So much for separating church and state

[William Wallace]

https://www.theage.com.au/victoria/government-comes-to-atheist-party-20110514-1enkv.html

THE ''four horsemen of the anti-apocalypse'', the world's most prominent atheists, will share a public platform for the first time in Melbourne next year in an event partly funded by the state government.

I guess all those tears cried over church and state were the crocodile variety.

[GuineaPig]

And no government has ever, ever, funded anything church-related in the history of Western civilization.

[Adami]

https://www.theage.com.au/victoria/government-comes-to-atheist-party-20110514-1enkv.html

THE ''four horsemen of the anti-apocalypse'', the world's most prominent atheists, will share a public platform for the first time in Melbourne next year in an event partly funded by the state government.

I guess all those tears cried over church and state were the crocodile variety.

Atheists don't have a church as far as I know.

[William Wallace]

And no government has ever, ever, funded anything church-related in the history of Western civilization.

That's not the point.

Related blog post is up too.

[Adami]

Atheism is not a religion. They have no church. There is no problem.

[William Wallace]

Atheism is not a religion. They have no church. There is no problem.

That's a technicality. What have they always objected to? Religious people spreading their views at everybody's expense. Now they are doing exactly the same thing.

[Adami]

Atheism is not a religion. They have no church. There is no problem.

That's a technicality. What have they always objected to? Religious people spreading their views at everybody's expense. Now they are doing exactly the same thing.

So?

[William Wallace]

Atheism is not a religion. They have no church. There is no problem.

That's a technicality. What have they always objected to? Religious people spreading their views at everybody's expense. Now they are doing exactly the same thing.

So?

Hypocritical? Just slightly?

[Adami]

Atheism is not a religion. They have no church. There is no problem.

That's a technicality. What have they always objected to? Religious people spreading their views at everybody's expense. Now they are doing exactly the same thing.

So?

Hypocritical? Just slightly?

Just good business.


Are they telling people not to believe in god?

[Nigerius Rex]

Atheism is not a religion. They have no church. There is no problem.

That's a technicality. What have they always objected to? Religious people spreading their views at everybody's expense. Now they are doing exactly the same thing.

So?

Hypocritical? Just slightly?

Just good business.


Are they telling people not to believe in god?

You're purposefully ignoring the underlying point with wordplay. An event hosting militant atheists propagating an exclusive world view is being supported monetarily by the government, something that would cause a shitstorm had the event been a religious or spiritual one.

[William Wallace]

Atheism is not a religion. They have no church. There is no problem.

That's a technicality. What have they always objected to? Religious people spreading their views at everybody's expense. Now they are doing exactly the same thing.

So?

Hypocritical? Just slightly?

Just good business.


Are they telling people not to believe in god?

They're probably just going to talk about the weather.

[Adami]

I'm not sure why they'd be talking about the weather.








Also, hasn't the government funded religious schools before?

[wjc]

https://www.theage.com.au/victoria/government-comes-to-atheist-party-20110514-1enkv.html

THE ''four horsemen of the anti-apocalypse'', the world's most prominent atheists, will share a public platform for the first time in Melbourne next year in an event partly funded by the state government.

I guess all those tears cried over church and state were the crocodile variety.

State governments in Australia often tend to pay event organisers money to host their events in their states, citing a supposed boost to the economy, and the international exposure these events bring. This does include religious events, most notably Catholic church's World Youth Day in Sydney was funded to the tune of $200 million.
There's nothing in Australia specifically establishing the separation of church and state, and governments have frequently promoted religion. Most recently this has come up as the Federal Government's newish program to fund chaplains to work in schools in place of qualified counsellors; the Federal Government also generously subsidises the (predominantly religious) private school system, giving very little money to public schools.

[PowerSlave]

Atheism is not a religion. They have no church. There is no problem.

That's a technicality. What have they always objected to? Religious people spreading their views at everybody's expense. Now they are doing exactly the same thing.

I dunno, man. I'm not sure if I agree with that statement. Maybe I'm being too picky over the exact words you used? Or, maybe you're saying that's just one of the things they bitch about?

[hefdaddy42]

WW, it's Australia.  Who cares how they do things down there other than Australians?

[Sigz]

You're purposefully ignoring the underlying point with wordplay. An event hosting militant atheists propagating an exclusive world view is being supported monetarily by the government, something that would cause a shitstorm had the event been a religious or spiritual one.

Actually, they're getting government funding because a similar religious event did get funding:

The Atheist Foundation of Australia complained in 2010 because their first convention, held that year, received no funding, while the Parliament of the World's Religions, held the same year, received $2 million.

I don't think either should get funding, but it's better that they both do than just one. It's hardly hypocritical to ask for equal treatment by the government. Not to mention that the organization running the event being an Australian group that's had no part in the discussion over church and state separation in America.

[El JoNNo]

An event hosting militant atheists   

They are not militant.

[Nigerius Rex]

An event hosting militant atheists   

They are not militant.

The Global Atheist Convention, ''A Celebration of Reason'', will host authors Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris, the four champions of the so-called ''new atheism''.

Pretty sure they are.

[ReaPsTA]

Atheists don't have a church as far as I know.

Not the point.  It's still a religious view, and thus the U.S. government shouldn't endorse it.

[Adami]

Atheists don't have a church as far as I know.

Not the point.  It's still a religious view, and thus the U.S. government shouldn't endorse it.

...........the US government isn't.

[rumborak]

Dawkins is a bit over the top and rather vocal, but he isn't militant.
Can we refrain from using hyperbole constantly?

rumborak

[ReaPsTA]

Atheists don't have a church as far as I know.

Not the point.  It's still a religious view, and thus the U.S. government shouldn't endorse it.

...........the US government isn't.

I know, but you were making a broader comment on the idea of separation of church and state.

Dawkins is a bit over the top and rather vocal, but he isn't militant.
Can we refrain from using hyperbole constantly?

rumborak

Fair point to make.

[El JoNNo]

An event hosting militant atheists   

They are not militant.

The Global Atheist Convention, ''A Celebration of Reason'', will host authors Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris, the four champions of the so-called ''new atheism''.

Pretty sure they are.

Allow me to educate you on the meaning of militant.

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/militant
mil·i·tant  (ml-tnt)
adj.
1. Fighting or warring.
2. Having a combative character; aggressive, especially in the service of a cause: a militant political activist.
n.
A fighting, warring, or aggressive person or party.


None of them are aggressive, warring or in any way advocating for violent reform. They speak of science, reason and give lectures on counter arguments to religious claims. You calling them militant no matter how much you wish to smear there image does not make it so.    

Dawkins is a bit over the top and rather vocal, but he isn't militant.
Can we refrain from using hyperbole constantly?

rumborak

Thank you

[Nigerius Rex]

Allow me to educate you on the meaning of militant.

Alright well I didn't use the term to make you defensive as you tend to get in these types of discussions. My use of the word militant was to mean overly aggressive, and true to its definition thats precisely what Dawkins, the other atheists, the other convention they are talking about, and bible thumpers everywhere have made a career out of.

[Adami]

You're purposefully ignoring the underlying point with wordplay. An event hosting militant atheists propagating an exclusive world view is being supported monetarily by the government, something that would cause a shitstorm had the event been a religious or spiritual one.

Actually, they're getting government funding because a similar religious event did get funding:

The Atheist Foundation of Australia complained in 2010 because their first convention, held that year, received no funding, while the Parliament of the World's Religions, held the same year, received $2 million.

I don't think either should get funding, but it's better that they both do than just one. It's hardly hypocritical to ask for equal treatment by the government. Not to mention that the organization running the event being an Australian group that's had no part in the discussion over church and state separation in America.

Just quoting because it got ignored.

[El JoNNo]

Allow me to educate you on the meaning of militant.

Alright well I didn't use the term to make you defensive as you tend to get in these types of discussions. My use of the word militant was to mean overly aggressive, and true to its definition thats precisely what Dawkins, the other atheists, the other convention they are talking about, and bible thumpers everywhere have made a career out of.

Apparently you have not once watched anything by any of those men, to still think them aggressive. I could see insensitive, blunt or asshole as a descriptor; but militant is just fucking silly. You have a biased perception, that's it. 

[William Wallace]

Actually, they're getting government funding because a similar religious event did get funding...

Again, this is not the point. Religious groups around the world often receive government money, but the atheist rallying cry on this issue has always been complete separation of church and state, which I agree with. Yet they're willing to take public money when it's offered.

I don't think either should get funding

I agree

Not to mention that the organization running the event being an Australian group that's had no part in the discussion over church and state separation in America.

But they have indeed had a lot to say about it in Australia, and they're not fans of Bible giveaways or "god-speak" in public schools. And that's all lovely. But you can't decry the evils of publicly financed religious indoctrination and then take public funds for your own convention.

[El JoNNo]

Well Mr. Wallace, I semi agree with you. I say semi because I don't know all the information.

[Adami]

Robert, would you have started this thread if the Australian government had funded a christian thing? Would it have riled you up to whatever extent that this has? Or are you just upset that the atheists are getting the same treatment as Christians and now deem them hypocrites for taking advantage of their situation?

[William Wallace]

Robert, would you have started this thread if the Australian government had funded a christian thing? Would it have riled you up to whatever extent that this has? Or are you just upset that the atheists are getting the same treatment as Christians and now deem them hypocrites for taking advantage of their situation?

Any public money spent on just about anything irritates me. Would I have started a thread about some evangelical group taking state money? No. But they don't campaign against state sponsored religious instruction; they push it every chance they get.

[Adami]

Robert, would you have started this thread if the Australian government had funded a christian thing? Would it have riled you up to whatever extent that this has? Or are you just upset that the atheists are getting the same treatment as Christians and now deem them hypocrites for taking advantage of their situation?

Any public money spent on just about anything irritates me. Would I have started a thread about some evangelical group taking state money? No. But they don't campaign against state sponsored religious instruction; they push it every chance they get.

So, it's not so much the lack of separation between church and state that bugs you, but that Atheists are accepting a specific kind of treatment that they have fought against others having. Interesting.

[Nigerius Rex]

Allow me to educate you on the meaning of militant.

Alright well I didn't use the term to make you defensive as you tend to get in these types of discussions. My use of the word militant was to mean overly aggressive, and true to its definition thats precisely what Dawkins, the other atheists, the other convention they are talking about, and bible thumpers everywhere have made a career out of.

Apparently you have not once watched anything by any of those men, to still think them aggressive. I could see insensitive, blunt or asshole as a descriptor; but militant is just fucking silly. You have a biased perception, that's it. 

This is pointless, the issue is not Dependant on Dawkins or other atheists being aggressive, militant, or  peace loving hipsters. it's that government funding for any extreme world-view spiritual or otherwise is stupid. And you would rather go on and on about something trivial like this for what reason?

[millahh]

Allow me to educate you on the meaning of militant.

Alright well I didn't use the term to make you defensive as you tend to get in these types of discussions. My use of the word militant was to mean overly aggressive, and true to its definition thats precisely what Dawkins, the other atheists, the other convention they are talking about, and bible thumpers everywhere have made a career out of.

Apparently you have not once watched anything by any of those men, to still think them aggressive. I could see insensitive, blunt or asshole as a descriptor; but militant is just fucking silly. You have a biased perception, that's it. 

This is pointless, the issue is not Dependant on Dawkins or other atheists being aggressive, militant, or  peace loving hipsters. it's that government funding for any extreme world-view spiritual or otherwise is stupid. And you would rather go on and on about something trivial like this for what reason?

Why is atheism an extreme world-view?

[Nigerius Rex]

Its not an extreme world view in itself, but compared to the lifestyles of religious people and agnostic or neutrals, it is, especially when the government that everyone pays taxes into gets involved.

[Adami]

Its not an extreme world view in itself, but compared to the lifestyles of religious people and agnostic or neutrals, it is, especially when the government that everyone pays taxes into gets involved.

It might help future debate if you avoided such hyperbole, since it seems a good amount of time was just spent discussing it.



But, how is atheism an extreme world view compared to the lifestyles of religious people, agnostics or neutrals? Unless all of those are extreme world views, in which case; in relation to one another, none of them would be extreme.