Alabama Governor Insinuates Non-Christians Are Second-Class Citizens

Surely there were people of many faiths and lack-of-faiths thereof in the Civil Rights movement, but they came into a movement that was conceived and birthed within the Theistic worldview. It was that theistic worldview that fueled the movement and propelled it to its successes.

As for the rest of your comment it interests me that you too stoop to name-calling and personal insults like "Ignoramus, religionists, science-denying creationists, ignorance and willful stupidity." I thought you were more intelligent than that since you are the communications director for the AA.

Also, my "inherent human rights" like freedom of speech exist whether I am on an atheist blog or in the public square or in church. What you have said here is that my human rights only extend so far as you deem they should and no further. This is an example of what I've said earlier that the atheist has no reason outside of his own head to observe the inherent value of humanity.

Anyway, my name is Dane Snyder and I live in Mobile. I have a Fb page that you are welcomed to friend up to and say whatever you wish so long as there isn't any horribly profane language there. The basic things most people say when the hit their head on a cabinet are alright. Within those bounds, whatever you have to say about atheism or theism or whatever will be left up for all to read.

On your next trip to Mobile I'd love to buy you a cup of coffee at Satori's or Carpe Diem there near the UU church where you spoke.

I actually enjoy hearing people speak who disagree with me.

"As for the rest of your comment it interests me that you too stoop to name-calling and personal insults like “Ignoramus, religionists, science-denying creationists, ignorance and willful stupidity.” I thought you were more intelligent than that since you are the communications director for the AA."

That's not name-calling: it's stating a fact. Religionists is not an insult by any standard: it is someone that describes to a religion.

Creationists ARE science-deniers and ignorant about evolution and many of them are willfully stupid. If you are shown the evidence and deny it, you are no longer ignorant: you're stupid - and you choose to be so.

"Also, my “inherent human rights” like freedom of speech exist whether I am on an atheist blog or in the public square or in church."

That is just simply not true. Can you say whatever you want on Facebook without getting terminated for violating their Terms of Service? No, you cannot. You do not have "Freedom of Speech" within the confines of a private enterprise.

Can you walk up to your boss and say whatever you want without getting fired because you have Freedom of Speech? Nope.

"This is an example of what I’ve said earlier that the atheist has no reason outside of his own head to observe the inherent value of humanity."

And once again you would be wrong.

"On your next trip to Mobile I’d love to buy you a cup of coffee at Satori’s or Carpe Diem there near the UU church where you spoke."

I appreciate the offer, but no thanks. I have no interest in hearing about Jesus anymore: been there, done that. There is nothing we can say that will change my mind unless you have found new evidence for the existence of your god within the past 12 hours. Otherwise... I've heard it all before.

Actually Mr. Scott, I haven't said anything about the person of Jesus. I haven't said anything to proselytize you. What I have talked about is historically accurate in that the Civil Right movement was birthed and fueled by the Church. I've also said that the Church is the oldest and largest humanitarian type organization on the planet. I've said that they invented hospitals, orphanages, the educational system, soup kitchens, homeless shelters and all manner of other things that work to ease human suffering. I've said that the Governor was drawing common ground between himself and the black Christians in the church that he was speaking in. I've said that he did not say that nonChristians would receive any less treatment from him as Governor, but that he did say that he does not consider them religious brothers or sister.

All of this is historically accurate and has nothing to do with the person of Jesus Christ or the Christian god.

Instead of try to disprove any of this, you have chosen to throw out labels and insults, which is fine and expected.

The offer still stands. Since the UU and guys like Rhett Ellis people of all faiths, I am looking forward to your next visit to the UU. I don't really have any interest in trying to convert you or change your mind. What I do have an interest in is having an open dialogue. I'm sure there are a lot of things that we would have to agree to disagree on, but I would hope that we would be able to respect and accept one another regardless of our differences.

Isn't that what Free Thinking really is?

The offer still stands.

What I have talked about is historically accurate in that the Civil Right movement was birthed and fueled by the Church.

No, it was birthed & fueled by the heart of Man, not your superstition.

I’ve also said that the Church is the oldest and largest humanitarian type organization on the planet.

It is the people that deserve credit, because people made all that happen.

I’ve said that they invented hospitals, orphanages, the educational system, soup kitchens, homeless shelters and all manner of other things that work to ease human suffering.

Wow. No, the Buddhists invented hospitals. Orphanages were invented by the Jews in the 1st CE. Benjamin Thomson invented the soup kitchen. The Egyptians 1st standardized education in between 3000 & 500 BCE.
This is why the religious are mistreated by the non-religious: you people are always making shit up, not checking your facts, & attributing all sorts of whimsical nonsense to your imaginary sky daddy & his 'church'.
Really. All opinions are decidedly not equal, & since you want the world tailored to your own convenience, I don't see why I should treat you w/any respect.
Respect is earned.

Actually Krys, I would love for you to educate me on these things like Buddhists inventing hospitals and so on and so forth. Please elaborate for me.

Mr. Scott,

"No. Freethinking is not respecting beliefs based on nonsense. Freethinking is looking at the issues and following the evidence: regardless of where it takes you. Freethinking is certainly respecting the human being, but not the ideas."

So, then your thinking is controlled by what someone tells you is reasonable and evidential and true? If you aren't collecting the data and then interpreting it then you have to rely on the expertise of others to explain it to you. When you do that, your thinking is controlled by those people. Data doesn't collect and interpret itself.

It's possible that we have a synonymous definition issue here. I believe that free-thinking happens in the public square through discourse. All ideas are given the right to be heard. The theists, atheists, Buddhists, atheists, agnostics, all philosophies, theologies, psychiatry and all opinions are given equal grounds to speak and the public discourse hashes out that which is true.

What the AA seems to want to do is deny people with opposing views the ability to speak. In a sense, you all are silencing any dissenting voice. That gives you all the sole voice in your "debate." People (atheistic and others) may come to your site and see a very lopsided view of "truth."

A guy like me shows up who does speak in hate and ignorance, but rather asks sensible questions and presents sensible assertions (sensible meaning I'm not name calling and blathering on about hell and damnation) and he gets silenced.

If you came to my FB page or blog or living room and wanted to speak to promote atheism I would let you do that. Then when you were finished or maybe in a discussion format I would respond. I would do that without fear because I believe that the truth will win out. If you have the truth then I need to hear it.

There have been occasions when I have learned things from people of other faiths (or no faith) through this process and I love that.

The AA seems to basically say, "No No. We can't let that danged theist on here to speak. He has dangerous things to say and questions to ask. We need to be sure that we only allow the information that supports our positions."

How is that Free at all?

As for the UUUFM, I thought that they welcomed people of all faiths or no faith at all.

And as far as your stalking remark... I'm not stalking you.

"You know it's a SCAM."
Oh really? What about your marketing plan to increase membership and charge them 20 dollars a pop?"
(DELETE FROM OUR FB PAGE!!! DANGER WILL ROBINSON!)

"You know it's a myth."
Oh really? Let's look at the world religions, their histories, their beliefs, and such and let's look at atheism's history and beliefs and compare the two."
(DELETE! BAN!! NO OPPOSING VIEWS ALLOWED HERE!!! DANGER!!!)

Mr. Scot, you and our President of the AA are the ones on the news and such trying to out front in your offense with the Governor. I didn't come to Global Tel Link and ask you anything but the Governor. Your organization popped up in the national spotlight to speak up for all nonChritsians in Alabama.

In Short Mr. Scott, you are standing beside the interstate in Huntsville screaming, "It's A SCAM!!! IT'S A MYTH!!! THE GOVERNOR IS A BIGOT!!!"

I simply noticed and responded. Very little of your responses have focused on defending your original assertion and most of your responses have questioned my motives and my qualifications to even ask the questions.

I'm not sure why you would stand there on the interstate (symbolically) and declare your positions and beliefs without being willing to have someone ask you about them.

Free Thinking?

Mr. Scott, I haven't been pissy about anything. I've just said that you do it in order to control the information available on your sites. Yes, it's your prerogative and you can do it freely, but I'm not sure why you would want to do so... except to control the available information.

Also, you'll notice that in NOT ONE of my posts have I said anything to promote a religion. I haven't initiated any discussion of Christianity at all, but the atheists bring that topic up, as you have done also.

The conversation sort of goes like this:

"Prayers should not be printed on menus on broad ships." (from the other blog post)
"Really, well let's talk about it."
"You're just a theist!"
"Well yes I am, but I'm talking about defining "discrimination" and things like that. I'm not talking about promoting Jesus or anything."
"Doesn't matter! You are a theist! Get out! Only Atheists here! We are the He Athiest Theist Hating Club!"
"But I want to discuss the issue with you. I'm not promoting my religious beliefs at all."
"Doesn't matter! Get out! This is a page for atheists by atheists!"

That is about how it goes. I haven't said anything even close to proselytizing.

Mr. Scott,

I understand the reason for having a place reserved for atheists. I just think it's an unjust reason. It doesn't have anything to do with a persecution syndrome or anything of the sort. You all have this FB page for atheists where you say things that you all agree on and there isn't any dissenting voices. I get it, I just don't think it is a just thing to do.

Like most Holy Rollers, I post religious things on my FB from time to time. If you were on my friend's list like my other atheist friends then you could comment at will and I wouldn't delete you. We would have a conversation much like we are having here, but I would permit the conversation to happen. I'd even encourage it.

As long as my atheist friends aren't name-calling or things like that (like some have done here) then I'd let the conversation run its course.

Why do I do that? Because I like arguing? Maybe.

But in all honesty it's because I am truly a free-thinker and I want others to also be. Well, really being a free thinker is impossible because we inherit everything from others, but I like to be as free of a thinker as possible.

Well, without dismissing the Christian Worldview out of hand like that, would you like to really dissect it and have that discussion?

I mean, I could declare that atheists were all sorts of things but that wouldn't make it true.

Now, this assertion you've made that it is "ignorant superstitious anachronistic dangerous nonsense. It has no intellectual or philosophical legs to stand on" is interesting. I'm not sure how much you have studied philosophy or theology or sociology or history, but I would love to discuss that with you if you want to do something besides simply dismiss it out of hand.

Well, without dismissing the Christian Worldview out of hand like that, would you like to really dissect it and have that discussion?

The assumption on your part would be - that I haven't had that particular discussion before. Which would be incorrect. I've had it. Bordering on nearly a hundred times.

I mean, I could declare that atheists were all sorts of things but that wouldn’t make it true.

I rarely lie. Never here, that's for sure.

I’m not sure how much you have studied philosophy or theology or sociology or history,

I never voice an opinion on a topic I haven't done some research on. As to history, sociology, & philosophy, I'm fairly up on most of those topics. Theology, no. Based on superstition, it's a waste of time.

but I would love to discuss that with you if you want to do something besides simply dismiss it out of hand.

I'm doing no such thing. My dismissal is a culmination of years upon years of study, critical thought, & nearly objective conclusions. It's a very strong likelihood (I'd bet the rent on it) that you have nothing that I've not heard before.
But that's been mentioned repeatedly, & you haven't picked up on it.

That's not accurate dw.

If all of the good the church has accomplished for humanity could have been done without the church then please point me to the same accomplishment prior to the birth of the Church. Also, please point me to any large-scale atheistic group or organization that is as old as the Church or that has accomplished as much as the Church in alleviating human suffering. If you can do it without the Church then please point me to any humanist movement that does not spring from a society that sprang from Christendom. In short, please point me to a society that does not come from a Christian history that has a humanist group in it that works to alleviate human suffering on the scale that the Church has done.

We're not the "only game in town" as Mr. Scott has said that I think we are, but we are the oldest and most successful and we invented the idea.

My point isn't to sell you on the Church, but rather to point out that your description of the members being mentally ill is petty and without any basis. Many Ivy League Universities today began as Seminaries.

Your contention of mental illness just doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Ok... I am 289 pounds... not 189 pounds... quickly pursuing a heart attack, I guess. Just a typo... I have fat fingers too.

You cannot discriminate against someone based on gender. Gender is what we can focus on here..i as a woman am free to marry a man--because I am a woman. However, as a woman I would not be permitted to marry another woman? Gender discrimination.Pretty simple in legalese.

Sexual Orientation is not on that list and therefore the gov’t does not see sexual orientation as a discriminated group.

Uh...hello? We can amend things, & change them? What decade are you living in? Homosexuality isn't listed as a disorder in the DSM IV anymore. Unless you're postulating that it somehow is, discrimination against people who aren't mentally ill is...what?
Unamerican is the adjective I'd go for.

Quote from Dane: "Airlines can charge an obese person for two tickets if they so choose because obesity is not a protected class."

Airlines can charge an obese person more because they are not the government and can charge whatever they want to whomever they want. The creation of a protected class is a fiction in the mind, just another discrimination forced on everybody through the coercion of government.

Quote from Dane: "The 9th Amendment doesn’t extend special protection to each and every group of people simply because they want it."

The 9th Amendment extends special protection to every individual in the country. Groups of people are not actual entities. The are just so many individuals.

Walmart is private property and they should be able to set their water fountains where ever they feel like. If you don't like their water fountains, you don't have to shop there. The same thing applies to the sizes of the clothes they sell. The 9th Amendment protects Walmart's rights to sell what they wish, and your rights to shop where you wish, and to do so without government interference. It doesn't give you any special claim over Walmart's property.

Government protection of chosen classes of people (whatever that means) is just more discrimination. Until there is perfect uniformity between every individual, there will always be discrimination. Institutionalizing that discrimination and enforcing it through government coercion will not make it disappear. It will only create a different discrimination.

What I have said IS that the process has not yet recognized sexual orientation as a protected class when it comes to civil rights laws.

We're all aware of that, doofus. It shouldn't be like that. & there's NOT SUPPOSED TO BE 'protected classes', because all citizens have equal rights under the constitution.
There's nothing more obnoxious than people who insist on stating the obvious, in as many different ways as possible.

Yep... I didn't say that there wasn't any discrimination... I said that it wasn't widespread enough. I concede that it happens, but it is not a large enough issue society-wide to have spent time in the court systems to be considered a protected class. One thing that atheists have against them in lobbying for protected class status is that atheist are, on average, wealthier and more successful in business than theists. Atheists claim that this because atheists are smarter, but when you are dealing with averages there are far fewer atheists to average than theists. Theists have a wider demographic than atheists so their average income, personal assets and etc will be lower. When this shows up in the court of public opinion you often end up with an atheist who is solidly middle to upper class, well dressed and well educated claiming that they are the victim of institutionalized discrimination. Their own success defeats their message.

Rosa Parks was chosen to be the representative of the bus boycott because she she made a good example of a good, moral, hard-working black woman who simply wanted to ride the bus. Their first pick to be the representative came up pregnant out of wedlock so she was passed over. Because Mrs Parks was more "moral" she went down in history.

Atheists do not have a good poster child for their discrimination allegations.