Nambla marching at Godless March

[AtheistArchon]

- Leave it to Cartman to get that one across. 

 

 

[Cephalic Carnage]

STELLA!!!!!!

 

[Annabel Lee]

Make him an offer he can't refuse.

 

[Cephalic Carnage]

[Sticking an orange peel in my mouth] Uuuhhhhhh. UUAAAuuuhhh

 

[Cephalic Carnage]

By the way, where did the thread bearer go? This was going nowhere fast, now it's come to a screeching halt.

 

[secularfuture]

Fundies annoy me!

"Atheists can't have morals because they don't believe in MY God!"

We have common sense! COMMON SENSE!
We aren't nice to people because we seek a big reward in the end, or because we fear a giant, all loving, fairy. We are nice because we want to be.

Anyhow, when you tally everything up, most killing and child sex in this world is being done by uneducated religious people.

 

[Annabel Lee]

Seriously Exodus, now would be the time to post a link to support your allegation.

 

[Cephalic Carnage]

Or an article, or a disinterested third poster's comments or just about anything...

 

[crazyfingers]

Originally posted by exodus4,3,2,1
North american man boy love association is planning on being at the Godless March on Washington D.C. The atheists are not forbidding them to march with them. Why are they allowing NAMBLA to march with them?

I have heard this rumor before but I have yet to see anyone provide any evidence as to where this rumor came from.

I see nothing about it on the NAMBLA site. I see noting in the list of sponsors for the Godless Americans March. Their cause has nothing to do with the Statement regarding the purpose of the march.

<BLOCKQUOTE>The undersigned support the goals of the "Godless Americans March on Washington" scheduled for Saturday, November 2, 2002 in Washington, DC.

<BLOCKQUOTE>* We demand equal rights including fair treatment and protection in the workplace; when seeking public office and the right to serve on juries and give testimony; and in having a voice in the halls of Congress, in our state legislatures and in other government venues.

<BLOCKQUOTE>* We call for an end to discrimination against Atheists, Freethinkers and other "Godless Americans" in organizations which receive public funds and special entitlements, such as the Boy Scouts of America. Belief must not be a litmus test for inclusion in such groups.

<BLOCKQUOTE>* We demand an end to harassment and other violations of our rights in public schools. "Prayer Bullying," organized prayer and other forms of coercive religion cannot be tolerated in what should be a totally secular public school system. Public schools must not become centers for religious proselytizing, the unconstitutional promotion of religion through teaching so-called "creationism," or smuggling sectarian beliefs into the schools through ruses, such as "student-led prayer."

<BLOCKQUOTE>* We call for an end to the use of government tax money to subsidize religious denominations, faith-based social programs and other entitlement schemes.

<BLOCKQUOTE>* We demand an end to the exclusion of Atheists, Freethinkers and other "Godless Americans" as full citizens of this nation. Our leaders, including the President, must stop calling the nation to prayer, or claim that we are a "Christian" country. Godless Americans have been patriotic, and many have served -- and now serve -- in our nation's armed forces. We are fire and rescue personnel, emergency crisis personnel, white-collar and blue-collar workers. We insist on inclusion when this nation is rallied to appropriate causes!

<BLOCKQUOTE>* We call for an end to the display of religious mottoes and symbols on government property, and especially in public schools. We also call for the restoration of "E Pluribus Unum," ("Out of Many, One") as the secular, national motto of a free people.

So exodus, first, perhaps you should provide some support for your claim? Second, since they are not listed as an endorsing organization, how would you suggest that American Atheists prevent any NAMBLA member from showing up if they actually showed up?&nbsp; Arrest them?&nbsp;How would AA prevent them from going as private citizens?

But I'll tell you what.&nbsp; Since I will be attending the march, I'll let you know if I see any NAMBA members there OK?

&nbsp;

 

[dave]

and how can you judge NAMBLA? why shouldnt the age of consent be fifteen or fourteen? isnt all morality relative?

Oh, come on. Taking advantage of people of both sexes during this developmental stage is a dangerous and exploitative practice. I wouldn't expect my hypothetical teenage son to own a firearm 'responsibly' (or ever, for that matter) for the same reason that he'd be an easy target for illicit sexual advances from adults.

This isn't necessarily the rule, but to maintain social rights for all ages it's safer to prevent paedophilia of any kind. Consensual sex isn't an apt description for physical relations involving minors who by definition have not yet achieved matured awareness. In such cases it's sexual exploitation at the hands of the adult involved.

The concept of relative morality is irrelevant in arguments resolved this simply. If you're going to state your views against Atheism then fine, but be prepared to back it up in a worthwhile thread before you cough up something like this.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by exodus4,3,2,1
North american man boy love association is planning on being at the Godless March on Washington D.C. The atheists are not forbidding them to march with them. Why are they allowing NAMBLA to march with them?

Perhaps because there's no easy way to *stop* people from expressing opinions, however disgusting, in public?

It's not as if they can do anything in this situation that'll look good. It's like what happens when a pro-life group is informed that "Satanists for life!" wants to stage a rally "in support of your cause". So, you get people marching around holding up signs saying "Don't abort the antichrist!" and "Every baby aborted is a soul lost to Satan". Do the pro-life protestors *want* that? No. Can they *stop* it? No.

 

[HazyRigby]

Seebs...you kill me...aaaaggggh...."Don't abort the antichrist!".....I'm holding my sides now...

 

[exodus4 3 2 1]

which of the following do atheists say are immoral? 1.advocating the age of consent to be fifteen or fourteen 2.prostitution 3. adult pornography 4. polygamy 5. incest with consenting adults 5. adultery 6. fornication 7. homosexuality 8. bestiality 9. illegal drug use .....and 10. and why is Nambla's advocating the age of consent be changed to fifteen or fourteen immoral when the others (one through nine) are not immoral? and why are you all not willing to march alongside the NAMBLA people? who are you to judge them? what gives you that right?

 

[crazyfingers]

Originally posted by exodus4,3,2,1
which of the following do atheists say are immoral? 1.advocating the age of consent to be fifteen or fourteen 2.prostitution 3. adult pornography 4. polygamy 5. incest with consenting adults 5. adultery 6. fornication 7. homosexuality 8. bestiality 9. illegal drug use .....and 10. and why is Nambla's advocating the age of consent be changed to fifteen or fourteen immoral when the others (one through nine) are not immoral? and why are you all not willing to march alongside the NAMBLA people? who are you to judge them? what gives you that right?

&nbsp;

Excuse me but, do you plan to provide any support for your first claim before moving on to a different topic?

 

[Cephalic Carnage]

You are incapable of pulling this one together, are you? See you after my gig. I have to play a show at an adult entertainment facility. Ironic, huh? Back to you soon.

 

[LadyShea]

CF...I think this is the same person making the same baseless assertion, not a second person with the same rumor.

Exodus, read my words carefully WHERE did you hear, see, read, or learn that NAMBLA is A) Marching and B) A Secular Humanist organization? Can you back up this allegation you are making or are you just a troll?

 

[wildernesse]

exodus:

So you don't have proof for your first claim. How very interesting--why do you post inflammatory things without any proof? I would think in this wide world that you could find something inflammatory that had evidence.

What do *you* think about the Godless March? Why do you consider atheists immoral?

Also, is rudeness ever immoral? Why not--it's obviously a bad thing.

--tibac

 

[foolsparade]

I wonder if {exodus4,3,2,1} is nothing more than a troll trying to flame atheists. This thread does not have any elements that come close to a rational, relevent debate. He apparently hasn't realized that this type of religious ambition does more to discredit himself and Chrsitianity than it&nbsp;helps.&nbsp;exodus is not looking for a discussion.

 

[dave]

I'll get some thoughts out before&nbsp;returning to my ritual destruction of bright copper kettles and brown paper packages tied up with string.

which of the following do atheists say are immoral? 1.advocating the age of consent to be fifteen or fourteen 2.prostitution 3. adult pornography 4. polygamy 5. incest with consenting adults 5. adultery 6. fornication 7. homosexuality 8. bestiality 9. illegal drug use .....and 10. and why is Nambla's advocating the age of consent be changed to fifteen or fourteen immoral when the others (one through nine) are not immoral? and why are you all not willing to march alongside the NAMBLA people? who are you to judge them? what gives you that right?

1. Wrong. Explained in my last post.

2. I don't necessarily find it moral or immoral because prostitution is often the result of pressing social factors. Would&nbsp;I want somebody to end up in a dangerous and often destructive line of work? No.

3.These thoughts exist long before they're manifested in girlie pictures. There are theories that porn actually suppresses aggressive&nbsp;physical urges in much the same way that sport does.&nbsp;I don't think that the objectification of people from either sex is a good thing, but it's not a moral concern once adults in&nbsp;worthwhile paying conditions undertake this&nbsp;work.&nbsp;At the lower end of this market it's exploitation at a minimum wage, and immoral on the employer's behalf.

4. Only if you see marriage as a sacred bond. I don't hold it above relationships consummated through other means, but in either case it's wrong for a partner to do it outside the other's knowledge.

5. Same as above. It's only adultery if it's concealed within a marriage held together by the bonds that supposedly define it.

6. Ditto.

7. As with hetero consensual sex, no problem. I don't find anything immoral about partners whose orientation differs only from the accepted norm.

8. Edgy. It's taking advantage of animals, and in that sense rape on a technicality. I personally find it disgusting, but in an objective sense it's wrong due to the inability of consent.

9. Not a question of immorality if it's occasional, personal use - even though this is dangerous and inadvisable. Drug dealing I find immoral because you're actively perpetuating these problems amongst others for personal profit.

10. You doubled up with #1.

 

[secularfuture]

A question asked to exodus4,3,2,1 by crazyfingers

"Excuse me but, do you plan to provide any support for your first claim before moving on to a different topic?"