Like others here, I dislike the self-promotional aspects of the word "bright."
I find the same problem in "humanist" (what's not human about believers?,) but
that term at least has a long and honorable history.
In the long run, it's not very useful to argue about language. This forum says
it is about "living as an atheist." What are some problems that atheism
generates? What does it mean to be "living as an atheist," anyway?
As for "atheism in society," certainly the growing religious agenda in the
U.S., the ascendancy of toxic religiosity in many places in the world, call for
all sorts of commentary, protest, and action.
So call me anything you like.

From:	Christopher A. Lee
Subject:	Re: What Are We Arguing About?
Date:	Mon, 11 Oct 2004 15:57:04 -0500

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 14:59:34 -0500, Kirk Job-Sluder
wrote:

>On 2004-10-11, Signpoet wrote:
>
>> Like others here, I dislike the self-promotional aspects of the word
>> "bright." I find the same problem in "humanist" (what's not human
>> about believers?,)
>
>Why do the "United States of America" not include Cuba, Canada and
>Mexico?
>
>> but that term at least has a long and honorable
>> history. In the long run, it's not very useful to argue about
>> language. This forum says it is about "living as an atheist." What are
>> some problems that atheism generates? What does it mean to be "living
>> as an atheist," anyway?
>
>Not much at all. My atheism is a trivial aspect of my life that only
>seems to be important here on soc.atheism, and on those rare occasions
>that the issue comes up elsewhere. My beliefs regarding non-violence,
>and democracy, what I know of current research into how other people
>think and behave, these are things that affect what I do, and how I do
>it just about every hour.

I agree. My atheism is incidental to me, not the central focus of by
being that a believer's religion is for them.

But the problem is the way society treats atheists. George Bush
senior's statement that atheists shouldn't be considered citizens and
couldn't be patriotic was a prime example. As was the applause of his
audience. Imagine the outcry is he'd said that about Jews or black
people. But the silence from the media and the religious was
deafening.

There are always acrimonious threads in the atheist newsgroups, where
theists imagine they get to tell what our position "really" is, based
on a rationalisation using premises that don't even apply to us.

They don't seem to grasp just how rude this is, and we're expected to
put up with it like Uncle Toms. When we don't, this is seen as "fundy
atheism" etc.

And we've all got issues due to living in a predominantly theistic
society, eg what do about imposed prayer, oaths, creationism, etc. And
on a more personal level, secular weddings and funerals, whether and
how to "come out" as an atheist to family, friends, colleagues etc.

Eg at my nephew's funeral, my brother-in-law's sister-in-law had
written to my sister blaming her for my nephew being in hell because
they hadn't raised him to be Christian. It was a hard enough time
because he had died of an overdose of prescription medication just
before his 21st birthday.

>Which is why I find the term "atheist" to be largely trivial and
>meaningless. Knowing that someone is an "atheist" tells me very little
>about that person. I have what kind of policy an atheist might prefer
>in regards to marriage, much less the reasons for that policy. All
>I know is that person does not believe in god or gods.

No. It tells you what somebody isn't, in the specific context of the
absent property.

>In contrast, if someone says, "I am a humanist," "I am a Marxist," or "I
>am an objectivist." Then, I know something.

But plenty of atheists aren't any of those. We're just people who
aren't any kind of theist, and that is just about all we have in
common.

>> As for "atheism in society," certainly the growing religious agenda in
>> the U.S., the ascendancy of toxic religiosity in many places in the
>> world, call for all sorts of commentary, protest, and action. So call
>> me anything you like.
>
>None of these concerns are unique to atheists.

I agree. They're also concerns to the minority religions. But "polite
society" seems to accept other religions while they regard atheists as
people to be shunned.

From:	Signpoet
Subject:	Re: What Are We Arguing About?
Date:	Mon, 11 Oct 2004 19:54:18 -0500

>>Why do the "United States of America" not include Cuba, Canada and
>>Mexico?

Why, indeed, does the "United Kingdom" not include France?

From:	Esther Medina
Subject:	Re: What Are We Arguing About?
Date:	Wed, 08 Dec 2004 19:55:48 -0600

Mexico's official name is "The United States of Mexico" (Los Estados Unidos
de Mexico) and it is in North America. I think many people don't think of
Mexicans as Americans - but they are. The term American is now regarded as
a term for USA citizens only by most. I once had an arguement (discussion?)
with a Canadian who insisted Mexico wasn't in North America. (and she was a
former school teacher tsk tsk)

maravill

"Signpoet" wrote in message
news:20041011205240.29660.00005747@mb-m16.aol.com...
>>>Why do the "United States of America" not include Cuba, Canada and
>>>Mexico?
>
> Why, indeed, does the "United Kingdom" not include France?
>

From:	Fredrik R. Sellevold
Subject:	Re: What Are We Arguing About?
Date:	Mon, 13 Dec 2004 09:25:43 -0600

Esther Medina wrote:
> Mexico's official name is "The United States of Mexico" (Los Estados Unidos
> de Mexico) and it is in North America. I think many people don't think of
> Mexicans as Americans - but they are. The term American is now regarded as
> a term for USA citizens only by most. I once had an arguement (discussion?)
> with a Canadian who insisted Mexico wasn't in North America. (and she was a
> former school teacher tsk tsk)

That's why I often refer to citizens of the USA as 'Usanians'.

From:	David V.
Subject:	Re: What Are We Arguing About?
Date:	Sat, 11 Dec 2004 17:10:15 -0600

Esther Medina wrote:
> Mexico's official name is "The United States of Mexico" (Los
> Estados Unidos de Mexico) and it is in North America. I think
> many people don't think of Mexicans as Americans - but they
> are. The term American is now regarded as a term for USA
> citizens only by most. I once had an arguement (discussion?)
> with a Canadian who insisted Mexico wasn't in North America.
> (and she was a former school teacher tsk tsk)

Play along with me for a second..... what is the name of that bit
of water between Baja and the mainland? And what country owns it?
--
Dave
UDP for WebTV

From:	Earle Jones
Subject:	Re: What Are We Arguing About?
Date:	Sat, 11 Dec 2004 18:37:12 -0600

In article ,
"David V." wrote:

> Esther Medina wrote:
> > Mexico's official name is "The United States of Mexico" (Los
> > Estados Unidos de Mexico) and it is in North America. I think
> > many people don't think of Mexicans as Americans - but they
> > are. The term American is now regarded as a term for USA
> > citizens only by most. I once had an arguement (discussion?)
> > with a Canadian who insisted Mexico wasn't in North America.
> > (and she was a former school teacher tsk tsk)
>
> Play along with me for a second..... what is the name of that bit
> of water between Baja and the mainland? And what country owns it?

*
1. The Sea of Cortez
2. Mexico

earle
*

From:	David V.
Subject:	Re: What Are We Arguing About?
Date:	Mon, 13 Dec 2004 09:25:36 -0600

Earle Jones wrote:
>
> "David V." wrote:
>
>> Esther Medina wrote:
>>
>>> Mexico's official name is "The United States of Mexico"
>>> (Los Estados Unidos de Mexico) and it is in North
>>> America. I think many people don't think of Mexicans as
>>> Americans - but they are. The term American is now
>>> regarded as a term for USA citizens only by most. I once
>>> had an arguement (discussion?) with a Canadian who
>>> insisted Mexico wasn't in North America. (and she was a
>>> former school teacher tsk tsk)
>>
>> Play along with me for a second..... what is the name of
>> that bit of water between Baja and the mainland? And what
>> country owns it?
>
> 1. The Sea of Cortez
> 2. Mexico

If Mexico owns it; don't they get to name it?
Why do maps printed in the USA, or for the USA, have that bit of
water named "The Gulf of California"? That's always bugged me. To
me it just shows the arrogance of the USA in naming countries and
other things whatever they want.
--
Dave
UDP for WebTV

From:	Earle Jones
Subject:	Re: What Are We Arguing About?
Date:	Mon, 13 Dec 2004 11:57:36 -0600

In article ,
"David V." wrote:

> Earle Jones wrote:
> >
> > "David V." wrote:
> >
> >> Esther Medina wrote:
> >>
> >>> Mexico's official name is "The United States of Mexico"
> >>> (Los Estados Unidos de Mexico) and it is in North
> >>> America. I think many people don't think of Mexicans as
> >>> Americans - but they are. The term American is now
> >>> regarded as a term for USA citizens only by most. I once
> >>> had an arguement (discussion?) with a Canadian who
> >>> insisted Mexico wasn't in North America. (and she was a
> >>> former school teacher tsk tsk)
> >>
> >> Play along with me for a second..... what is the name of
> >> that bit of water between Baja and the mainland? And what
> >> country owns it?
> >
> > 1. The Sea of Cortez
> > 2. Mexico
>
> If Mexico owns it; don't they get to name it?
> Why do maps printed in the USA, or for the USA, have that bit of
> water named "The Gulf of California"? That's always bugged me. To
> me it just shows the arrogance of the USA in naming countries and
> other things whatever they want.

*
David: I suspect this is a fairly common practice -- naming nearby
bodies of water. The Sea of Japan (to Japanese) is called the
Eastern Sea (in China). Likewise the Arabian Gulf has several names
as does several other bodies of water. If I remember correctly,
what the English call the North Sea has a different name in
Scandinavian countries.

earle
*

From:	Oyvind Gronnesby
Subject:	Re: What Are We Arguing About?
Date:	Mon, 13 Dec 2004 09:59:29 -0600

* Fredrik R. Sellevold
|
| That's why I often refer to citizens of the USA as 'Usanians'.

Or one might choose the word `merkin', although some may find that
insulting :-)

--
Øyvind Grønnesby

From:	Earle Jones
Subject:	Re: What Are We Arguing About?
Date:	Mon, 13 Dec 2004 12:17:01 -0600

In article <87vfb6xkam.fsf@test.local>,
Oyvind Gronnesby wrote:

> * Fredrik R. Sellevold
> |
> | That's why I often refer to citizens of the USA as 'Usanians'.
>
> Or one might choose the word `merkin', although some may find that
> insulting :-)

*
I believe a 'merkin' is that triangular patch of hair that women
possess.

earle
*
From: http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_232.html

What exactly is a "merkin"? Ever since the word was thrust into my
consciousness it's been tormenting me. My Oxford English Dictionary
defines it as the "female pudendum," which seems a trifle sedate,
given the listed quote of 1714, "This put a strange Whim in his
Head; which was, to get the hairy circle of her Merkin ... This he
dry'd well and comb'd out, and then return'd to the Cardinal,
telling him, he had brought Saint Peter's Beard."

And it's downhill from there. The OED "b" definition says a merkin
is a "counterfeit hair for women's privy parts," and another
dictionary calls it a "pubic hair wig." Sorry, but these
explanations defy understanding. I mean, I've heard of niche
markets, but this is ridiculous. My own interest in the word isn't
just academic, as I'd like to make use of the fine quote of 1680,
"Or wear some stinking Merkin for a Beard," but I want to make damn
sure I know what the original item was. --Andrew Scheinman, Los
Angeles

From:	Oyvind Gronnesby
Subject:	Re: What Are We Arguing About?
Date:	Mon, 11 Oct 2004 20:01:40 -0500

* signpoet@aol.com
|
| >>Why do the "United States of America" not include Cuba, Canada and
| >>Mexico?
|
| Why, indeed, does the "United Kingdom" not include France?

Ooo! I know the answer to this one! France isn't a Kingdom.

--
Øyvind Grønnesby

From:	Christopher A. Lee
Subject:	Re: What Are We Arguing About?
Date:	Wed, 13 Oct 2004 17:36:02 -0500

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 17:09:41 -0500, Ronn_Hammonn
wrote:

>Ron Peterson wrote:
>>
>> Joshua Shanks wrote:
>> > Ron Peterson wrote:
>>
>> >> Why does the United States of America include Kentucky?
>>
>> > Those of us in Indiana have been wondering that for years...
>>
>> I heard that it is a playground for Ohioans.
>>
>> Why does Indiana have a naval base in the middle of the state?
>>
>
>'Cause that's where a navel should be. ;-)

Was thhat statement really necessary?

From:	Kirk Job-Sluder
Subject:	Re: What Are We Arguing About?
Date:	Mon, 11 Oct 2004 14:59:34 -0500

On 2004-10-11, Signpoet wrote:

> Like others here, I dislike the self-promotional aspects of the word
> "bright." I find the same problem in "humanist" (what's not human
> about believers?,)

Why do the "United States of America" not include Cuba, Canada and
Mexico?

> but that term at least has a long and honorable
> history. In the long run, it's not very useful to argue about
> language. This forum says it is about "living as an atheist." What are
> some problems that atheism generates? What does it mean to be "living
> as an atheist," anyway?

Not much at all. My atheism is a trivial aspect of my life that only
seems to be important here on soc.atheism, and on those rare occasions
that the issue comes up elsewhere. My beliefs regarding non-violence,
and democracy, what I know of current research into how other people
think and behave, these are things that affect what I do, and how I do
it just about every hour.

Which is why I find the term "atheist" to be largely trivial and
meaningless. Knowing that someone is an "atheist" tells me very little
about that person. I have what kind of policy an atheist might prefer
in regards to marriage, much less the reasons for that policy. All
I know is that person does not believe in god or gods.

In contrast, if someone says, "I am a humanist," "I am a Marxist," or "I
am an objectivist." Then, I know something.

> As for "atheism in society," certainly the growing religious agenda in
> the U.S., the ascendancy of toxic religiosity in many places in the
> world, call for all sorts of commentary, protest, and action. So call
> me anything you like.

None of these concerns are unique to atheists.

--
Kirk Job-Sluder
"The square-jawed homunculi of Tommy Hilfinger ads make every day an
existential holocaust." --Scary Go Round

From:	Ron Peterson
Subject:	Re: What Are We Arguing About?
Date:	Mon, 11 Oct 2004 22:28:11 -0500

Kirk Job-Sluder wrote:

> Why do the "United States of America" not include Cuba, Canada and
> Mexico?

Why does the United States of America include Kentucky?

--
Ron

From:	Joshua Shanks
Subject:	Re: What Are We Arguing About?
Date:	Tue, 12 Oct 2004 19:12:30 -0500

Ron Peterson wrote:
> Kirk Job-Sluder wrote:
>
>
>>Why do the "United States of America" not include Cuba, Canada and
>>Mexico?
>
>
> Why does the United States of America include Kentucky?
>

Those of us in Indiana have been wondering that for years...

Josh

From:	Ron Peterson
Subject:	Re: What Are We Arguing About?
Date:	Tue, 12 Oct 2004 22:19:14 -0500

Joshua Shanks wrote:
> Ron Peterson wrote:

>> Why does the United States of America include Kentucky?

> Those of us in Indiana have been wondering that for years...

I heard that it is a playground for Ohioans.

Why does Indiana have a naval base in the middle of the state?

--
Ron

From:	Joshua Shanks
Subject:	Re: What Are We Arguing About?
Date:	Wed, 13 Oct 2004 16:22:25 -0500

Ron Peterson wrote:
> Why does Indiana have a naval base in the middle of the state?

Because that's the last place you'd think to look for one. :-) Crane
Naval Base is a munitions depot, if I'm not mistaken.

From:	Ronn_Hammonn
Subject:	Re: What Are We Arguing About?
Date:	Wed, 13 Oct 2004 17:09:41 -0500

Ron Peterson wrote:
>
> Joshua Shanks wrote:
> > Ron Peterson wrote:
>
> >> Why does the United States of America include Kentucky?
>
> > Those of us in Indiana have been wondering that for years...
>
> I heard that it is a playground for Ohioans.
>
> Why does Indiana have a naval base in the middle of the state?
>

'Cause that's where a navel should be. ;-)

--
Ronn_Hammonn

From:	Kirk Job-Sluder
Subject:	Re: What Are We Arguing About?
Date:	Wed, 13 Oct 2004 01:08:43 -0500

On 2004-10-13, Ron Peterson wrote:
> Why does Indiana have a naval base in the middle of the state?

Basic WWII strategy. You don't win wars by killing soldiers, you win
wars by destroying the enemy's communications, factories, warehouses and
supply lines. If your navy depends on large quantities of high
explosives, it makes sense to stockpile those explosives well out of
reach.

As for why South-Central Indiana? Well, that answer seems to be as much
about depression-era politics as geography.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/crane.htm

--
Kirk Job-Sluder
"The square-jawed homunculi of Tommy Hilfinger ads make every day an
existential holocaust." --Scary Go Round