Why are people afraid of atheism?

[gadgetlady 4]

I haven't been to this thread in a while, but wow, trell and Elenation, you totally echo my thoughts on this. I have no "fear" of atheism, but being a Christian I want to keep my children from having too much experience with it at this time in their lives. Later in their lives if fine, but right now I'm living by Proverbs 22:6 -- Train a child in the way he should go and when he is old he will not turn from it. It would grieve me to know end to have my children abandon God.

[brandyII 9]

My daughter read the last Harry Potter book in one night should I be worried?:wub: Maybe I should have read them all before she did but I just enjoy the movies:ohmy:, she's a purist and will only read the books:whatchutalkingabout, just felt like posting to post and am not afraid of atheists just annoying people.:thumbup:

Edited May 2, 2008 by brandyII

[gadgetlady 4]

My daughter read the last Harry Potter book in one night should I be worried?:wub:

LOL! If you're not worried, don't worry!:thumbup:

[ELENATION 0]

I haven't been to this thread in a while, but wow, trell and Elenation, you totally echo my thoughts on this. I have no "fear" of atheism, but being a Christian I want to keep my children from having too much experience with it at this time in their lives. Later in their lives if fine, but right now I'm living by Proverbs 22:6 -- Train a child in the way he should go and when he is old he will not turn from it. It would grieve me to know end to have my children abandon God.

Gadget, firstly I must comment on your avatar picture! You are just beautiful!:wub:

and I do agree, I have teenage girls that already ask many questions about ...well, pretty much everything.... and I always try to give them an objective answer on every issue, but there is some garbage out there, tv, movies and books that I don't think they are mature enough to understand them and if they are exposed to them, they could have an effect on them and not necessarily a positive one, so it's my job as a mom to guide them and protect them, it would affect me very much if they abandoned God one day, but after they become adults I may not be able to do anything about it, but while they are children I still have the power to do something, so I try, and I must say that I'm not referring to this particular movie though, which my children didn't even mention it or weren't interested on it, but I'm just generally speaking, my kids have watched Harry Potter, they don't really like the movies much, but they watched a couple of them, when they did, they were able to understand the fiction in them and I could explain to them that whatever message they may have gotten from them wasn't real and it was clear to me that they wouldn't have been influenced by those movies, they were ready to watch them and I was there too, however, atheism is not fiction, it's real and the whole debate between religion and atheism is very complex and frankly I don't think that it's appropriate for a child, IMHO, but again, I'm not referring to this movie, I don't know much about it....

Edited May 2, 2008 by ELENATION

[Gone4Now 4]

Wow....I just saw a talking polar bear on the commercials and said, "Ew - no thanks."

I am Christian, but I don't believe in limiting my child's information. Let her decide. I did. I was raised Methodist, then Catholic when my mother remarred. Then I was agnostic for many years, about 15, and I think almost to the point of not believing at all.

Then, there were a few signs in my life that brought me back to my faith. I don't go to church, and I wouldn't protest a movie - I'd just avoid seeing it.

I'm not afraid of athiests, however the several I've known in my life have belittled me for believing. They taunted me, called me stupid - all kinds of crazy stuff. And, since I'm not that well versed on the bible, I couldn't really defend myself. It's not that I took the bible word for word, or that I believe in one religion over another. It's that I believe that there is a higher power and it's much greater than anything I can see, hear or touch.

I also believe that science works hand in hand with religion, so that I'm not chosing superstition over science.

But - religion/belief aside - I have a funny story about movies. My 10 year old daughter asked to go to her friends house. Normally I don't think much of it, but she gave off a weird vibe. I said, "Why? What are ya'll doing?" Turns out they wanted to do the "roller-coaster" cheer that they all saw on "Bring It On". It's where the group swings up 2 cheerleaders and they summersault in the air and then get caught, or land - or something.

I started laughing and said, "No way." I said those movies have experts, people who are trained - and medical access! She said, "But, it looked easy in the movie. Bottom line, I said no - and she's still not talking to me.

BUT, my point with that is - kids do imitate movies. Whether it's violence, sex, drugs or cheerleading, it will be imitated by a child.

So, if I were strongly set in teaching my child MY views and beliefs, I can understand why this would be boycotted. Not really protested - but, eh - whatever. I do think that it's stupid to protest a movie, since that draws more attention than just letting the sales fall flat.

Kids are sponges, and as a parent there *some* things I don't let her see. But, it's all about your beliefs and where you stand on them. If you have none (beliefs), then you have a wider range of what's acceptable. Therefore, it's probably harder to understand the restrictions that people with strong beliefs place on themselves and family.

[brandyII 9]

I still stick with my feelings and don't discuss the Great pumpkin because it's just way too personal:wub: brandyII

[gadgetlady 4]

Gadget, firstly I must comment on your avatar picture! You are just beautiful!:thumbup:

Thank you, Elena. That is very sweet and made me smile today

[WASaBubbleButt 41]

I'm sorry, but you don't know the experiences of every Christian person. When someone "spouts" they may have been persecuted, it doesn't mean that at some point you weren't persecuted, it just means that they were! By admitting someone else was treated poorly, it doesn't take away from your own experiences.

"Persecution is the active, systematic mistreatment of an individual or group by another group or individual." If you can claim persecution, then so can Christians, who have experienced the exact same thing as you.

Your response is completely out of context. The issue is the ACLU and how they are persecuting xtians. They aren't. They are making sure everyone is playing by the same rules. THAT was the issue I was responding to.

Personally- on some other topics- I don't believe in prayer in schools or moments of silence. Not because someone's rights- but because parents should be taking the lead in teaching children.

Agreed.

As far as having all types of decorations on city halls or other government buidings... your tax dollars go to benefit ALL types of programs. Pro-abortion, Pro- life, domestic violence shelters, studies to determine racism, taking children away from their parents, giving money to homeless, giving money to help AIDS patients, giving money to help sex offenders, money to republicans, money to democrats, money to libertarians, and money to a various flurry of churches and organizations. If you're going to fight a $30 Chrismas tree- you should be fighting all the other expenses as well. It's not just about putting up a Hannukah decoration- it's about putting up Hannukah, Kwanzaa, Ramaddan, heck even Festivus! They don't put up decorations to recognize every religion, they put them up because the majority of people like them. I don't care if they're up or not on government buildings. It doesn't change the holiday. But I don't get all offended when I walk into a Shaw's in Sharon, MA (where the majority of people are Jewish) and they only have Hannukah decorations. The majority of the people who live there believe in that holiday. I consider it a cultural learning lesson!

Again, the issue was what have xtians typically been able to get away with that others have not. THAT is what *I* was responding to. Not sure what you are responding to. ???

Also, non Christians alike are getting the "perks" of Easter and Christmas. Days off work, better pay if you do work that day. The people who should really be crying foul are the holidays that are recognized by other religions where the people DON'T get that time off. Jewish holidays happen yet they don't get formal time off for it. They have a better complaint.

Non xtians don't necessarily get better perks because xtian holidays are recognized by the US gov't. If I am scheduled to be off on a given day I am suddenly scheduled since I am not a xtian.

With that said, I don't mind much. If I do get the day off I offer to trade with someone who is xtian so they can have the holiday off.

I'd rather the gov't stop promoting xtian holidays but that's me.

[WASaBubbleButt 41]

Sorry I scared you, Wasa. I'm sorry that I have no clue what I'm talking about when mentioning persecution. I'm sorry that I don't know what persecution even means......but hey, at least you can get some giggles whenever I bring it up, right?

That is kind of a bizarre response. Perhaps you would care to respond to what I actually did write? I never claimed you scared me.

So far you are pretty good at throwing around accusations such as children are not permitted to pray in school or that I claimed to fear you. What you don't seem to be as good at is responding to issues that actually are written.

Cheers.

[WASaBubbleButt 41]

Plain...

Since you still decline to tell me which ACLU case you are referring to I went looking. This is what I found:

Sherman v. Twp. High Sch. Dist. 214, No. 07-6048 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 15, 2007)

>>Sherman v. Twp. High Sch. Dist. 214, No. 07-6048 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 15, 2007)

A U.S. district court in Illinois has issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting a school district from implementing the state’s new mandatory "moment of silence" law. The court found that the plaintiff’s claims that the law is unconstitutionally vague and violates the First Amendment’s Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses are likely to succeed. The law in question is a 2007 amendment to a 1969 law that permitted schools to observe a brief period of silence for silent prayer or reflection. In 1990, the state legislature amended the law by adding a provision making clear that students may voluntarily initiate prayer so long as it is non-disruptive and, "consistent with the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the United States and Illinois Constitutions, is not sponsored, promoted or endorsed in any manner by the school or any school employee." The 2007 amendment made observation of the "moment of silence" mandatory. Robert Sherman challenged the law in a suit brought on behalf of his daughter, Dawn Sherman, a student at Buffalo Grove High School. The suit names Township High School District 214 (THSD 214) and Dr. Christopher Koch, Illinois State Superintendent of Education, as defendants and argues that the law is void because it is unconstitutionally vague and that it violates the Establishment and Free Exercise of Religion Clauses.

The court started by stating that under the "void-for-vagueness" doctrine "‘a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that [persons] of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application, violates the first essential of due process of law.’" When, as in this case, the uncertainty of the statute creates an environment that threatens to inhibit the exercise of constitutionally protected rights, a court subjects the statutes to a more stringent standard of review. A vague law that chills First Amendment rights is void on its face, the court continued even if it may have some legitimate application. The court found that this statute failed to specify: (1) how the period of silence should be implemented; (2) the time of day the period should be observed; (3) how long the period should be; and (4) whether students would be required to sit or stand, or would be permitted to move about the classroom. More important, the statute failed to set out penalties for students who fail to remain silent, teachers who refuse to hold the period of silence, and schools and school districts that refuse to implement the statute in whole or in part. As a result, the court concluded that the plaintiff was likely to prevail on the vagueness claim.

This vagueness, in turn, created potential Establishment Clause and Free Exercise of Religion Clause violations, the court held. By directing students to consider prayer as one of two options during the period of silence, the statute appears to convey to students that the period should be use for prayer. This would be a possible violation of the Establishment Clause, the court reasoned. As for the free exercise claim, the vagueness as to permissible activities during the period of silence, such as use of a Muslim prayer rug, a Bible, or chanting, raised concerns of possible free exercise violations.

Sherman v. Twp. High Sch. Dist. 214, No. 07-6048 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 15, 2007)

[Editor’s Note: According to the news report below, some state legislators who supported the legislation and some who opposed it agree that removal of the word "prayer" from the statute will spare schools from further litigation. For background on the suit, see the second link. In 1985, the U.S. Supreme Court in Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985), struck down an Alabama moment of silence statute as promoting religion after it was amended to specify that voluntary prayer was permitted. In 2001, the Fourth Circuit in Brown v. Gilmore, 258 F.3d 265 (4th Cir. 2001), upheld Virginia’s moment of silence statute, which specified that prayer was one option.]

Chicago Tribune By Jeff Coen

NSBA School Law pages on Illinois moment of silence suit<<

Plain, you are upset because the ACLU is fighting this. Since nobody is suggesting that prayer cannot be done during school hours, and it cannot be led by teachers, and it cannot be suggested by teachers, what is the problem?

Isn't the only thing left to force it down the children's throats? What is the problem with this ACLU case?

[plump_princess 1]

2 Timothy, Chapter 3

3 But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, self-assuming, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, 3 having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, 4 betrayers, headstrong, puffed up [with pride], lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, 5 having a form of godly devotion but proving false to its power; and from these turn away....7 always learning and yet never able to come to an accurate knowledge of truth.

'nuff said. Personally, I'm not afraid of atheism, I realize the reason that many turn to it, rather than deal with false religion. God will judge those whose hearts aren't in the right place, and for those just haven't be able to learn the truth, he understands that, too. But the fact that the world is the way it is, and the way people are, and and where the world is headed, it has already been clearly outlined in the bible...

[MacMadame 81]

lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God,

What nonsense. Atheists aren't "lovers of pleasures" any more than Christians are. Many atheists are people with a strong moral code who strive to do good in the world and live ethically.

God will judge those whose hearts aren't in the right place, and for those just haven't be able to learn the truth, he understands that, too. But the fact that the world is the way it is, and the way people are, and and where the world is headed, it has already been clearly outlined in the bible...

God doesn't exist and the bible is just a book written by men (and probably a few women who didn't get the credit they deserved. :party: )

[WASaBubbleButt 41]

2 Timothy, Chapter 3

3 But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, self-assuming, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, 3 having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, 4 betrayers, headstrong, puffed up [with pride], lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, 5 having a form of godly devotion but proving false to its power; and from these turn away....7 always learning and yet never able to come to an accurate knowledge of truth.

'nuff said. Personally, I'm not afraid of atheism, I realize the reason that many turn to it, rather than deal with false religion. God will judge those whose hearts aren't in the right place, and for those just haven't be able to learn the truth, he understands that, too. But the fact that the world is the way it is, and the way people are, and and where the world is headed, it has already been clearly outlined in the bible...

What is YOUR take on the topic? I mean without having to look to the bible to find your opinions.

[MrsFlipFlops 2]

Your response is completely out of context. The issue is the ACLU and how they are persecuting xtians.

Oh gag- your "thought" on persecution was implied that you were speaking in general terms. Your mention of ACLU was at the very top of your post before you went on the rant about Christians in general.

The ACLU does work against religion. They have attempted to block teaching creationism in schools, prevented moments of silence , etc. Why can't the topic of creationsim be taught as a theory just as evolution is a theory and the big bang theory? How come only two out of three theories can be presented in schools? It's ridiculous! It sounds to be that Christians aren't afraid as atheism- athiests are afraid of Christians. They are actively working against Christianity at several terms!

In fact, I don't know how this topic has suddenly turned into an attack on Christianity!

Secondly, the rest of my post wasn't directed to you... it was directed to the topic in general. I'll be more clear in my future posts.

[brandyII 9]

This topic will only end in tears, go to my site on picking out names for my new African Grey Parrot.