Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

6 Bumps

Is it okay to blame the humanists?

I thought this was an interesting perspective on the "godless schools" argument put forth by such shining examples of Christian love as Huckabee and Fischer, blaming secularism for the violence we've experienced in this nation.

While many are offended by such claims that the cases of violence can be blamed on the presence/non-presence of a benevolent/malevolent god, few consider the implication of the words by the likes of Gingrich, Fischer et al.  To suggest that the problems of this nation are due to the (supposedly) increased secularism of our society is to blame humanists/atheists for the rise in deadly violence.

If we were to look at other developed nations that don't impose religion or prayer on the public through schools or other government agencies, we would not see the same crime rate as we have here, in the U.S.  So, while atheists are blamed for the increased violence here, in the U.S. (indirectly, of course, through euphemisms and flawed logic), other developed nations enjoy more peace and better mental health.  

It is not religion that prevents senseless violence.

It is not atheists who cause it, either. 

Answer Question

Asked by jsbenkert at 10:47 PM on Dec. 19, 2012 in Religious Debate

Level 37 (89,331 Credits)
Answers (33)
  • Good grief.  Those are some of the most condescending answers I've seen in a long while, and not at all pertinent to the post.

    It seems that there should be a mirror available.  This post is a question about whether or not it's appropriate to blame a group of people for the violence in the schools, simply because they believe that it's important to leave religion to the private sector.  Instead, it's turning into a discussion about who's the smartest gal in RD, and how much she's able to learn from the little people who post here.

    Sorry, I wasn't going to say anything, but this is becoming an embarrassment.


    Comment by jsbenkert (original poster) at 7:30 PM on Dec. 20, 2012

  • I don't think it's ever ok to blame anyone except the perpetrators of said violence. It's too easy an answer and to easy a way to ease ones mind to point fingers at a group and say "them"!!!

    Answer by sahmamax2 at 8:05 PM on Dec. 20, 2012

  • LOL- I answered your question, just not to expectations of others-no worries-and we all know sahmamax2 is the smartest one, I just noticed she has a RD degree-

    Answer by soyousay at 8:17 PM on Dec. 20, 2012

  • I didn't even know I had a degree.

    Answer by sahmamax2 at 8:22 PM on Dec. 20, 2012

  • I know why they ask-

    You have a degree in psychic friends?

    Answer by NotPanicking at 8:38 PM on Dec. 20, 2012

  • Sahamamax2-you do and 4 stars and a level 34 and an 68709- I have no idea what any of it means-but its impressive-


    Answer by soyousay at 8:42 PM on Dec. 20, 2012

  • I would disagree that the only one to blame is the perpetrator of the violence.  I think there are many factors to consider in each situation, and a lot to be learned.  It does no good to stop at the shooter, especially if he had mental health issues that were not addressed.

    It doesn't, however, have anything to do with a group of people who are interested in creating and maintaining a separation between church and state.  Secularism was not a factor in this, nor in any of the violent acts in this country.  We cannot demonize a group of people by trying to link them to atrocities that they had no hand in.  As said in the article, had Dobson or the others insinuated that Hindus, Jews, or any other group was responsible, they'd be called out for hate-speech.  Why does no one blink an eye when secularists are blamed for the deaths of those innocent people? 


    Comment by jsbenkert (original poster) at 8:43 PM on Dec. 20, 2012

  • As said in the article, had Dobson or the others insinuated that Hindus, Jews, or any other group was responsible, they'd be called out for hate-speech.

    Except they do insinuate exactly that, for the Hindus at least. We know when they (Huckabee, et al) discuss "God" being absent from schools, they only care about the Abrahamic one, specifically they one they feel is only applicable to Jews and Christians, not Muslims, and Jews only grudgingly so they won't get sued. If prayer was allowed to be publicly led in school again, but it was Sikh or Wiccan, they'd lose their shit even more than they do over only being allowed to pray quietly to oneself.

    Answer by NotPanicking at 8:47 PM on Dec. 20, 2012

  • I read a great article by a Columbine survivor that believes that how we are raised to deal with our own shortcomings have a lot to do with it- ie-if people are never taught to take responsibility for their own actions-that could easily be the religious and the not religious- I do not believe that his being on the Autism Spectrum played a part but that seems to be a theory out there that I think is dangerous-

    Answer by soyousay at 10:19 PM on Dec. 20, 2012

  • Yes, yes.  That he might have been on the autism spectrum has been thrown out there as a bit of trivia that some feel is important.  There are some loud-mouthed commentators (Ann Coulter is one) who are turning away from their gay-bashing for now and focusing on those who have cognitive or mental disabilities.  It's their "new gay", and damned be any science that tells them otherwise, they seem determined to plant the idea that people on the autism spectrum are dangerous, or at least more prone to violent outbursts than neurotypicals.

    I do believe that there are a lot of pieces to this puzzle, a lot to be examined in an effort to prevent other tragedies.

    Still, it is not secularism that's to blame.


    Comment by jsbenkert (original poster) at 10:27 PM on Dec. 20, 2012

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.