Stop the Presses: Americans STILL Don't Like Atheists

[Keelandson]

Trudeau was far too intelligent for that to have happened. Sounds like it was far enough back that he was justice minister if the rent boy recognized him as Pierre Trudeau. Edit: To be clearer, had Trudeau been PM, it is so scandelous the rent boy would have said "the prime minister," not "Trudeau."

Not a chance.

Of course it's far more likely an anonymous rent boy would be believed, especially on that particular site.

On Drudge's site —

Actually, PET liberalised gay rights, abortion and divorce laws all at about the same time under the idear that the "government has no right in the bedrooms of the nation".
Of course he sed that after his wife wife Margeret, a West Van hippie chick at heart ran out on him to hang out all night with the Rolling Stones doing coke at Studio 54.
He was partially implying the press shouldn't "go there" as well.

Drudge's site, of course, unlike the other site, is beyond reproach. Further, "idear" proves it was written by Teddy Kennedy.

 

[kallipolis]

Trudeau was far too intelligent for that to have happened. Sounds like it was far enough back that he was justice minister if the rent boy recognized him as Pierre Trudeau.

Not a chance.

Of course it's far more likely an anonymous rent boy would be believed, especially on that particular site.

On Drudge's site —

Drudge's site, of course, unlike the other site, is beyond reproach. Further, "idear" proves it was written by Teddy Kennedy.

I appreciate that the article is trashy but it is rather indicative of the sort of gossip that still attracts the attention of those who are highly appreciative of Trudeau's progressive legislation on such matters as gay rights.

The most intelligent of people have been caught in compromising positions with prostitutes, and rent boys. A high IQ is not evidence of common sense, nor of an awareness of high risk to their professional life.

 

[Keelandson]

The most intelligent of people have been caught in compromising positions with prostitutes, and rent boys.

Only god-fearing Rethugs with wide stances.

 

[kallipolis]

Only god-fearing Rethugs with wide stances.

I appreciate that the religious hypocrite probably has more to lose, than the atheist who also indulges in similar activities.

 

[Keelandson]

Whether Trudeau was gay, bisexual or straight is of no moment in 2011.

This story illustrates the times we're in now, though Harper and his crew would turn back the clock in a Calgary minute.

Scott Brison (a onetime Tory who crossed the floor to the Liberals) says he won't run again for the Liberal leadership because of the effects of winning on his husband and his future adopted family.

One of only 34 Grits elected to the new Parliament, Mr. Brison said he and husband Maxime St. Pierre are thinking of starting a family.“I don’t want to have one of Canada’s first same sex divorces,” he said when asked if he is considering another leadership race. “If you’re going to make that commitment, I not only want to be a parent, I want to be a good parent and that’s something we both feel strongly about.”

Imagine the furor that would erupt if a politician in Iran or the United States said the same thing.

 

[kallipolis]

Whether Trudeau was gay, bisexual or straight is of no moment in 2011.

This story illustrates the times we're in now, though Harper and his crew would turn back the clock in a Calgary minute.

Scott Brison (a onetime Tory who crossed the floor to the Liberals) says he won't run again for the Liberal leadership because of the effects of winning on his husband and his future adopted family.Imagine the furor that would erupt if a politician in Iran or the United States said the same thing.

Agreed. But it does have some bearing on the need in not a few countries, such as the United States to use discretion when running for public office.

I also referenced the sexual life of President F. D. Roosevelt whose affair with his secretary, was well known in the White House press corps, but men, being men they regarded the president's dalliances as none of their business, nor the business of the nation. Today that would not be the case. Back in the 1930s and 1940s there was a level of discretion within the press corps that shielded politicians from the prying eye of the religious fanatic.

Harper may well present Canada with a different face now that he has secured a majority in the house. To reverse long established legislation on such matters would definitely expose him to ridicule, and even reinforce support for the opposition parties opposed to such retrograde legislative actions.

 

[rjmrjm21]

This Washington Post story asks, "Why to Americans still dislike atheists?"

In looking for the answers it has some hits. But it misses the glaringly obvious: There's no money to be sucked up in atheism. But there's hope. Near the bottom it says the number of American nontheists has tripled since the 1960s — one-fifth of the population are nonbelievers.

No homos caused Katrina for them.

I don't like atheists either. They're in denial about being in denial. They could all go live on the moon for all I care because they're definitely out there!

 

[Comrad]

What should be asked is where this case was taken. From where i am at no one really cares, in fact most respect them. Atheism is on the rise here and most religious people know better than to debate people who use actual logic.

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

What should be asked is where this case was taken. From where i am at no one really cares, in fact most respect them. Atheism is on the rise here and most religious people know better than to debate people who use actual logic.

Well, as I have yet to see some from atheists, I'm not that nervous. You have three basic problems with an atheist getting elected:

1) Countries with a strong atheistic tradition tend to also be non-intellectual. In Soviet Russia, art was frowned on unless it was related to propaganda (you could do all of the girl with tractor paintings you wanted, but try painting a rose). Also, the majority of scientific innovations came from immigrants, and not native-born scientists. We're seeing the same issues in China.

2) Disparate POV's seem to be frowned upon even worse than the religious. Just look at the scientific community where non-atheists are disliked, as well as the gay community, if this board is any tell on that. You also have issues that apply to religion but not atheism, even though atheism has analogies. This inability to equate that what applies to one group applies to another similar group is really not a good point when there are so many equality issues....

3) History is a really bad subject. Christianity, Muslim, and Buddhist charity efforts seem to have disappeared from history, as have their scientific achievements (like gravity, calculus, heliocentrism, evolution, and even the Scientific Method itself). Also, deaths due to religion are always counted, but the tens of millions non-atheists killed in Russia and China specifically because they were non-atheist seem to have actually just gone on an extended vacation.

RG

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

I'm sorry but religious people are simply more moral than non-religious people.

 

[bankside]

As far as Trudeau goes, it is difficult to assess his sexuality. He would clearly have been subject to attack by political opponents who would connote any suggestion of homosexuality, in the vernacular of the day, as both a slur and an effective political weapon. This tactic would be used by those opposed certainly to his decriminalization legislation, but also those generally opposed to his policy for other reasons, and by those both at home and abroad, including perhaps by consular staff. Regardless of his actual sexuality, this would have left a legacy of innuendo that would survive in uncritical hands to the present day.

Consider his frank revelations about illicit drug use: at least in his younger days he smoked a bowl of whatever was put in front of him and gladly said so. He had a fourth child out of wedlock in his 60s. His sex life was unconventional, and in itself what we know of it reveals nothing about any interest in men. Given how willingly and publicly he would take positions contrary to the general moral clucking of those around him, I find it a bit difficult to accept the idea that he would have hidden it.

He did have gay people in his inner circle. (no pun intended) and in his era there would have been enough of a social gulf to make bridge-building an unlikely bother for someone who could be complacently heterosexual. Might he have had some intrinsic motivation for opening doors for the gay community? Don't know; he could remain famously welded to an idea based on principle alone. I'm inclined to think he would have said something.

Well, as I have yet to see some from atheists, I'm not that nervous. You have three basic problems with an atheist getting elected:

1) Countries with a strong atheistic tradition tend to also be non-intellectual. In Soviet Russia, art was frowned on unless it was related to propaganda (you could do all of the girl with tractor paintings you wanted, but try painting a rose). Also, the majority of scientific innovations came from immigrants, and not native-born scientists. We're seeing the same issues in China.

2) Disparate POV's seem to be frowned upon even worse than the religious. Just look at the scientific community where non-atheists are disliked, as well as the gay community, if this board is any tell on that. You also have issues that apply to religion but not atheism, even though atheism has analogies. This inability to equate that what applies to one group applies to another similar group is really not a good point when there are so many equality issues....

3) History is a really bad subject. Christianity, Muslim, and Buddhist charity efforts seem to have disappeared from history, as have their scientific achievements (like gravity, calculus, heliocentrism, evolution, and even the Scientific Method itself). Also, deaths due to religion are always counted, but the tens of millions non-atheists killed in Russia and China specifically because they were non-atheist seem to have actually just gone on an extended vacation.

RG

This seems like satire. Poe's law. Anyway incase it's not, point by point:

1) Nonsense. Countries which have embraced science and have embraced the Enlightenment create an environment where questioning dogma is not liable to get oneself executed. The countries with the deepest intellectual freedoms have the greatest number of non-believers.

2) Exactly right. Science is in the business of determining which disparate points of view are actually correct. That's the whole point; figuring out what's going on. When evidence is unclear or contradictory or inaccessible, it can lead to a hell of an argument. Science refers to that argument as "progress."

3) The history of science has nothing to do with religion unless you consider the beautiful idea that science developed in spite of the best efforts of the religious. How do I know that science is not at root anything to do with religion? Because no religion has any theological ideas required to make science work. Math does not require a virgin birth. Geology does not require meeting with the ancestors in the dream time. Physics does not require abstaining from ham steaks. But most of all, it has nothing to do with religion because if it did, then it would be apostasy for a christian to commit the sin of mathematics, an entirely unchristian muslim heresy...

 

[EwanSF]

I'm sorry but religious people are simply more moral than non-religious people.

Marry me....

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

This seems like satire. Poe's law. Anyway incase it's not, point by point:

I'm really starting the atheist sense of humor: "If I don't believe in it, it has to be a joke."

1) Nonsense. Countries which have embraced science and have embraced the Enlightenment create an environment where questioning dogma is not liable to get oneself executed. The countries with the deepest intellectual freedoms have the greatest number of non-believers.

Um. Yeah. Note that I was looking at countries that have embraced atheism, not science; it's a good point, but this thread is about atheism, not science. Just because a country has decided on atheism does not mean that they automatically embrace science; just look at Communist China and Soviet Russia.

2) Exactly right. Science is in the business of determining which disparate points of view are actually correct. That's the whole point; figuring out what's going on. When evidence is unclear or contradictory or inaccessible, it can lead to a hell of an argument. Science refers to that argument as "progress."

Neat. And this has what exactly to do with atheism? Again, any country that embraces atheism does not exactly deal well with dissent; in fact, any dissenters are usually "disappeared". As science depends on dissent, or at least the ability to disagree, atheist countries do not do well in the sciences, and this is generally borne out.

3) The history of science has nothing to do with religion unless you consider the beautiful idea that science developed in spite of the best efforts of the religious.

This is factually wrong. Most of your major science grew out of the curiosity of clergy, such as alchemy and astrology, and would have died relatively young as the books pretty much required clergy to copy the books every so often. Also, a number of events and developments that we consider major were generally done by devout men (the Scientific Method by alHazen, Copernicus was a Catholic cleric, Darwin was a fanatic Christian).

On the other hand, it is telling that in both communist revolutions, one of the first targets was the intelligentsia....

How do I know that science is not at root anything to do with religion? Because no religion has any theological ideas required to make science work. Math does not require a virgin birth. Geology does not require meeting with the ancestors in the dream time. Physics does not require abstaining from ham steaks.

And these are relevant how? At the same time, most religions do seem to put in inordinate amount of resources on the natural sciences. In fact some of the basic texts that those new to certain disciplines are from religious people; Alhazen's book on optics is still advised reading, as are a number of texts from a pair of nuns for child labor and nursing.

But most of all, it has nothing to do with religion because if it did, then it would be apostasy for a christian to commit the sin of mathematics, an entirely unchristian muslim heresy...

As math was originally expanded upon by mystics using it to contemplate the mysteries of the universe, you have it pretty much backwards here. The religious types took the baton once it got past geometry and handed it back once Newton was done adding calculus (Newton also being devout an co-creating it so as to prove gravity).

Sorry, but atheism and math are not the same thing. Thank God....

RG