|
Arizona Republicans Propose Bill That Would Prevent Atheists From Graduating (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Joz |
| quote: | Originally posted by de+
I copied the thread title from the article. I submit the thread title is an accurate description of the bill in question. As the bill is currently worded, an atheist has to say the words "So help me God" to graduate. Hence: Arizona Republicans Propose Bill That Would Prevent Atheists From Graduating. |
No, you're still wrong. The bill would only prevent someone from graduating if they refused to say those words. But being an atheist doesn't make one incapable of saying those words, or even necessarily of objecting to those words. Some atheists may be willing to say those words precisely because their atheism leads them to believe the words are meaningless. In fact, it takes a peculiar kind of atheist to be unable to say that oath. Do they think the great nothingness will strike them down in its wrath? It's one thing to claim that the oath will offend atheists (but they aren't alone in that), but it's obviously not much of an actual impediment to graduation, let alone a categorical one as claimed.
So the title is wrong on its face.
| quote: | | If the "so help me God" portion were removed (which to date it has not been), then yes, problem solved. |
To date the bill hasn't been passed, so it hasn't become a problem either. |
|
|
| de+ |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joz
No, you're still wrong. The bill would only prevent someone from graduating if they refused to say those words. But being an atheist doesn't make one incapable of saying those words, or even necessarily of objecting to those words. Some atheists may be willing to say those words precisely because their atheism leads them to believe the words are meaningless. In fact, it takes a peculiar kind of atheist to be unable to say that oath. Do they think the great nothingness will strike them down in its wrath? It's one thing to claim that the oath will offend atheists (but they aren't alone in that), but it's obviously not much of an actual impediment to graduation, let alone a categorical one as claimed.
So the title is wrong on its face.
To date the bill hasn't been passed, so it hasn't become a problem either. |
If the words ended with "And there is no god", by your logic no theist should object to saying the oath because they "know" that last phrase to be a lie. Yet you absolutely know that is not the case, i.e., that theists would totally object to having to say that.
| quote: | | it takes a peculiar kind of atheist to be unable to say that oath. |
I find it odd that you think not wanting to lie is peculiar. |
|
|
| Joz |
| quote: | Originally posted by de+
If the words ended with "And there is no god", by your logic no theist should object to saying the oath because they "know" that last phrase to be a lie. Yet you absolutely know that is not the case, i.e., that theists would totally object to having to say that. |
First off, some theists believe that saying there is no god will offend god, but obviously the void won't object to a statement that there is a god. So this isn't really a parallel. Second, I didn't say *no* atheist should or would object, only that *some* may not. It is possible that *some* theists would not object to your version, but that doesn't even matter. I never said that atheists shouldn't object to this legislation, or to saying the oath. The oath offends, without any commensurate benefit, and on that grounds alone it is bad legislation. But once again, that is not the same thing as preventing atheists as a category from graduating. It doesn't do that.
| quote: | | I find it odd that you think not wanting to lie is peculiar. |
You misunderstand me. Not wanting to do something is different than being unable to do that thing. When I said "unable", I meant it quite literally, and not as a figurative expression for not wanting to. |
|
|
| de+ |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joz
First off, some theists believe that saying there is no god will offend god, but obviously the void won't object to a statement that there is a god. So this isn't really a parallel. Second, I didn't say *no* atheist should or would object, only that *some* may not. It is possible that *some* theists would not object to your version, but that doesn't even matter. I never said that atheists shouldn't object to this legislation, or to saying the oath. The oath offends, without any commensurate benefit, and on that grounds alone it is bad legislation. But once again, that is not the same thing as preventing atheists as a category from graduating. It doesn't do that. |
It doesn't prevent atheists from graduating in the same way that marriage laws don't prevent gays from marrying, as long as they marry members of the opposite sex. |
|
|
| Joz |
| quote: | Originally posted by de+
It doesn't prevent atheists from graduating in the same way that marriage laws don't prevent gays from marrying, as long as they marry members of the opposite sex. |
No. The equivalent would be preventing two people of the same sex from marrying if they didn't say they were straight. In other words, they can accomplish the act that they want (marriage to the same sex, or graduation) with a lie that has no consequences.
Your attempted parallel does not provide any means of accomplishing the desired act, so it is clearly not a parallel at all. |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| Seriously? They're not saying you have to mean it. Just say it, it's only a word you pussies. |
|
|
| de+ |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joz
No. The equivalent would be preventing two people of the same sex from marrying if they didn't say they were straight. In other words, they can accomplish the act that they want (marriage to the same sex, or graduation) with a lie that has no consequences.
Your attempted parallel does not provide any means of accomplishing the desired act, so it is clearly not a parallel at all. |
The desired act of a homosexual is to marry the same gender. If a homosexual wanted to marry without marrying the opposite gender, they couldn't - they don't get what they want.
The desired act of an atheist would be to graduate without saying this oath. If an atheist wanted to graduate without saying this oath, they couldn't - they don't get what they want.
The only way for a homosexual to marry is to marry the opposite gender*, and the only way for an atheist to graduate is to say this oath including "so help me God."
Seems parallel to me.
*except in certain states |
|
|
| de+ |
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
Seriously? They're not saying you have to mean it. Just say it, it's only a word you pussies. |
Do you not see a violation of the 1st amendment here? What if they required all people to say "Jesus"? What if they required an homage to Satan? Vishnu?
This is just more evidence that conservatives want to treat nontheists as second class citizens. |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
Don't you have to take an oath with your hand on the Bible when testifying in court? Do you get offended by that too?
Grow a pair. |
|
|
| Joz |
| quote: | Originally posted by de+
The desired act of a homosexual is to marry the same gender. If a homosexual wanted to marry without marrying the opposite gender, they couldn't - they don't get what they want. |
EXACTLY! They can't get it even if they make an inconsequential lie.
| quote: | | The desired act of an atheist would be to graduate without saying this oath. |
No. You have combined two different goals here: graduation, and not telling an inconsequential lie. While some people might feel that the latter is more important than the former, let's be honest here: that's not most people.
| quote: | | If an atheist wanted to graduate without saying this oath, they couldn't - they don't get what they want. |
And under a law where gay couples could marry if they merely claim they're straight (with, again, no consequence for lying), gay couples couldn't marry and not tell a lie. That's not a good situation for them, and I never claimed it's not objectionable (quite the reverse, in fact). But it is absolutely and obviously better for them than the current situation in places where it is categorically prohibited. It's absurd for you to claim that they're equivalent.
| quote: | | Seems parallel to me. |
Yes, I know. And that's the problem: you've got zero sense of proportion here. |
|
|
| de+ |
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
Don't you have to take an oath with your hand on the Bible when testifying in court? |
No
| quote: | | Do you get offended by that too? |
About as much as taking an oath on a copy of the silmarillian. Pretty meaningless though. |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| So then why would you care about saying 4 words that you don't even mean? They're not saying you have to believe them in order to graduate, you just have to say them. If you had a serious moral issue with doing homework, do you think you should be excused from doing it just because you're against it? |
|
|
|
|
