Comments on: The Atheist-Only Town of Liberal, Missouri

By: Vincent

Vincent — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 14:03:22 +0000

While I think you are correct that we need to be open to decent

Hey, I’m open to indecent too.
It’s probably more helpful to be open to dissent though.

By: muggle

muggle — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 13:34:32 +0000

AxeGrrl, I fear you’re right.

By: AxeGrrl

AxeGrrl — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 07:25:49 +0000

muggle wrote:

Utopia is just a myth. Anything too rigid and too unaccepting of diversity would be just as repressive as a theocracy or any other brand of repressiveness.

Precisely. Sometimes I think that the human species' tendency to create 'us' and 'them' polarities almost constantly (and in almost any situation) is going to be the thing that leads to our ultimate demise (despite the obvious evolutionary benefits that have come from such a tendency)

By: little my

little my — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 06:39:02 +0000

well then. I live in atheist country.. almost. some survey showed that we have approximately 15% of our population who are active christians. others are not.(partly I think it is not the worst legacy from the soviet union). as some kind of a joke I share my dorm room with a baptist and in the next room of my box/flat lives muslim girl and a woman who is going to be a priest… winning a lottery is more likely here than having a neighbours like that
(being happy atheist myself)
(If you did’nt guess, country is Estonia)
P.S. we still have plenty of churces

By: DangerousTalk

DangerousTalk — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 06:23:58 +0000

While I think you are correct that we need to be open to decent, I think that this idea still has some merit. Not too long ago, I re-watched the film, “Milk” and the idea of an atheist haven in which we could elect officials to the larger community would really help our place in the larger community. While we shouldn’t “ban” Christians, we should certainly discourage them. I think the idea has merit and I wonder if we can resurrect the idea… perhaps after 3 days, lol.
-Staks

By: CAL

CAL — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 03:48:00 +0000

Even if religion isn’t the big problem anymore, then something else will just take its place. You start getting into a Unified Atheist League versus United Atheist Alliance sort of battle.

Great South Park episodes!

By: Tinna G. Gígja

Tinna G. Gígja — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 02:33:57 +0000

Honestly, at first glance the only thing that bothered me was the lack of a saloon. I wouldn’t mind living in a town without a church, seeing as I once lived in a spot where, on Sundays, I could hear the clanging of four different churchbells.

I’m not sure that banning christians is a good idea though – surely it would be easier to charge them for entry and conduct tours. “And on your left you will not see a church. If you look to your right, you’ll notice that there is no saloon. Right in front of you is the ANTICHRIST – just kidding. Hey, come back!”

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 02:19:14 +0000

I don’t see your point. It’s working fine for North Korea.

By: Demetrius Of Pharos

Demetrius Of Pharos — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 00:49:20 +0000

Additionally, let us not forget that when Mensa took over Springfield, chaos ensued.

PS @ MaleficVTwin:
SPLITTER!

By: muggle

muggle — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 23:36:44 +0000

I was going to say that wouldn’t exactly be freedom of religion either but you pointed that out better.

Now JJR that sounds interesting. Hmmm… I like that better because it wasn’t going off all cult-like like this town.

At first blush it sounds like Utopia (especially that bit about no churches and no saloons to a disbelieving tea-totaller like myself) but Utopia is just a myth. Anything too rigid and too unaccepting of diversity would be just as repressive as a theocracy or any other brand of repressiveness.

Besides, far be it from me to deprive anyone else of a beer just because I’ve no interest in one.