My personal assessment on the bank case is that, while we don't know what happened, Ms. Knief would seem to have less reason to lie, and therefore her story seems more plausible. But I think Mr. Silverman's involvement to some (one in particular) makes it seem more likely that there were shenanigans.

Someone in this story isn't telling the whole truth. The bank teller if she admits she did it because she didn't want to serve an atheist could lose her job. The bank if they admit they allowed this to happen loses customers and possibly opens themselves up to a lawsuit. Ms. Knief motivations to make up this story? I guess the chance for free publicity.

As for double standards, I'm sure we all see them on occasion.

Bryant

The bank may or may not have made a mistake, but whatever happened was rectified and there was no problem other than with one or two people refusing to let it die.

The school, otoh, is causing a problem for a little girl who is just beginning to explore her life and doesn't need extraneous, invented crap to screw her up. There may be a lot we don't know, but it's unlikely anything new will change the known facts.

There is no double standard-- one is an invented problem, the other is a real problem.

Comparing the attitudes of people here.

How do we know in one that there is a clear indication of what happened and we don't in the other? At this point, all we have is the word of two parties involved in an issue but the atheist group isn't trusted and the young girl is.

the "atheist group" simply assumes the bank employee's "personal reasons" are because she can't deal with atheists. There is nothing on record anywhere to demonstrate the employee even said that much.

That's not the case. The school has denied a lot of what was said. How about this one paragraph for starters:

girly enough, and that's on the record. Now they're backtracking. And calling out media and LOE lies is actually the proper thing to do-- what they did was bad enough, so no need to make it worse.

indicate that what the family said is wrong and not an accurate picture of the stance of the school. Why do you automatically believe the girl and not the school? Why not have the same "wait and see" attitude that you, and others, clearly have in regard to the AA instance?

Just so I'm clear, you are calling this private, Christian school's interpretation of The Bible to be "invented crap"?

or the beliefs of any other theist in here, I'd be called a bigot. While we are on the discussion of double standards, why do you think that is the case that you get to say that without the label?

Certainly I've seen a fair amount of that.

Bryant

Why are those people that rail against the atheists railing against treasonous saying it about other theists?

Of course I know the answer is that the theists here feel the same way about the beliefs of this church that we feel about theistic beliefs in general. But when we say it about theists here, that bothers them because their beliefs are "real" and those of the theists they don't like are "made up crap." Short answer: double standard.

theist beliefs because the views of, say, the late lamented Fred Phelps or people who kill their family members in trying to excorcise demons are no more provable than my own. I guess I understand the logic of that position from your perspective.

Bryant

Here's how it feels to me, as a non-believer. If I compare believing in a god to believing in Santa, I'm told that is horribly disrespectful to the beliefs of that person. That their beliefs are sincere and I shouldn't "belittle" them in that way. But how is that any worse (or, I would argue, even close) to saying that this school is acting on "made up crap"?

As to what I think you need to do as a theist? Understand that your beliefs are fundamentally not different in sincerity. And once you start saying that your beliefs need to have protection from dissent, you are hypocritical when you attack the sincere beliefs of others. Instead, why don't you just realize that your beliefs, like the beliefs of anyone, are open to criticism. And if you don't like that criticism, then this may not be the Group for you. Go to a safe haven group and you won't be pressed on your beliefs.

It kind of boils down to unless you are interested in becoming an atheist, the religion forum isn't really for you. Doesn't it go both ways - if you want to attack religion without it being defended, isn't there an atheist forum where you can go and do just that?

Criticism is one thing, but what we've seen recently has gone a bit beyond that. We had one poster describing all believers as thoughtless and dishonest. We have regular exorcism stories about how religion kills children, which feed into another discussion about how religion is a dangerous psychological delusion. That goes a bit beyond criticism of religion in my opinion.

Bryant

I'm not saying you only stay in the Religion Group if you want to become an atheist. But you only stay here if you want your position challenged. That's OK.

Hey, exorcism is stupid. We are at a point where we should be able to point at a belief that demons cause mental illness and laugh. Sneezes don't expel demons, either.

There seems to be, from the links provided, some discussion about religion being a delusion. It's an interesting discussion the psychiatric community is having, too.

Would that others were discussing it in that calm and reasoned way - but you know they aren't. You've read those posts. The point isn't to laugh at exorcism it's to say that Religion Kills Children.

Bryant

who have an axe to grind.

Focus on one or two posts and expand that to the universe of believers. Even better, expand them to other areas of fact and fancy that have nothing to do with the posts.

You may have noticed that on this particular site, fundies are not terribly popular and get slammed regularly. We may actually have some fundies posting, but they are likely smart enough to keep their heads down. It's easy to become a target here.

I find it too complicated to go through all the permutations of belief and action over every little incident and am OK with piling blame on a fundy church that uses its belief system to hurt a little girl. I would be just as OK with praising their beliefs for causing them to open a soup kitchen.

Now, I gotta go to work.

Not even as you describe it. You may want to refrain from pointing out fallacies if you think it is circular reasoning.

Why do your beliefs get to have the respect of atheists on here but the equally sincerely held beliefs of fundies don't get to have the same respect you demand for your beliefs?

"I believe it because it's what I said"

Anyway, now you have to define "respect", even though you don't really know much about my beliefs.

Respect as in "That sounds good-- I want to learn more."

Or respect as in "You have the right to believe any weird horseshit you can think up."

You can see the difference, no?

Any belief in your own perspective is circular reasoning?

Like I said, don't hurt yourself trying to point out fallacies.

a standard response to theists in this forum was that "You have no right not to be offended." I guess it's no longer a mantra, since you certainly seem to be taking offense that the AA representative was not immediately taken at her word.

My point is that people seem to have a double standard. Is pointing out hypocrisy now "taking offense"?

You certainly come off as offended.

craziness, fairy tales, insanity, bullshit. . . etc. Fill in the blank. "Crap" is only one term of many.

Your own pal cbayer called creationists dumbasses. Yet nobody seems to give two shits when the fundamentalist beliefs are treated with kid gloves. Why would that be the case, do you think?

Should be "not treated with kid gloves."

As an example, this article you posted is held up as an example of journalistic censorship of atheists. In fact, the examiner.com websites have as much to do with journalism as local pennysavers do. They are a wholly owned subdivision of a corporation headed by a conservative billionaire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examiner.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Anschutz

An atheist, or a progressive (they are two entirely different things, you know), who writes for them would be a fool to think anything submitted there would be published for anything other than entertainment value.

As a further example, you equate the statements of parents protecting their child from a serious emotional attack to the statements of a professional lobbyist for AA, Inc. complaining that a particular notary didn't notarize her signature because she's an atheist. Therein is the precise difference between religious harm and politically motivated faux outrage.

There are many ways to determine credibility including bias, motive and interest. Spend a half hour reading jury instructions from any jurisdiction if you have a genuine interest on why bullshit is called on some things and not on others.

at least one esteemed poster invariably pops up with "That's just your interpretation. Other people interpret the passage differently, and there's no way to know which is right."

You don't object to that response, so why object to a wait-see attitude when a known publicity hound is involved?

On the other issue, can you show any reason why this child and her grandparents should not be believed? Are you actually willing to defend the school, or are you just looking for a pot to stir?

My usual response to articles about stupid things teachers do as well as law enforcement. I have no problem with that. Here's what I have a problem with:

I'd say there are TWO double standards in this Group. Take your pick - one size fits all!

Over the years, I have heard plenty of conservatives express views about how different genders should dress and groom. At one time, where I lived, there was controversy about whether women could wear "pants suits" or whether they had to wear dresses. Former hippies like me remember the rage long-haired men inspired in some quarters -- and the fundamentalists who insisted the Pauline epistles required us to have short hair: some of us had fun pointing out to them that the standard depictions of Jesus showed him with long hair, as it was a sure way to trigger incoherent blather

Since then I've always wondered about demands for conformity, based on interpretations of the Bible in combination with claims that the Bible is "inerrant and infallible." A major use made of belief in an "inerrant infallible" scripture is that the person, claiming to possess this "inerrant infallible" text, implicitly claims also to possess an "inerrant infallible" reading of the text, and then explicitly claims enormous authority for his/her personal views, demanding our obeisance to those personal views

It may be unfair, but I have difficulty escaping this personal history and this psychological analysis, when reading the story of the little girl. The school's later response, involving matters such as alleged confusion of other students, caused by the little girl's use of the girl's rest room, does not particularly encourage me to change my mind: I would think the adults should pleasantly explain to the other girls that different people look different, and then tell the little brat-demons to straighten up or else

On the other hand, when I've had a document notarized, nobody has ever inquired into the document contents or my religious beliefs. Knief says she never had trouble at the bank before and says the notary in question "went to find another notary .. to .. do the authentications," but she also describes this as "the worst slight I have ever received." Perhaps Knief is a sheltered waif, and the fact that one notary went to find another to notarize Knief's paperwork really IS the worst slight Knief ever received -- but I suspect the claim will strike most people as a bit histronic

But I am also an atheist and know the attitudes toward them. And you are certainly aware of the U of Minnesota study that puts us at the bottom of the trust pile so even though you aren't an atheist, you should be aware of how society perceives us. I have no reason to disbelieve Knief. What she said rings true to my experience (though certainly not an identical one) and studies have supported that individual perception. The bank response sounds like typical cover-your-ass press release.

Is is a horrible offense? Not in the big scheme of horrible offenses? Is it shitty? Yes. Would it be nice if progressive theists actually said "hey, that's shitty" rather than dismissing it and say we'll never know (and not saying that about conflicting stories in the other case)? Yeah. It would be mind blowing.

Other than that, fine.

You see, Kneif never claimed the notary said she wouldn't do it because they were atheists. She said she did it because of "personal reasons," but the context of saying that only after learning it was for an atheist organization makes the reason pretty clear even though not overt.

The second article you use to try and show Kneif lies says they can't discriminate for religious reasons. Which does not deny that you can for "personal reasons." Which could be, but certainly not limited to, because you are related to the person seeking notarization of signatures.

But keep digger, Googlemeister, and do your best to make the atheists look like shit here.

NJ has good anti-discrimination laws, that would cover a case such as she described

(2) She claimed AA was drafting legislation to prevent notary discrimination; AA said, no, SHE was drafting legislation -- and NOT for AA

No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.

(1) She claimed NJ has no law preventing notaries from saying they can't do it for "personal reasons." For fucks sake that thing in quotation marks is in the article you pulled an excerpt from. The ACLU said they have laws if she said "I can't do it because you are an atheist organization" which she never overtly said.

(2) Perhaps she's doing it as part of her job for her. Who knows. You are digging really fucking deep her to shame the victim.

have a personal reason to fail to perform a service usually offered by that person to the public at large, and that it would be wrong, in every single circumstance, for a person usually offering such service to the public, to produce an alternate service provider to a potential client?

can't hide behind "personal reasons." Which this woman did.

That link is about the removal -- of an "article&quot written by the "Columbus Atheism Examiner&quot asking whether or not a Jewish tradition, in which a grown man puts his mouth on the genitals of an infant boy to provide "oral suction" after a circumcision has any connection to the development of sexual abuse in the Catholic church -- from the Examiner website

I see very little need to wonder: the "article" was obviously removed because it was such obvious shit-stirring trollery that it fell afoul even of the exceptionally-low standards of the Examiner website

Your link now wants us to wonder whether that "article" was removed merely for "anti-atheism bias" or whether it might have been removed because the site editor is Jewish

This also is obvious shit-stirring trollery, and the combination leaves in my mouth an over-all impression of rightwing anti-semitism

I'd be interested to learn why you would even link to such material

I put that article link in there so that if my post got alerted on as being against the SOP, there would be some level of general religion discussion in there and could not be seen as just meta. Is it the best article? No. I just skimmed it because it raised the bigger issue beyond the Meta discussion of this group.

The Examiner "article" pretended to discuss whether there might be a relation between the practice of orally sucking blood in Jewish circumcision and pedophilia by Catholic clergy. But metzitzah actually admits a number of translations, and oral suction occurs in only a small fraction of such circumcisions. A significant proportion of the cases, in which the practice actually occurs today, involve adherents to a sect originating in eighteenth century Eastern Europe. Meanwhile, the early Christian church had decided before the end of the first century that it regarded circumcision as inessential. The author of the "article" would have been able to learn this and more with only a few minutes of research -- at which point the grotesque silliness of the purported question would have been immediate. The fact, that the question was even raised, thus clearly points to the trolling nature of the "article"

But wait! There's more! At your link, we find a complaint that an editor at the Examiner pulled this uninformative offensive trolling claptrap, and then -- this: this author almost hopes that this is simply a case of anti-atheist bias, as the other possibility is rather more disturbing. And just what is that "other rather more disturbing possibility"? It is that the editor at the Examiner is a Jew! WTF! OMG!

In your OP, you claim that the link provides a pretty good look at the possibility of a double standard in the general culture. Nonsense: your link should produce in any sane person of goodwill an overwhelming urge to throw up. It's clearly nothing more than a cheap attempt to portray Judaism as sexual perversion and to push ideas bordering on Jewish conspiracy

And now you claim you linked to it only to prevent the post from being locked for violation of the SoP. You've been around since before the migration to DU3, and you've followed this group from the beginning. So you know that to date the group hosts probably haven't locked one thread a year for violation of the SoP. So your excuse holds no water. I don't know why anyone would link to this vomit-inducing anti-semitic shit. I'm disgusted. I hope you have the decency to self-delete and to refrain from such links in the future

I have read many discussion the hosts have had about this group in the Host forum. You have gone out of your way to let posts stand by cbayer's dad and by rug (don't bother replying, rug, you are still my lone member on ignore so you won't hear back from me) and locked very similar posts by atheists. Is it a widespread problem? No. But it is a consistent trend I've seen and I have a really good memory. So when I made this post, I was quite sure that the same theists that nanny the A/A forum and alert on things there were going to do the same thing here (though I suspect cbayer has me on ignore so that's one less mom I need to worry about). So I wanted to make sure that there was some mention of a bigger issue (one of the reasons you let a thread from rug stand which had nothing to do with religion) so that there was no way you could find a reason to lock this thread. I linked to the first one I found that touched on this issue.

In short (because it's cool if you didn't read my whole post--I just skimmed all of yours): don't hold your breath for me to self-delete. This is a discussion I think we need to have in this Group.

Cognitive dissonance indeed.

But it frustrating when you do this one-liner stuff. There is a whole thread going on here in which you are the 45th response. Want to clue me in as to what you are unclear about that hasn't been hashed out in 44 replies?

But, hey, the short version. Theists react differently in this Group to posts about atheists vs posts about theists. Specifically, theists gush over the girl and the private school and don't question for a second conflicting accounts but go out of their way to do contortions to make the woman from AA in the notary case look like a lying piece of shit.

But that is neither here or there.

People see things differently. Some oeople are better at digging beneath the surface than others.

This is about people saying with the atheist case "there are conflicting stories so we have to wait and see." And when there are conflicting stories in the case with the girl and the private school, the same people aren't saying that but are condemning the crazy fundies. Why do you think that is? Hell, some are even trying to shame the victim in the atheist case as being a liar.

Silverman is not believed by some.

And his assistant is guilty by association?

I never said I held the view. I really don't know much about him.

to pretty much anything, atheists and other secularists are doubted more often. Its call prejudiced and its ugly.

But then again, we are also held to a higher standard than DU religious people, so we don't "offend" them. They can personally attack us and make grossly inaccurate generalizations about us, but flying spaghetti monster-forbid we dismiss their beliefs.

I said that in my experience, one atheist "is not interested in actual debate", and this was hidden as "disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate" by a vote of 5-1. On the other hand, another atheist said that I was a "drooling mouthed, bigoted moron", and this was found to be perfectly acceptable, also by 5-1.

In other words, making a quite mild observation about one atheist's behavior is unacceptable, but blatant insults directed at me are just fine.

that the only thing in your post that got hidden was that a certain atheist "is not interested in actual debate"?

Why don't you link to that post, so that we can see all of what you said? Then we'll talk about the validity of your "quite mild observation" and your "opposite experience".

Fair enough? Or are you going to dodge that very simple request with a wave of blather and "noun verb bigot"?

Last edited Sun Mar 30, 2014, 12:09 PM - Edit history (1)

You did not get a post hidden simply for saying that someone was "not interested in actual debate".

For someone else to call me a "drooling mouthed, bigoted moron". Wow, how completely unreasonable of me to complain repeatedly about an obvious double standard.

And thank you for the gratuitous insult at the end. It is the sort of behavior I have come to expect from DU atheists.

But then, you are the man who literally laughed off my quoting Richard Dawkins saying that raising a child to be a Catholic was worse than child abuse, after you had falsely accused me of lying about it.

How about showing that you are a mensch and apologizing for slandering me? Or is that too much to ask of you? After all, it would entail you being gracious, truthful and honorable.

You aren't bringing up Dawkins quoting what someone who was abused as a child are you?

You have to learn to just let shit go when you are wrong. Really. It will bring your blood pressure down.

And refuses to apologize for it. I have asked him to apologize for his repeated lie about me, and he has neither the balls nor the honesty to do so.

Tell me, do you usually interject in other people's arguments? I have Asperger's Syndrome, and I have been known to respond inappropriately to various situations. But even I know that butting into someone else's argument is the wrong thing to do.

This shit again? You've been challenged to prove that claim over and over, and you've failed miserably every time. Repeating it in CAPS doesn't make it any less bogus, dude.

Anyone reading this thread knows where the dishonesty lies. You just can't help yourself. Sad. Very sad.

or take it to mail. As this is a public forum on an internet discussion group, I think I'll continue to feel free to interject wherever I want.

How about acknowledging that if calling someone a drooling bigot is OK, but calling someone else a nebbish -- which I have been slammed for -- shows a double standard. Or do atheists get a pass on insults here, and that's fine with you?

Sorry but there is no double standard on this site. Juries sometimes get it right and sometimes get ut wrong.

That in the notary case its the word of two people vs. one person. The odds are in favor of AA being the truthful party unless you have some sort of bias (justified or unjustified) against them.

probably never will, right?

I specifically said odds. Though you are exemplifying what I meant by bias against them with your strawman argument.

It is a much better fit than strawman argument. Given the probable agendas in both stories and the facts being disputed in both stories you need to recalculate the odds.

I mean that's your point, right? Or that the leadership of the American Atheists lie, right?

is pretty simple.

The little girl and her family do not have an agenda to further by accusations of discrimination. AA does, and accusations by its officials are going to be examined in that light.

They obviously have an interest in things. Sure, they aren't activists like AA but what has AA done to indicate they lie?

Their grievance is documented and real. The child indispuably was kicked out of the school.

David Silverman, on the other hand, has an obvious political agenda and a vested interest in crying discrimination. Of course his organization's claims are going to be examined more closely. AA is hardly alone in that. Bill Donohue and the Catholic League, for example, are looked at with at least as much caution when he claims persecution.

is in dispute.

"Crying discrimination"? Do you say that about the ACLU, too?

And just so I'm straight, you are comparing AA to the Catholic League.

The shit I read I on a progressive website never ceases to amaze me.

As you know very well, or should, the ACLU is an impartial group devoted to civil rights litigation on behalf of any group or person who has not received equal treatment under the law. It has represented atheists on occasion, and represented them effectively. You may recall that it has also represented some thoroughly distasteful clients whose civil rights were in question.

You, however, are crying discrimination on the part of progressives, and have been drawing false equivalencies to do so.

But it sounds familiar for those that oppose the ACLU.

And you do know that AA is a group that is devoted to protecting and advancing the rights of atheists under the First Amendment, right? And you have no indication that they have lied in the past. And AA is no part of any particular party (much to the chagrin of some here in this Group).

I am saying that progressives have a double standard. Much like you are exhibiting. I don't know if you discriminate. Haven't had the opportunity to see you in action. You seem to jump to some pretty unfounded quick conclusions about the honesty of the American Atheists, though.

what did it do?

but struggle4progress pointed you in the right direction, too.

Notary public is a public office and may not discriminate on the basis of religion.

AA is a tiny org of about 2k people out of millions of atheists that are American.

There is a reason he is disliked. If something happened, he's a big boy, he can take care of himself.