emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
Some people are more "anti-theist" rather than actually "a-theist"
Their main gripe is against theists and theism being pushed judgmentally especially targeting nontheists for persecution and harassment.
There are different denominations or degrees of nontheists.
Some believe "there is not a God"; some "do not believe" there is a God. Some of my nontheist friends just do not believe or see the world in terms of a "personified God," but are perfectly content to align universal laws or beliefs about creation/the world with others who attribute the world and laws to a God. Many are agnostic where they don't believe it can be known or proven if there is a God.
Some argue they are not against God because they don't believe in God,
so how can they be against something they don't recognize as existing, etc.
So if there are all these degrees or types of atheism,
if you are against atheism, there are just as many versions of that, too!
It's not that atheism is a religion, but that atheists have beliefs equally protected under law.
It does not have to have a formal name or recognition as a religion, or else this would
discriminate unfairly against people with unique beliefs not shared with others in a group.
Note on Fundamentalism in religion or politics:
the common factor I find in what makes "fundamentalists" of ANY kind
closeminded is if they refuse to FORGIVE some group, concept, perception or event,
that they can't stand. then they get "fundamentalist" about THAT thing, whatever it is.
I have this problem like anyone else, I'm not picking on others without also faulting myself.
I can't stand how the legal system claims to protect equal justice under law
when it's not equally accessible and isn't guaranteed to protect rights or interests; and without free speech and the unabridged right to petition and due process, it's not even
constitutional to me given my beliefs in mediation and consensus decison-making.
It's fine for other people who consent to bullying and gambling with their rights,
but it's not an equal choice for people who want restorative justice without restricting the process of mediation. So on that point, I get totally fundie about the First and Fourteenth Amendment. I can be just as obnoxious as the worst Atheist preaching against Christian hypocrisy or Christian preaching against blasphemy. So I totally understand each person may have a limit on what is tolerable and forgiveable because I have mine also.
So if I want to be forgiven for this one thing I have that I just cannot stand, and will
go on hunger strike or argue to the death that the legal system is not fully constitutional
period, then it is only fair that I forgive where other people wax fundamentalist on points
they absolutely will not budge on either. I believe that by consent of the governed, anyone can use any system they consent to, as long as they take responsibility for that system and do not impose on others who don't agree, but have no right to impose this as the only mandatory system through government to the exclusion or access to alternative systems.
If people put up with me going to fundamental extremes with my constitutional beliefs, anyone should be able to tolerate anyone else who goes to extremes with their issues too.
Their main gripe is against theists and theism being pushed judgmentally especially targeting nontheists for persecution and harassment.
There are different denominations or degrees of nontheists.
Some believe "there is not a God"; some "do not believe" there is a God. Some of my nontheist friends just do not believe or see the world in terms of a "personified God," but are perfectly content to align universal laws or beliefs about creation/the world with others who attribute the world and laws to a God. Many are agnostic where they don't believe it can be known or proven if there is a God.
Some argue they are not against God because they don't believe in God,
so how can they be against something they don't recognize as existing, etc.
So if there are all these degrees or types of atheism,
if you are against atheism, there are just as many versions of that, too!
TheoPhobes promoting theophobia. How quaint.
Who cares?
Interesting that atheism is being treated like a religion, though.
You hate athiests huh?
It's not that atheism is a religion, but that atheists have beliefs equally protected under law.
It does not have to have a formal name or recognition as a religion, or else this would
discriminate unfairly against people with unique beliefs not shared with others in a group.
Note on Fundamentalism in religion or politics:
the common factor I find in what makes "fundamentalists" of ANY kind
closeminded is if they refuse to FORGIVE some group, concept, perception or event,
that they can't stand. then they get "fundamentalist" about THAT thing, whatever it is.
I have this problem like anyone else, I'm not picking on others without also faulting myself.
I can't stand how the legal system claims to protect equal justice under law
when it's not equally accessible and isn't guaranteed to protect rights or interests; and without free speech and the unabridged right to petition and due process, it's not even
constitutional to me given my beliefs in mediation and consensus decison-making.
It's fine for other people who consent to bullying and gambling with their rights,
but it's not an equal choice for people who want restorative justice without restricting the process of mediation. So on that point, I get totally fundie about the First and Fourteenth Amendment. I can be just as obnoxious as the worst Atheist preaching against Christian hypocrisy or Christian preaching against blasphemy. So I totally understand each person may have a limit on what is tolerable and forgiveable because I have mine also.
So if I want to be forgiven for this one thing I have that I just cannot stand, and will
go on hunger strike or argue to the death that the legal system is not fully constitutional
period, then it is only fair that I forgive where other people wax fundamentalist on points
they absolutely will not budge on either. I believe that by consent of the governed, anyone can use any system they consent to, as long as they take responsibility for that system and do not impose on others who don't agree, but have no right to impose this as the only mandatory system through government to the exclusion or access to alternative systems.
If people put up with me going to fundamental extremes with my constitutional beliefs, anyone should be able to tolerate anyone else who goes to extremes with their issues too.
Last edited: