The ACLU, NAMBLA, God, and The O'Reilly Factor.

Not open for further replies.
I said:
Probably best not - but thanks for your comments on US atheism. Although, as I hope I said, every group has its range of people. I know through organisations such as that there can be a very studious side to non-belief - I'm sure I've quoted matieral from their site here.

I guess it's simply the case that certain types of online communities can attract certain types of people.

I think the current conflict between Christians and non-Christians in America is worth a few comments.

If you get a chance, take a close look at people praying on steps of Alabama courthouse for Ten Commandments to stay on display.

Or, more to the point, the friends of the Presbyterian minister who was just executed for his attack on abortion-provider.

Do you ever see the people who oppose religion on the news?

Hardly ever. Barry Lynn is a notable exception, a spokesman.

But for the most part, non-Christians don't bother. Why? Because the country is 85% Christian and churches control vast resources, and speaking out is usually a complete waste of their time. Plus, for many of the celebrities on that list, getting a "bad rep" could hurt their careers.

The result? Most of the active voices against Christianity are what you said, the fringe element. Not representative of the group at all.

Look up the Amicus Brief against Creationism, an interesting story.

A physicist named Gell-Mann heard the Supreme Court was about to rule in favor of a Creationist group, so he got on the phone and called up some of his friends. Got them all to sign his brief asking the court not to allow this alternative theory to be taught.

Interesting list of names.

Every one of them had received a Nobel Prize in chemistry, medicine or some science.
I ceratinly remember reading about each of those incidents.

That's why I made a point about mentioning the aggressive nature of US Christianity.

Which is hard to relate to from the UK, where Christianity is essentially very moderate and non-invasive.
It may have something to do with the personalities. What you see as indicative of a group in the US reflects more, I believe, on the general population - across all subgroups. In general and in my experience, Americans are more prone to being pushy, extreme, and invasive of their ideas - in all aspects of life. The stereotypic rude American tourist is there for a reason - quietness and modesty is not well esteemed in that society. And it does appear to be common at least on the east coast and much of the south (Texas and FL) in my experience. The midwest seems to have a more moderate attitude in general - but that may be the crowd I hang out with there - although even "more moderate" is considerably more 'pushy' than the attitudes I was taught growing up.

I'm finding it interesting now, working for a company where there are a large number of UK expatriats and a couple of other Canadian expats. The corporate culture reflects the makeup of the people more - and it's a fascinating reminder of how cultures differ in just the general attitude to everything. The interactions are amusing, to say the least.
Skeptic44--This is Not about you.

First, I must assure you this is not in anyway a personal attack against you. I am merely stating how I see the state of the world right now. Brian was correct, I am frustrated and exasperated at the entire thing. It has nothing to do with you personally. And I am sorry if you took it that way. this place is for voicing opinions without fear of attack. I was not attacking you, as I do not know you in any way. Although I may disagree with you, that doesn't mean I will not listen to you, nor does it mean I will attack you. Because I will not. What I will do however, is voice my opinion. Now, if I had said "Hey Skeptic44, you dumb, and don't know what your talking about"---now THAT would have been a personal attack. I am above doing such things. And no, I was not really calling you dumb either. It was an example. Being a lawyer like you are, I can understand how you feel. My apologies to you sir, for you misinterpreting my post. It was aimed at 2 organizations that I find to be deplorable. Just because I find what they are doing to be wrong, doesn't mean I am attacking you. Now, I do not agree with what Nambla says either, but do they have a right to say it? Yes. However, NOT when it indangers young children. I do not care who you are, who you work for, or what a person thinks they have a right to say and do. Where children are concerned, I am most protective. I have 3. So you can understand. They promote the relationship of older men and young children. Who in their right mind would say they have a right to say things like that? I am for free speech from everyone about everything----EXCEPT where it concerns things of the nature of children and child abuse. I am sorry if you think me wrong or evil for that opinion, but you will think, just like everyone else, what you will think.

I do not know you sir, nor do I have access to your e-mail. I sent nothing to you and I have not been online for a few days as I have had problems with my comp and a real nasty virus.Besides, I would not send anything to you of that nature---It would be misinterpreted. So, this is how I honestly feel about the entire situation. I do not now, or ever, or ever will attack anyone on here in a personal matter. But, again, I am sorry if you took it that way.
Once I'm sure that Google has finished re-indexing this site, I'll be re-structuring the forum, and ensure that there is an area where issues such as this topic can be more appropriately placed for discussion.

I fear that at times that I have tried to be too accomodating, rather than responsible. The new forum structure should be more accomodating in a more repsonsible way, and should work to the benefit of all, with far less offence.

For the meantime, I'll close this thread and get ready to move it. I'll start a new thread on the issues of ACLU and NAMBLA when the new boards open, and help direct the discussion of these topics in a more constructive manner.
Not open for further replies.