Although one has to draw a distinction - atheist humanists (the atheists in the States) are as different as can be from atheist communists. However, the religious institutions that committed the religious wars and repressions of yesteryear are the same institutions today. Are they the same people who should be held accountable? Of course not. However, they are the same institutions with similar if not identical beliefs. Atheist communists and atheist humanists share really nothing philosophically in common except that neither believe in God. This why a lot of atheists don't like the term because it doesn't actually describe what they do actually believe in and you can get some very weird bedfellows if you just lump everyone who doesn't believe in God (just as you can et some very odd bedfellows if you lump everyone who believes in any kind of spirituality or deity(ies) - although in some sense with even less in common). Hence you'll hear the term humanist a lot or other variants. So when a religious person blames atheism for the horrors of Stalin when discussing how secularism proposed by humanists is bad, it's a lot less fair than retorting with the Catholic church and the crusades (or that particular person's religion and whatever sin it committed) in response. :)

That said, I agree that were humanists ever to somehow get in power (never have been, unlikely to happen in the immediate future) then I have no doubt some assholes would try (though it be hard since humanists don't even have a coherent dogma - a lot of documents are titled with "A" such and such because they feel "The" would make it too limiting to other people's viewpoints!)

Going out on a limb here, and guessing the Portland, Oregon, area. Pacific Northwest, anyway.

Some folks act is if morality of the sole purview of their particular religion. That's ridiculous on the face of it. I don't care where one gets the notion but if a person tries to live by the Golden Rule then I think they're going to do pretty well by most definitions of morality.

Back to the banner, if I were principal I would have have left it up there and simply, and very obviously, removed any references to a religion. Hell, just blanking out "Our Heavenly Father" and "Amen", along with changing "Prayer" to "Creed" would have been enough to make it pass muster. Exact same message, but without pointing to religion.

Oh, and she was right in pointing out that a public school is not the place for that banner, as it was written.

I hear ya ... I've been like that all day and I don't even have the excuse that it's all that late yet :)

In the Crusades case, Christianity was basically a cover for the Pope's own ambitions, and they were about as far removed from Jesus's teachings as they could possibly be. And it's likewise not fair to equate Catholics with other forms of Christianity. They are WAAAY different. Hell, Catholics even have their own different set of "holy texts."

for me it's taken away from work - but I've been working all weekend and this has been an interesting and fun conversation :)

You know most people expect religious and atheists to always be fighting, in fact the expectation has become so ingrained it's almost hard for it not to happen. But I find if you get people, even sometimes hardliners, to talk respectfully and logically most people can find they have a decent conversation without the invectives with a member of the opposing "faction".

I obviously don't know very much about atheism or humanism then. I'd love to learn more, if that's at all possible. And I have no doubt Dawkins is a great biologist, I just can't stand his smug and antagonistic remarks belittling my faith. Disbelieving in a deity is one thing, being an asshole to people for actually believing in one is another.

This is one reason why it's so useless for people to adopt the "Imagonna CRUSH ALL THOSE WHO BELIEVE DIFFERENTLY THAN I DO, WITH MY INFINITE WISDOM AND KNOWLEDGE!" No matter how logical your arguments may be, the other party is still going to immediately shut down if they feel like they're being attacked.
Agreed. And what's also quite interesting is that if you sit two people down who are respectful and open-minded, they WILL find common ground...often more of it that you'd expect (hell, look at this...I'm a very deeply religious person and you're an Atheist, and we're basically 100% in agreement). As I think I said before...we're all human, and we're all on the same side together.

If they had just taken the banner down when she first complained, they wouldn't have to pay $173k in legal fees now.

"School Prayer" does not belong in a U.S. public school.

I would be all for allowing Religion / Prayer themed after school activities though, as long as no tax payer money goes to support them. But then they have to allow atheist / wiccan / etc activities as well without complaints.

Heh, I'd love to see an "Our Heavenly Mother" banner next to that one.

I think Dawkins is a bad example of an atheist, just like the old medieval popes are bad examples of Christians. They all worship themselves and their own ideals and plans, and self-worship is very very dangerous. For Dawkins in particular, he may be a decent biologist, but he's a bad scientist. One of the core tenets of science is that we don't know everything, and things are never truly "proven," there's only your body of evidence that gives support for or against. In essence, a good scientist should always be something of a skeptic. Affirming that a deity cannot possibly exist is just as silly as affirming that one can't possibly not exist. There's just not enough evidence either way.

The old popes, in turn, were bad because they abused their power endlessly and exploited their followers for personal gain, rather than supporting and enlightening them.

true it was definitely politics (though I'm sure Catholics would feel they are the root stock for the other denominations - as I am equally sure Orthodox would feel the same!) However, one can pick from a myriad of oppressions for any given religion.

Now one could argue that the *only* reason secular humanism has never committed atrocity on that scale is because it has never held the kind of power necessary to do so. The Lincoln quote: "test the character of a man not with adversity, but with power" (close enough) applies here. That said, given the diversity of beliefs humanism stands for it would be difficult for them to actually ever be in power and then to form a coherent philosophy long enough to repress other people who don't believe in that philosophy en masse.

That doesn't mean some asshole couldn't try, I'm just not sure what they'd do! Atheistic humanism is a little difficult to get someone else really passionate about. It's hard to get someone worked up enough to kill themselves and/or others over promoting being more reasonable and rationale (at least en masse - crazies of every variety religious and non-religious are sadly born every day). Again, not saying a humanist inquisition could never happen, but it's just hard to imagine: I have this mental image of Eddie Izzard doing "cake or death" but skipping to the not very good tasting cookies instead of the "or death". :)

You know, guys, this has been an unexpectedly good discussion...but I DESPERATELY need to get to bed. Tomorrow is gonna be a long day.

So...'night, and kudos to everyone who helped to keep this a mature discussion rather than a flame war.
All sounds reasonable to me.

I'm not trying to shut down or anything, I just said I don't like Richard Dawkins.....or was that even directed towards me? It's really late, and my comprehension skills aren't so good right now lol.

crazydave: I wish more people would just sit down and talk things out, if only to really understand how the other side feels. I get so annoyed when many of the christian friends and family I know discount anything a scientist or climatologist says just because they use the words "evolution" or "global warming." It only gives into the stupid science vs religion battle. But many christians I know of simply refuse to consider someone's viewpoint because they believe the earth is more than 6000 years old. To me, that's just childish.

Unfortunately most of the modern popular, easiest to find, literature on atheism tends to be of the vitriolic variety (antagonism sells well on both sides). I think going back a couple hundred years to David Hume (Scottish philosopher from the Scottish enlightenment period) - pretty much the start of humanism and, especially skepticism. Working your way up would be the best way to learn about people who were deep thinkers (I don't always agree with especially since I think we've improved on the philosophy since then, but respect the ideas and the origins) and not abrasive towards religion. There are also some moderate religious people who write decently well about atheism and humanism. You can find modern works about humanism, religion, and atheism that are not as vitriolic on each side, but you will have to look a bit hard for them. :/
Don't worry I absolutely don't think jefequeso was writing in reference to anyone in this thread, much less you!

Thanks, I may look into that once I'm done with the Dark Tower series. BTW, if you want a modern, yet ancient look at what Christianity should really be like, read some books by Shane Claiborne or Donald Miller. They're very entertaining, and do a great job of showing how to live like the early Church, the roots of our faith that started right after Jesus died. Don't worry, I'm not trying to convert lol, I just think everyone should read these books, regardless of faith. They changed my perspective on so many things, from religion, to politics, to capitalism (hint: it's not exactly the economic system Christ would have prefered).