American Humanist Association (AHA)

Comment

Comment by Bobbi Cadence on May 8, 2013 at 8:00pm

Thank you!  :)

Comment by Jon T on May 8, 2013 at 3:21am

@ Bobbi C

Hello, and welcome to AHA of Atheistnexus.

Comment by Bobbi Cadence on May 7, 2013 at 9:52pm

Hi there! I am new to Atheistnexus, and I am not online much.

I am also on FB, Ravelry, and I have a wordpress-blog.

I do not consider myself a "weak" Atheist simply because I am NOT 100% Sure that God-Gods-Goddess Exist or not. I simply say I don't know, but I live my life according to the "natural laws" of this planet, NOT the bible written thousands of years ago when people "knew" the earth was flat.

Comment by Brian Magee on May 2, 2013 at 10:50am

Watch Fox News try and tie the National Day of Reason to the Holocaust.

Read details from Raw Story here.

Comment by Jon T on March 27, 2013 at 1:07am

@  Natalie, You are, seemingly, a wonderful person.  Some laws are creations of social transitions in culture and necessary to drive change away from autocratic or religious mandates, which tread on personal freedoms. In reference to your quote, "Her father was an anthropologist, and I think she learned to be very non-judgmental in her observations of society, and therefore[,] has sympathetically created some very interesting societies in her writing. [I] would that WE, as a nation, and as a world, could be that compassionate!" I would replace 'compassionate' with 'knowledgeable and experienced, which together help  some of us become more compassionate.' since  compassion is not an evolved trait in everyone, no matter the amount of experience and education. Alpha-narcists of any kind are only  more empowered when educated. One of the major divides in atheism, is that compassion cannot  be supported by fact or substantiated by reason, but is perceived to be a belief supported by altruism. Keeping in mind too much compassion can become a turning back of the progress made also. Examples would be compassionately allowing the church to express, freely, their religious views to the repealing of Roe v. Wade, or by banning gay marriage with DOMA (a.k.a. Defense Of Maladjusted Aggression).

Ursula LeGuin sounds like a good read to explore, thank you for the inspiration.

Comment by Natalie A Sera on March 26, 2013 at 11:44pm

Joan, thanks for understanding what I was trying to say. Of course there needs to be law concerning property rights, rights of survivorship, custody of children in the event of divorce, etc. but everything else needs to be private. I guess I've been reading too much Ursula LeGuin -- she writes VERY interesting stories about cultures with different marriage customs, and how the people in those cultures cope with the difficulties inherent in those customs. They are really fascinating stories to think about. And the major point she makes is that the monogamous, one man, one woman marriage is just as much an arbitrary custom as slaughtering a goat on your favorite holiday. Her father was an anthropologist, and I think she learned to be very non-judgmental in her observations of society, and therefore has sympathetically created some very interesting societies in her writing. Would that WE, as a nation, and as a world, could be that compassionate!

Comment by James M. Martin on March 26, 2013 at 11:37pm

Joan writes: "If marriage law is based on Christian, Jewish, Islam on any religious or cult law, then it co-mingles church and state..."  Yes, and it disturbs me that no one seems to be talking about this at the oral arguments at the SCOTUS.  Can you imagine the reaction of Scalia or, for that matter, Kennedy, if someone pointed out that the only basis the pro-Prop 8/DOMA people have for their claim that marriage should be between one man and one woman is dogmatic and Booblical.  Actually, I think some marriage equality people at least have argued that marriage has both ecclesiastical and secular aspects, and I know that the advocates of the latter keep reminding the Court that they are not trying to force The Priesthood into pronouncing the vows in their churches, temples, &c.  A couple of the same sex cannot enjoy the same benefits as their heterosexual counterparts.  They are at the mercy of employers for example when it comes to pension survival rights.  A couple should not need a guy with a collar or even a Buy Bull to wed.  I hold a doctor of divinity myself (Universal Life Church, founded by Reverend Kirby Hensley, who "ordained" me by cashing my check written out to the ULC).  Another ULC "pastor" married my deceased wife and I, after passing around a joint with some good weed.  Now, THAT'S the kind of wedding I like!

Comment by James M. Martin on March 26, 2013 at 11:23pm

Joan, the New Civil Rights website is carrying stories quoting Tony Perkins, Gary Bauer, and Mike Huckabee all saying they plan on defecting from the GOP and forming a third party.  This will dilute the right wingnut vote and virtually assure a Dem win in '16.  I am not a doctrinaire Democrat by any means, but I usually vote with them because they want to be mostly on the right (er, left) side of history.  I think Obama is a progressive in certain areas, but he has to downplay it.  With all of those evangelicals out of the picture in 2016, the Democratic Party will be much closer than Karl Rove and Newt Gingrich tried to maneuver the GOP into a dynastic hold on the White House.

Comment by Joan Denoo on March 26, 2013 at 9:16pm

correction, last line: and of no concern to church or state. 

Comment by Joan Denoo on March 26, 2013 at 9:15pm

Natalie, I like your statement, "there is actually no reason to prohibit ANY kind of marriage (polyandrous, polygynous, group, gay, lesbian, etc.) if all parties consent, and if there are legal ways to deal with problems."

As I see it, problems would include defining rights of children, property rights of the individuals, responsibilities of members of a marriage and tax obligations  Other than that, marriage is private and of no concert to church or state. 

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 45
• Next ›
• Page