You don't necessarily have to be a group that kills innocent people to be called a hate group.
In 1963, the American Atheists group was founded by Madalyn Murry O'Hair. In 1976, a radical feminist named Annie Laurie Gaylor and her mother co-founded the Freedom From Religion Foundation, (FFRF). Since their inception, both the FFRF and AA have sought to remove any religious displays from schools, businesses, and local and state governments through the threat of illegal lawsuits. Both the AA and FFRF are still pursuing similar actions today.
Their so-called “Reason” for removing innocent religious displays from schools and governments is because the United States has Separation of Church and State, (which I too strongly support). The reality of the matter is is that the FFRF and AA are only using the Separation of Church and State as a Lame Excuse for their intentions. Worst of all, there are actually some liberal atheists from the FFRF and AA that only think that the Separation of Church and State is only meant to protect THEM from the US federal government telling them to join a religion, when in reality, it is meant to protect BOTH believers, (religious people), AND non-believers from the federal government telling them to believe in a deity or not.
After all the threatening actions that have been done by the AA and the FFRF against schools, governments and businesses, there's only one way to best describe these two liberal atheist organizations: they are Hate Groups. If they were not hate groups, they wouldn't be bashing or criticizing religions or religious people just because they believe in a god. If they were not hate groups they wouldn’t be trying to force their secular views onto them or onto schools and governments through their illegal lawsuits. (And they say religions are trying to force their religious views onto the American people.)
The FFRF and AA want what I like to call “Complete and Total” Separation of Church and State. To them, it’s the more separation the better, and before you know it, we’ll have signs saying: “Atheist Restrooms” and “Religious Restrooms”; “Atheist Drinking Fountains” and “Religious Drinking Fountains.” Sound familiar? Truth be known, the only reason the FFRF and AA want complete and total separation of church and state is because they hate religions and want them outlawed in the United States and the rest of the world.
So, to the point of all this, I believe that it’s time for the American people and the US federal government to start recognizing that both the Freedom From Religion Foundation and American Atheists are hate groups. They’re both no different from the other radical hate group the Westboro Baptist Church. Like I said at the top of this article, you don't necessarily have to be a group that kills innocent people to be called a hate group.
If this is as you say, I cannot take issue with your argument nor its presentation.
I want COMPLETE AND TOTAL separation of church and state.
I'm not really sure how that makes me hateful.... nor am I sure how that makes me an atheist.
What exactly did these groups did that would qualify them as hate groups? Specifically? Or did I miss something in your post?
Shoot responded to wrong post... Sorry...meant for OP.
Didn't you catch that?
"both the FFRF and AA have sought to remove any religious displays from schools, businesses, and local and state governments"
They don't like either paying for religious icons in govt. buildings OR the use of them in converting their children. That makes them a hate group.
Oh... then I need to find a group to house my hate.
My hate against Christians... I guess.
Then I need to find a therapist I suppose.
You and me both. Perhaps we should start our own hate group; AFKC. Atheists For Killing Christians. Can we set up base in Vatican City?
Sorry - you don't qualify. Not a liberal.
Melissa - you either. Not an atheist.
I realize you're both haters, but neither of you meets all of the above mentioned criteria.
You can make a base in London if you can get some money from some dictators by recognising them.
Melissa, it sounds to me like you need to go to confession, Dear. If it's juicy enough I am willing to listen to anything that's bothering you.
Your Favorite Uncle Jonny.
You are an incurable flirt.
Why do I want to set on your lap and ask for a lolly?
He's adorable though... So I think we should keep him.
We can take turns feeding him.
Oh, if I had my way, I'd find a few more of him. He does seem to have an insatiable appetite though. It would definitely require feeding often enough to take turns.
As long as your culinary skills can turn up something like my Mom used to make.... it's called Queen's Pudding...... breadcrumbs, egg custard, vanilla essence, baked, then strawberry jam and meringue to top it off.
Then all you sins will be forgiven.
Somehow I think this is a bit off-topic, but what the heck?
I was wondering how we know they are liberals?
Complete removal of religion from public life means that the State becomes EVERYONE'S religion.
Nature abhors a vacuum.
Are you saying all groups can hate? What's the point,? is it not better to promote love?
Some atheists are haters. They redicule the Christian religion and those who live by it. Therefore, they hate and are a hate group.
Some christians are haters. They redicule the atheists and those who live by it. Therefore, they hate and are a hate group.
Or are you going to tell me this is not the case.
Some Christians are haters, see it in political forums mostly...
The FFRF is a RADICAL LEFTIST group. Their goal is specifically to destroy Judeo Christian culture and replace it with the religion of STATISM.
The denigration of ANY traditional values that obstruct the implementation of leftist policies is the real enemy to them.
The FFRF is ITSELF an extremely religious group. They just follow a different theology: GOVERNMENT AS RELIGION.
Where was the FFRF when a Muslim man used sharia law as a defense against spousal rape in a NJ court-room,and the judge bough it? (It was later overturned.) Where were the atheist groups when Muslim cab drivers in Michigan started refusing to accept females as passengers if they were not accompanied by males? Where are the atheist organizations when it comes to dangerous, non Judeo-Christian cults?
IMO, western atheist groups are pretty choosy about which religions to take on. They seem to attack Judeo-Christians, while giving every other religion a pass. Muslims demand separate prayer-rooms in airports, and that's A-OK. But someone puts up a manger scene within 400 yards of a public school, and the atheists are screaming blue murder.
The majority of western atheist organizations are chock-full of anti-western, leftist ideology. Fortunately, libertarian atheists are thankfully free of this nonsense.
And BTW - I don't practice any religion. I think religion is a bore. I just don't like the way western atheist groups ideologically cherry-pick the religions they go after. To me, this makes their underlying purpose glaringly obvious. And that purpose is the denigration of western/American culture in general.
And if that IS s there real purpose, I have a problem with it. Because America is a much better place for me to live than, say, Saudi Arabia, where I'd arrested for having lots of tattoos.
And BTW - except for libertarian atheists, most atheists ARE of a liberal bent. Scratch your average atheist, and you'll usually find a lot of leftist sentiment underneath the surface. It doesn't take much for most atheists to go from 'freedom from religion' to 'wealth redistribution' in the same conversation. I've had lots of conversations with self-proclaimed atheists over the years, and this has always been the case - or at least 90% of the time.
Honestly, when I listen to most atheists, it seems like more than anything, they have a personal grudge against religion that would be better off dealt with in a therapist's office. I mean, really . . . when atheist groups fought to have the steel-crucifix- made-out-of-rubble removed from Ground Zero, that was a dickhead move. You might not believe in God, but only an a__hole would want to purposely remove that which gives peaceful solace to thousands of other people - for whatever reason. It's not everyone else's fault that you might have had a bad personal experience in Catholic School or something.
If I had a nickel for every time someone brought up "Separation of Church and State" but had no clue what that *actually* means, I could use those nickels to feed a third-world country.
I've heard everything from "Separation of Church and State means the President can't have a religion" to "You can't be religious and vote; it's against Separation of Church and State". *endless barrage of facepalms*
All it means is that the government cannot declare a nation religion or tell religious people how they can and cannot worship...provided, of course, that their religious practices are not taking away from another's rights of life, liberty, and property.
Not all of ANYONE is ANYTHING. What's your point? Don't mistake cliches for wisdom.
I don't think he's trolling. However 'hate group' isn't entirely accurate but I do understand the sentiment behind the OP. I think what he's saying is that people in state institutions, be it schools or government etc, should have the freedom to express their atheist or theist views. And whilst separation of Church and State is one thing, the obsession of the AA and the FFRF to stamp out anyone's right to religious expression is a case of pot calling the kettle black.
Why was there a need to ban prayer in school for example when alternatively to rule that taking part or not taking part was the right of the individual to choose is perfectly viable?
Prayer was not banned in schools... organized school-sponsored prayer was banned in schools.
Which is why our schools are so messed up. But of course, blame the teachers for that.
Our schools are messed up because the school system doesn't force children to recite a meaningless prayer for 2 minutes each day?
I have never prayed with my kids during home school and my four year old autistic daughter has already passed most of the academic requirements for core curriculum for a first grader.
By the time my second son was the age to be in second grade he was reading at a fifth grade level.
No prayer. None. It doesn't make children more intelligent.
Violence? Well my kids don't beat anyone else up. They've never walked into a classroom and shot anyone either. They've got pretty good morals and are only occasionally- but sometimes significantly- bloody stupid. Just like all children through history.
I don't blame teachers. I blame parents. And there doesn't seem to be any real significant difference between Christian parents with dumb ass kids and Atheist parents with dumb ass kids. Prayer doesn't fix stupid. Prayer doesn't fix violent. Prayer doesn't fix crazy.
What forced prayer in public schools DOES do is indoctrinate children and brainwash them towards a specific religion. As I don't believe that it is my place to choose my children's faith any more than it is my place to choose their spouse or career. I think this is wrong. I think it is even MORE wrong for the government to do it.
Oh, pshaw...go on with that sensible thinking. You do realize no one is going to listen to it, right?
Well if we were prone to sensible thinking we wouldn't be arguing... whatever the heck this thread was about... with internet strangers in the first place. Eh?
Ah, crap. I guess you're right.
I resent being called a stranger, damn it. I am no stranger than the rest of these folks.
"Our schools are messed up because the school system doesn't force children to recite a meaningless prayer for 2 minutes each day?"
Our schools are messed up because the public school system has become a government-run jobs program full of clock-punchers, worthless bureaucrats, and leftist whack-jobs.
Why was there a need to ban prayer in school in a country with a separation of church and state you ask?
You see the schools are part of the state unless the school is a private school. So separating the church from the state in the schools require stoping the church from dictating what happen in the state (school)
You should know that not only Christian prayers were banned in public schools, but all prayers were banned. Imagine yourself in a muslim area where the school prays to Allah a few times a day. Would you want that stopped? Would you tell your children who are impressionable and like to belong to just not participate?
So sorry...gotta hijack for a minute here. I have a great story about this. A friend's son called her from school one day and told her that he hadn't gone to lunch but it was okay because he's signed up! Signed up for what she said? He told her that his friend didn't have to go to lunch and that he didn't want to either so he signed up with his friend.
His friend was a Muslim observing Ramadan. Ricky had 'signed up' to be Muslim so he didn't have to go to lunch!
Let's be honest, prayer is harmless. So what's wrong with it being voluntary; those who want to can, those who dont' don't.
I've spent time in Libya where the call to Allah was broadcast across Tripoli 6 times a day. I wasn't offended by it, and neither were my colleagues. Those local Libyans we worked with had the freedom to choose to take part or not.
Freedom of religion can include freedom to practice or not to practice. There is simply no need to legislate beyond your constitution as it was.
Really? Ever been "the one who didn't go pray with every one else."? LAWL that Libya is so liberal that it ain't a problem. And extra LAWL that you compare it with educated countries where we understand the true nature of your irrational beliefs.
Oh Mark. I hardly think you would be troubled by not praying with everyone else. For the record Libya is a highly educated country; they even drive cars, have home computers and stuff. And yes, as far as religion was occurred, pretty liberal.
I certainly was as a child. Now I am a big boy and don't need to hide my real name to express myself. For the record - Cars int edumakashun issit? Int them got cars n stuff in Saudi as well?
Little wonder your religion has caused so much ill will.
Since when was the law meant to be designed around YOUR feelings? if you feel bad, go to therapy.
Depends on the prayer. I seem to remember some time ago when a group of Muslims in an airport filled the concourse side to side, spread their rugs and began to pray. They were quite incensed when asked to move, demanding that their plane be held at the gate (past scheduled takeoff) until prayer time was finished.
Whey prayer interferes with the activity of non-prayers it has gone too far, in other words.
Well yeah that makes sense, but as a principle in itself, it does not cause harm to non participants. So live and let live, there is no need for the AA et al to push an agenda dressed up as perceived harm when your constitution already takes care of freedom of/from religion.
The problem is it doesn't always.
By holding a prayer in school it violates the constitution. Groups that point that out are just pointing it out to stop it.
Prayer doesn't harm anyone if it doesn't harm anyone. If it does then the harmed parties rights always win out... because your right to freedom of religion shouldn't ever compromise someone else's rights to freedom of religion. Including non-religion.
Pray all you want. Just don't expect special treatment while you are doing it. That infringes on other's rights. Don't expect it to be organized in schools or plastered on buildings that were paid from by societies funds.
No it doesn't. You're interpreting the law through the lens of your own ideological prism.
According to the Constitution (if the Constitution actually MEANS ANYTHING AT ALL), it is beyond the purview of Congress to either require OR ban prayer in public schools.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
What this really means is that congress cannot pass ANY laws respecting establishment of religion of prohibiting the free exercise of religion. The establishment of such laws are COMPLETELY BEYOND THE PURVIEW of the congress of the United States of America.
So, for example: congress may not pass ANY law that defines the 'sanctity of marriage' as between ANY particular individuals, because it is beyond the purview of congress to define what 'sacred' means for ANYONE, or even if there IS such a thing as sacred, because the concept of the 'sacred' in and of itself has direct religious implications. (BTW -
I've presented this concept to many Judeo-Christians, and they tend to agree with me after some thought. Most practicing Judeo-Christians I know are thoughtful people.)
Of course, the Defense of Marriage Act (which I disagree with) gets around this 'problem' by conveniently leaving out the word 'sacred.' Clinton knew he could only get his meaningless and bigoted law passed if he kept things strictly secular, otherwise, the atheist groups would have been all over him with lawsuits.
Regardless; the law means WHAT IT SAYS, not what you WANT IT TO MEAN just because you don't like religion.
And where were the western atheist groups with this incident? Strangely silent.
We are talking about impressionable children here. If you say something enough times you'll believe it. It's brainwashing. The catholic church tells you what to say and the entire people recite the creed. We believe...., this is done for a reason.
In the UK's public schools regular assembly with a broadly Christian theme is mandated by law. However, except for a few Jehovah's Witness, children and parents don't get their knickers in a twist about it. It is recognised that we have inherited a historic Christianity that is part of our culture. We don't have fanatical evangelical kids, teachers, or parents as a result and we don't have accusations of brainwashing.
The point is we have an opposite situation to American public schools which leads me to the conclusion that a voluntary participation in between is not going to result in the sky falling down.
This is a lie. Brainwashing is a big part of British edumakashun. Royalty/Religion are stuck to you and only Liars For Jesus will tell you otherwise.
Odd how many LFJs need to hide behind a fake user name innit.
Oddly I agree with that... sort of.
You are essentially promoting a religion. That prevents true free choice of faith/no faith in children. How is that ok to do to a whole generation of children? Doesn't instilling an philosophy that they will mold their life around before they are old enough to understand it seem wrong to you?
Too tired. Questions were directed at DH.
Gotcha. : D
But - it is always OK if it is your religion that is being instilled. DH lives in a dream world where UK edumakashun was/is never religion based. You know - the Queen being the head of the church and defender of the faith.
LFJs tend to do that.
Zzzzzz..... Oh sorry Mark I was in my dream world for a moment there. What were you stereotyping about again?
No stereo typing needed. You are living proof. LAWL Defend the Faith! Queen and Cuntry! No brainwashing over here!
Kevin from Cardiff.
I'm not promoting any religion Melissa. My point is that in a country were Christian prayer is promoted we don't get the extreme right wing fundies that America has. But in between there is a place for people to exercise freedom of conscience which the outlawing of religion seeks to remove.
No one was saying to outlaw religion.
Where do you get that from?
I'm saying keep your religion away from my kids.
How is that outlawing religion?
As far as not promoting any religion... these assemblies include ALL religions then? Satanism? Voodoo? The Aztec Sun God? They are represented too?
That's because all the extreme right wing fundies left England for America.
@ Rad Man:
Yep, brainwashing. Just like the brainwashing that poor kids get from Thug Culture, or the brainwashing that teaches people that things like forced wealth redistribution and affirmative action actually work.
Lots of brainwashing going on in this world ;-)
Because groups like the FFRF want to get rid of Judeo Christianity ENTIRELY. They're radical leftist groups.
Atheists are worser even then Hitler. If you don't agree: than you are worser even then Obama.
Thanks, I feel better now...
"The ongoing contention started when Steven Engel, a Jewish New Yorker, came together with other parents in 1958 to sue New York State over state-endorsed prayer that was being recited in schools. The Supreme Court inevitably sided with Engel and the decision was issued on June 25, 1962 — a day that lives in infamy in the minds of many religious individuals and free-speech advocates. The invocation in question was one that had been approved by the New York State Board of Regents. The prayer, which read, “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country,” was relatively benign in nature. Still, the parents were adamant that it shouldn’t be uttered in the public sphere.
Engel, who was joined by his wife and seven other parents, claimed that the prayer violated their religious beliefs and practices. Requiring that children utter it, they argued, violated their First Amendment rights, as the government, in their view, was establishing and promoting religion."
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/06 … e-history/
Something just occurred to me. Shouldn't prayer be banned in "public" schools even for Christians? Didn't Jesus specifically direct Christians to pray in secret? Seems that out loud prayer in any public venue wouldn't be proper.
Just a thought.
I've always wondered about that from the religious (not legal) standpoint. Isn't loud public prayer simply a way to say to the audience "See how pious I am? Aren't I wonderful, to speak to God?" I've never gotten a handle on why anyone would want to eavesdrop on a personal discourse with God or invite strangers to do so.
It just always seems that the audience isn't intended to be God at all; it is instead intended for public consumption.
You're absolutely right. Jesus Himself spoke to this in Matthew 6:5-6. (I'm sure there will be Christians jumping down my throat about this soon, so I just wanted to get them prepared with the words of our leader).
You have a point. However, as I read it the reason why Jesus said to pray in your broom cupboard was to make a point against the Pharisees et al who made a public spectacle of prayer. I would not assume that Jesus refused to hold group prayers with his disciples and followers.
I agree that Jesus very likely prayed with his disciples. I'd be willing to bet, however, that he didn't do it in the synagogues and make everyone participate or sit silently until it was over.
Just my two cents. And we all know what two cents will get you these days.
Why? Why would you assume that Jesus wanted his disciples to listen to his own conversation with God? Unless he is actually speaking to those disciples rather than God, why would he want them eavesdropping? Am I misunderstanding the purpose of prayer? Or what is actually said during prayer?
Excellent! We have many pharisees today.
1) How convenient for you to cherry-pick the bible when it suits you. 2) Don't worry, the religion of FAILURE that inner-city schools teach is doing a far better job of brainwashing kids than Judeo Christianity ever could.
Did anyone even read my post where it states that the first person to want prayer removed from schools was a religious person, not an atheist?
I did. And I agree with those folks. I'm sure some of my Christian brothers and sisters somewhere think I'm doomed because of that.
Pray for me.
Seems to me a hate group is one formed for the specific purpose of hurting another group. Hetero's against gays the KKK come to mind. But the two important ingredients are 1) Not having a positive mission statement and 2) there being a hatred that actually exists. Perhaps that is why the atheists are so contrite in this subject: They do not believe that hate or love can be proven. You cannot prove hate so how could you prove them to be a hate group?
It is so Pavlovian with so many that it seems more a phenomena than an intentional conscious thought.
On the other hand I agree completely with keeping religion out of anything to do with government. Can you even fathom a religious bureaucratic combining with our government to govern us -- YIKES!.
There is no need to imagine such a religious government; history is rampant with them.
Religious government produced the crusades, the inquisition and witch hunts. We see the results today in the Near East and shudder at the inhumanity of it.
Unfortunately, there is a large tendency of people to think that their religion would not result in more of the same; their religion would result in a benevolent government, good for all. Too few are able to look past the end of their nose, as you have done (and I), to see what actually happens when religion and government become one. Any religion.
Funny thing that. Wilderness I am going off to give a sermon using 1 cor. 13-- to extol the virtues of love and faith, with a stern warning not to let doctrines and principalities obscure what we know in Love. Someone pointed out that it was a Christian that first fought religion in schools. I do not want a school teaching my children morality and beliefs. And I do not want my students to just accept was is fed to them.
I deal with hate my way, "fill it up so much with love that their ain't no room in the inn for hate"
"Can you even fathom a religious bureaucratic combining with our government to govern us -- YIKES!"
Yes. Every time I see a leftist ideologue turn his religion of Statism into public POLICY, I worry about the consequences.
Nah, what the big deal? Do like I do and go home and pray, no need to force it on others.
I'll pray wherever I want, thanks. You do what you gotta do, I'll do what I gotta do. I don't need your approval.
No one made YOU God, after all.
I'm pretty sure the bible tells us to pray in private, but you can follow whatever doctrine you like. This separation between church and state protect all of us.
jhan6120, I find it refreshing to have another voice in the forums. Yours sounds interesting and fairly rounded; some things I find agreeable, some not, but that does not matter, it's the dialogue and independent thought that is important.
Welcome to HubPages, and keep discussing.
I agree with you that it is not about what a group stands for but their intent behind it. This was insightful and I will be studying each group as a result of your article. Regarding Westboro Baptist Church, I'm from their area and I can promise you that are not a religious church, rather a family cult. :-)
Liberal Atheist Hate Groups
I got lost at hate group, labels like this turn me off. Many people find an assume good fight in an emonational charge topics by calling any group a hate group and thinking all atheist are liberials. This thread seems like a waste of time as far as taking issue upon its presentation.
Someone wants the government to stop violating the Separation of Church and State?
CLEARLY THEY ARE THE DEVIL.
by Mick Menous5 years ago
As we all know, most atheists in America only support the Establishment clause in the US Constitution because of the following dumb excuse:They ONLY THINK that it literally means Separation of Church and...
by Dan Harmon3 years ago
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/09/bibl … a-schools/Seems that Orange county in Florida encourages Christian literature to be disseminated to students, but aren't so happy when other religions or groups want the...
by Ben Bush15 hours ago
There are many who say that, not only is the separation of Church & State not a truly legal concept, but it was never intended by God to be the true state of affairs in the United States.So, what is the separation...
by Mick Menous6 years ago
An Atheist Claim on Religion, quote:Religions are all man-made like fairy-tale stories.Religions want to force others against their will to join them in order to take over the world.Religions are the primary source of...
by ElSeductor3 years ago
Why must religious people impose their beliefs on others? Why can't religious people keep religion out of politics? Why must Muslims kill others over their beliefs? Why can't Christians keep their...
by Susan Reid3 years ago
Since when is America a "Christian" country? I challenge anyone to find a single mention of Jesus Christ in any of our founding documents."God" does not equal "Christ." I swear to God, yes....
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.