this post was submitted on 03 Feb 2024
324 points (98.8% liked)

Atheism

4026 readers
10 users here now

Community Guide


Archive Today will help you look at paywalled content the way search engines see it.


Statement of Purpose

Acceptable

Unacceptable

Depending on severity, you might be warned before adverse action is taken.

Inadvisable


Application of warnings or bans will be subject to moderator discretion. Feel free to appeal. If changes to the guidelines are necessary, they will be adjusted.


If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a group that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of any other group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you you will be banned on sight.

Provable means able to provide proof to the moderation, and, if necessary, to the community.

 ~ /c/nostupidquestions

If you want your space listed in this sidebar and it is especially relevant to the atheist or skeptic communities, PM DancingPickle and we'll have a look!


Connect with Atheists

Help and Support Links

Streaming Media

This is mostly YouTube at the moment. Podcasts and similar media - especially on federated platforms - may also feature here.

Orgs, Blogs, Zines

Mainstream

Bibliography

Start here...

...proceed here.

Proselytize Religion

From Reddit

As a community with an interest in providing the best resources to its members, the following wiki links are provided as historical reference until we can establish our own.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

State Sen. Mayes Middleton admitted the true intent of his chaplains-in-schools bill

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 10 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Organized religion has to be utterly abolished. That is the only reasonable way to respect the First Amendment

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Seems like that would go against free speech and assembly clauses.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Those were a peace agreement, and religion chose war instead

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

The problem is, individual preachers within ministries are choosing war or rather violating the social contract, often by inciting violence (which is against the law in the US, though not enforced when large public figures do it.)

We can't presume that all religion, or even all religious people are this way. Also we don't have to. Churches are obligated to avoid political speech if they want to preserve their tax exemption. The George W. Bush administration stopped enforcing this law, and the IRS was defunded to cease investigations, but they're getting a budget again.

So yes, anytime some minister suggests someone vote a certain way, or argues an unconstitutional policy, report them to the IRS. Some actions have already been taken, and we all would love some of that megachurch money coming back into the general fund.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

When either of those things use established currency or receive tax benefits in real estate deals, they are in violation of the First Amendment.

Also, not allowing socialist or leftist commentary on any media outlet is a violation of free speech rights.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Okay, so are you for or against the first amendment. Because first you say you want to violate it, then you complain when it's violated. Pick a lane.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Christofascists do not have First Amendment rights; they are in direct violation of it. Are you also against First Amendment rights?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Is this the no true Scotsman fallacy? If they're christofascists, they aren't American (or even buman)? Or are just saying you're okay with what they're doing, but it's being done by the wrong side?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago

No, it's a simple reading of the First Amendment.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago

Agreed. It's a threat to our safety and is structurally incapable of changing on a fundamental level.