Huge list of great quotes about establisment

[E-ville]

This list has some of the best quotes I've seen.. and many many quotes..
http://www.vagabox.com/vagabox01.html

[Insurgent]

What a great find! 

[Pat K]

If child molestation is actually your concern, how come we don't see Bradley tanks knocking down Catholic churches?
~ Bill Hicks, 1993, referencing the Waco siege


I miss Bill Hicks.

[Quantrill]

Excellent link!

[alphaniner]

Bleah.  Little more than a bunch of atheist clap-trap.  At least be honest about the contents of your linkys.

[Lasse]

Bleah.  Little more than a bunch of atheist clap-trap.  At least be honest about the contents of your linkys.

Organised religion, the church, and the belief that the Invisible Man in the Sky owns you, your soul and your life isn't 'establishment'? I'd say the description is pretty honest.

[CNHT]

Bleah.  Little more than a bunch of atheist clap-trap.  At least be honest about the contents of your linkys.

...with a touch of one-worldism thrown in. You must attack everyone's 'god' in order to make the 'state' everyone's only god.
It always amazes me that those who would be such vigorous apologists for muslims would on the other hand find the need to attack christians with such vigor.

[alphaniner]

Organised religion, the church, and the belief that the Invisible Man in the Sky owns you, your soul and your life isn't 'establishment'? I'd say the description is pretty honest.

It is the devoted single-mindedness to the notion that faith and 'god-belief' are the root of our problems that I find disturbing.  The twin altars of science and reason have become an 'establishment' in their own right, claiming to have - or rather to be - the solution to these problems.  Paraphrasing the Secular Humanist quote of the year from several years back: 'faith is a virus like smallpox and should be dealt with as such.'  As I said, bleah (being the onomatopoeia associated with in case there was any confusion).

[CNHT]

Secular humanism? Well if you want there to be less government you should be encouraging religious entities since charity is their role, or should be. (Not that the UUs follow this)

Secular humanism is just another tool of the leftists.

You don't have be religious to see that it is destructively pro-statist.

[alphaniner]

Not that the UUs follow this

What's a UU?  Unitarian-Universalist?  Dunno much about them.

Secular humanism is just another tool of the leftists.

You don't have be religious to see that it is destructively pro-statist.

Can't really vouch for this, don't know that much about them either.  However I consider them to be just generally destructive, and that is enough for me.

[CNHT]

Not that the UUs follow this

What's a UU?  Unitarian-Universalist?  Dunno much about them.

Well read this website and you will see they are really just the 'religious left' political arm of the United Nations.
http://www.uunashua.org/socres/

Apparently the NH Faithful Democracy site has been lapsed...but that used to be a mini-UN, demanding more taxes to do the work their 'church' can't afford.
It should be the other way around!

Secular humanism is just another tool of the leftists.

You don't have be religious to see that it is destructively pro-statist.

Can't really vouch for this, don't know that much about them either.  However I consider them to be just generally destructive, and that is enough for me.

In the US we are supposed to have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM it. So long as the government doesn't make any formal religion.
However, the state seems to want to be your religion more and more. We don't hear about it but religion is *usually* used for giving people hope, for the good. We only hear about the bad, such as in the case with Muslims.

Just look at Dr Paul. Two of his brothers are ministers, and he is VERY religious, but he never imposes that on anyone personally or in politics. But I'm sure his being a man of faith is what makes him such a man of conscious as well.

[alphaniner]

In the US we are supposed to have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM it. So long as the government doesn't make any formal religion. However, the state seems to want to be your religion more and more. We don't hear about it but religion is *usually* used for giving people hope, for the good. We only hear about the bad, such as in the case with Muslims

Just look at Dr Paul. Two of his brothers are ministers, and he is VERY religious, but he never imposes that on anyone personally or in politics. But I'm sure his being a man of faith is what makes him such a man of conscious** as well.

**I think you mean conscience.

[Braddogg]

"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith ... we need believing people."

[E-ville]

There is a very fine line between religion and government, there similarities are numerous.. But nont the less i could care less if you belive in a god or don't, as long as you a moral being that doesn't tread on other peoples  freedom and there freedome to believe in what they want or what they don't want.

Freedom is a double edged sword , if you want freedom you must allow others to have there freedom and accept this as fact.. the moment you try to lessen someones freedom, you are them allowing your freedoms to be infringed.  Every thing has a yin and a yang, when you look at these you must look at the whole, not the part.

[dalebert]

It is the devoted single-mindedness to the notion that faith and 'god-belief' are the root of our problems that I find disturbing.  The twin altars of science and reason have become an 'establishment' in their own right, claiming to have - or rather to be - the solution to these problems.

The root of the problem is tyranny, and both religion and government are guilty of it. Religion and violence are actually very similar in the respect that they both put a stop to reason. When I get tired of debating you and punch you in the face, I have declared that I am right and you are wrong- end of discussion. The same goes when someone gets their morality out of a book. If you're not using your reasoning abilities to their fullest extent, then you are more inclined to make poor decisions, potentially very harmful decisions, and that is the inherent evil. Any belief based on faith is a rejection of reason.

Science and reason are absolutely worthy of being pursued as solutions to problems. No one has a monopoly on them. There is certainly poor science and poor reason, and those are often propped up by establishments, but that doesn't mean we should stop exploring, experimenting, putting our heads together, and trying to learn more about the world around us and our social interactions in order to solve problems. Good science and good reason acknowledge that they are not perfect and there is always more to learn.

I respect a person's RIGHT to believe in anything and to promote that belief without force. That does not mean I respect the belief itself. I consider certain beliefs to be irrational and therefore evil to some extent depending on how much it distorts one's ability to reason. I am much less inclined to argue with a religious person when they respect my rights because they seem a lot more reasonable than your typical evangelical. However, I do reserve the right to attempt to persuade. To give an example, I know of an anarchist and Christian who believes in living for others and that if he does so, God is going to look out for him. So he doesn't put much effort into preparing for a rainy day, or even many days.  But magical things aren't going to happen to solve his problems. This person's irrational beliefs are very possibly going to cause harm to him and those who care about him. I've been reluctant to debate his religious beliefs because he doesn't push them on me, but now I find myself reconsidering.

And just because secular humanism is bad doesn't mean religion is good. The government attacks religion because it's a challenge to its power, but that's because organized religion is a power in it's own right. The government sides with the weaker religions right now because it undermines the more powerful ones, just as it once sided with Saddam and Bin Laden. It was expediant at the time. Organized religion, like government, has caused tremendous harm throughout history. You can't say religion must be right because it challenges the power of government. That's like saying America was right to invade Iraq because Saddam was a tyrant. No, two power-abusers were just struggling for authority.

People need to accept that others don't share their beliefs and even think those beliefs are irrational and are sometimes going to take advantage of their freedom of speech to say so. We have good reason for choosing to take advantage of that right sometimes. Make your case against such statements instead of emotional reactions and ad hominem attacks.

To be fair, I've also seen over-reactions from the other side as well when their beliefs are challenged, like in the Christian Anarchy thread. Yes, there are also obnoxiously evangelical atheists. 

EDIT: Removed the "ad hominem attacks". On 2nd thought, that was over-reaching. Being generally dismissive is more like it.