle4progress]

84. It would be great to repeal that stuff, but it's all been completely inoperative for fifty years

since the 1961 SCOTUS ruling Torcaso v. Watkins

Unfortunately, it can take a long time to sweep inoperable junk from state constitutions

It took over thirty years after the 1967 SCOTUS ruling in Loving v. Virginia before the last states got rid of inoperative "anti-miscegenation" laws, South Carolina in 1998 and Alabama in 2000 (with a third of the voters STILL voting to retain it)

Nonsensical claims, such as occur in the article you posted, probably don't help -- and may actually hinder -- prospects for repeal, by reducing credibility of repeal advocates

For example, it's just completely untrue that "Cecil Bothwell ... was almost unseated by local critics who pointed to a provision in North Carolina’s constitution that prohibited nonbelievers from being elected." A handful of crackpots and rightwing attention whores shrieked and moaned about the fact that seating Bothwell would be "illegal" -- and when I say "crackpot" or " attention whore," I mainly refer to a nutty fruitcake, the black neo-Confederate H.K. Edgerton, who was responsible for much of the noise; although you will sometimes see Edgerton identified as "a former NAACP president," it's worth knowing that when Edgerton somehow got control of a local NAACP chapter, the state NAACP stepped in and took over. The noise from Edgerton and his one or two friends came in two waves: it was in the news for a few days after Bothwell was elected 3 November 2009, and it was in the news for a few days in early December when Bothwell was sworn into office, on schedule. There's a big gap between those facts and the ludicrous claim "Cecil Bothwell was almost unseated"

[JNelson6563]

42. Poor gal probably needs to read the bible

"...makes emotional sense"? lol That's right because it does not make real sense.

Julie

[rug]

43. The author's a man.

I bet he heard you.

[JNelson6563]

56. My apologies.

I meant no ill.

Julie