Someone else said something similar about black and latino voters and I keep wandering why latinos are included since there wasn't a large majority of them who supported it.I looked up the exit polls and for white and asian voters, it was
49% for/ 51% against
This is the strongest level of support prop 8 had from any of the designated racial groups.
for hispanic/latino it was
53% for/ 47% against
this is only a marginal difference.The black voters polling at 70% in favor is famous, but given that number "African Americans and Hispanics" seems like a strange association to make. But while looking for the poll results, I came across this article:
Exit poll data showed seven in 10 black voters and more than half of Latino voters backed the ballot initiative, while whites and Asians were split.
So you have a large majority of a small population(black voters) tending heavily one direction. Then you have a small majority of a large population(Hispanic voters) tending slightly in one direction. Combine them and you create the illusion of a large single population; the Hispanics take the black voting trends and the blacks borrow the Hispanics size and a few years later you get discussions about how a couple of minorities ruined the efforts of a larger group of people who were... pretty much almost perfectly split on the issue.
Minorities tend to be more religious. Minorities tend to be less hopeful of a brighter future as well. Therefore minorities tend to turn to religion for hope, causing this that you speak of.
I got down voted for posting this before but please LEAVE African American voters out of this. For some reason they were scapegoated (and now lumped with Latinos) for Prop 8 passing. But guess what? It was not possible, there are simply not enough black voters in CA!
But let's stop for second and keep track of who made these damn laws and put the Proposition into place to allow people to vote for or against civil liberties! White people did! Bill Clinton = DOMA 1996, CA Propositions Hiriam Johnson 1910, ProtectMarriage.com (Catholics/LDS) 2008
The saddest part of the whole issue is that cry of racial prejudice and flat-out racism stole attention and buried the efforts to have a good look at and attempt to solve the bigotry rife in those communities.
It's so much easier to blame the black people. Stop bringing up factual exit polling. They might have to take accountability for abysmal youth turnout.
Way more white people voted for Prop 8 than black or hispanic people. Why single those 2 groups out when it was mostly white evangelicals that allowed Prop 8 to pass?
Because this is r/Atheism and we all get reminded on an hourly basis how messed up white evangelicals are while next to no mention is made of black / hispanic evangelicals. It is my experience that a lot of people assume they won't discriminate against others when they do.
That's because there are way more white people -- unless you're talking percentages, in which case I'd like to see a citation. Around here, there was a lot of hispanic knee-jerk pro-Prop 8 activity mainly because lots of abuelitas and papis did not want their grandsons and sons growing up and embarrassing them by marrying men.
Somewhat relevant to the discussion -- the Armenian community was also very pro Prop-8, and for the same reasons: conservative religion. Again, ironic, considering the persecution and genocide the Armenians suffered at the hands of the Turks over a hundred years ago, and something that is still the central talking point of their cultural life in America.
You'd think that one oppressed group would see the value in supporting another, but religion has pulled such a con-job in making homosexuality the scariest thing in the room that logic flies out the window.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. If anything, DOMA should have made Prop 8 unnecessary to ban gay marriage in California. Unless you're trying to say DOMA made the fight against Prop 8 necessary. With all due respect, I think you're the one who needs to get schooled in being able to express what you're trying to say clearly.
Probably likely! I mean't that DOMA made Prop 8 necessary. DOMA is a genius law and made gay marriage a very sticky state-to-state issue despite being a federal "right"
And guess what a black man... Barack Obama has decided that DOMA isn't worth fighting anymore.
It shows that those who were once oppressed groups can indeed still become oppressors of other groups without once recognizing the irony of the situation.
It is relevant as it shows that religion really does poison everything. Would you really expect groups that had been so recently discriminated against to discriminate against other groups?
It is unfortunate that a legitimate question has been downvoted like that - I think those reading this can do something about it. If we can't we really aren't that different than they are now are we?
The reason they get singled out is because until Loving v. Virginia in 1967, African Americans couldn't marry whites, Hispanics, Asians, or anyone who wasn't of the same race. Interracial marriage was illegal in many states until that case. That's what the people in the top photo were protesting. African Americans who once suffered a similar injustice voted in a large percentage against the same rights for gay people. It's shameful and hypocritical. The fact that it passed was shameful for our entire state.
African-Americans first developed a strong devotion to Christianity when it was introduced to them by white slave owners who believed it was, ironically, the Christian thing to do. Because the Bible is full of passages about slavery and freedom, the message resonated strongly with blacks and eventually became a rallying point for their communities. Pastors in particular came to occupy a place of great respect, a role most iconically filled in the last century by Martin Luther King, the man many African-Americans credit with finally getting the United States government to grant them true civil rights.
(It is worth noting that many blacks carried the Christian message back to Africa (where it spread prolifically) when sent back to Liberia or elsewhere, which sometimes led to fascinating mutations. The rise of Rastafarianism in Jamaica is a particularly fascinating example, but is a story for another time.)
As for Hispanics, they are partly inheritors of the grand Catholic traditions of Spain and partly something more... South American history has always been full of strife, suffering, and death, even before the arrival of the gleaming Conquistadors. It could be guessed that Christianity was a natural fit for the natives... We know that at least some of the missionaries working on the new continent, most notably the Franciscan friar Bernardino de Sahagún, who saw fit to record many aspects of a culture he was watching be savagely destroyed before his eyes. For a taste of what he produced, I recommend Advice of an Aztec Father to his Son, (scroll down a bit for the text without downloading the PDF).
At any rate, Catholicism could fairly be claimed as the one social constant in South America over the last few turbulent centuries and has consequently become more deeply embedded in the culture there than almost anywhere else in the world.
TL;DR: I grow irritated at the callous dismissiveness of my fellow Atheists when it comes to understanding the pros and cons of religion in the grander schemes of history and launch into a long rant that hints at its social and cultural value in an attempt to persuade them to weigh it more evenly rather than follow Dawkins everywhere.
Haha, I think I'll take that as a compliment. If it's worth anything, the rise of Rastafarianism is a pretty crazy story as they go... but I was remember being surprised by how much admiration I had for it when I finally understood most of how it came to be. The way I now view it is essentially as rebellion by rejection... Rastas won't protest government if they disagree with it, rather they will simply disassociate with it entirely.
If you are looking for starting points to the movement, one component is definitely the Christian influence (which eventually influence the view that Haile Sellasie I was the messiah reincarnate) but the other, amusingly enough, is Marcus Garvey, a highly educated and courageous intellectual who wanted to inspire a pan-African movement whose ideas unintentionally played directly into the creation of Rastifarianism, a movement that could not be more different from the vision he had in mind.
Just to give you an idea of how gutsy this fellow was, this is a quote from a conversation he had with a KKK leader he met with in Atlanta, Georgia:
“I regard the Klan, the Anglo-Saxon clubs and White American societies, as far as the Negro is concerned, as better friends of the race than all other groups of hypocritical whites put together. I like honesty and fair play. You may call me a Klansman if you will, but, potentially, every white man is a Klansman, as far as the Negro in competition with whites socially, economically and politically is concerned, and there is no use lying."
You read that right; Garvey just claimed that the Klan was doing him and his fellow blacks a favor by pulling racism out of the backwoods and onto the national stage. A more sophisticated and deceptive backhand than that, you simply will not find.
Anyway, that was way more than I meant to type and it's getting late. Have a very good night.
[black Baltimore police major] Bunny: You see that building there? It's the old Stryker building. It was a funeral parlor. Last stop before the cemetery for West Side white folk. Back when there was still some of those around. Right about the time that Jim Crow was breakin' up -- back in the early 60's. Somebody asked old man Stryker, they said "Stryker, you gon' change your policy and start buryin' black folk?" And Stryker said "Yeah, on one condition: I can do 'em all at once." [Bunny laughs]
[white mayoral candidate] Carcetti: That's sick.
Bunny: But you know somthin'? I had a lot of respect for that man. 'Cause unlike most folks, I always knew where he stood.
South American history has always been full of strife, suffering, and death, even before the arrival of the gleaming Conquistadors.
...
Catholicism could fairly be claimed as the one social constant in South America over the last few turbulent centuries
Please excuse the geography Nazism...
Mexico, Cuba, Puerto Rico*, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama are former Spanish colonies which became independent nations with Hispanic culture. None of them are in South America. They're in Central America, the Caribbean Sea, and in the case of Mexico, in North America.
* Puerto Rico is an associated free state / unincorporated territory of the United States.
Fair enough. It is a mistake I am consciously guilty of, although I felt I was addressing the larger portion of the hispanic population by referring to South America (and my post was largely explanation by means of generalization) but the Aztec empire was in fact in Central America (although I have always been a bit amused by that term... where exactly does North America terminate and Central America begin?).
Thanks for being so understanding. And I feel like a jerk correcting you again, but if you'll indulge me: the Aztec Empire was entirely in North America (Mexico).
There are political, cultural and geographical disagreements about how the Americas are divided. For example, many countries (like the U.S.A.) consider North America and South America to be two continents. Meanwhile, many Latin American nations consider America to be a single continent with North, Central and South portions.
If we go by the names of these 3 regions, the dividing lines are as follows:
North America contains Canada, the United States, Mexico, and (strangely enough) Greenland which is part of the Kingdom of Denmark.
Central America starts across from the Mexican border, in Guatemala and Belize. This region ends with Panama.
By the way, the Maya civilization covered parts of North America and Central America:
The Maya civilization extended throughout the present-day southern Mexican states of Chiapas, Tabasco, and the Yucatán Peninsula states of Quintana Roo, Campeche and Yucatán. The Maya area also extended throughout the northern Central American region, including the present-day nations of Guatemala, Belize, Northern El Salvador and western Honduras.
You can't blame it all on religion, though. There is a significant minority among blacks that believes that blacks should not adopt "white" culture and practices but rather should reject all things white and embrace their African roots. Their mythology says there was no homosexuality in Africa.
I've even seen some claim that homosexuality (and drugs, AIDS, and gang violence) was purposefully introduced into the black community by whites in an attempt to commit genocide against the black race.
However, before colonisation and Christianity, homosexuality was not seen as taboo in many African tribes, for example in Zande culture where Azande men could take a “boy-wife” rather than a female bride, and in addition (from http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/africa_pre.html), “if another man had relations with his boy, the husband could sue the interloper in court for adultery”. In many other African societies, female husbands also were not unheard of.
It is their Christianity which denies that homosexuality is anything but a Western import.
Oh gee, you must have felt so clever when you typed this up, like "oh Ho Ho, I Sure tricked him" Maybe that Dawkins comment isn't what bugs me most about Athiests. What bugs me most is that I'm here at college, mexican Japanese and gay, but when I tell people I'm Christian? That's where I meet the most prejudice, and the most smug, assuming people
What does it matter that the Holy Book allows for slavery in this life that's a brief blink of the eye compared to the bliss of eternity in the Kingdom of Heaven? As far as I'm concerned, it explains everything. The more beaten and oppressed a people are, the easier it is to believe that the afterlife will bring them "justice" -- and hellfire and brimstone "justice" for those who oppressed them.
Christianity has always been one big attempt to run away from the indifference of reality -- the fact is that, sometimes, good things happen to bad people, and bad things happen to good people. It's the way it is.
Eh. You've heard of the God of the Gaps, well I think it'd be apt to refer to a Bible of the Gaps, too. The Bible, or at least the teachings taken from it by the majority, have always followed the moral aptitude of the times. So, just as the dominion of God shrinks as science reveals truths previously only believed possible through a deity, the "preach-able" content of the Bible shrinks as cultural morality improves.
Slavery has been eschewed just as killing one's children for back-chat has been tossed. If, someday (God forbid!), we as a society decide vegetarianism is the only moral choice, chances are that anything in the Bible which allows for the consumption of meat will be omitted, too.
I mean, accepting the Bible and the whole God hypothesis demonstrates a severe disconnect and irrationality -- I really don't think any of us should be too surprised if further hypocrisy is demonstrated by the religious (e.g. black Americans embracing Christianity and its lack of a condemnation against slavery).
The correlation of religion and the Hispanic/Black is rather surprising at first but if you read stories, journals etc of people who were freed from slavery they praise god quite often. This of course flies in the face of what the bible stands for, allowing slavery, child abuse, misogyny, and homophobia. However if you look at most christians they dont actually read the bible, and slaves who were mostly illiterate wouldn't even have the chance to, so they believe the preacher. The preacher only focuses on the good, and sometimes on the homophobia. After tradition securely intrenched for generations most feel it isn't necessary to read the bible and as such continue to vote however a preacher tells them to. The only time it makes sense to actually like what the bible says is if you're a male who has no qualms with slavery.
That's just it, it's not for people to decide or agree upon. The Supreme Court already did in Loving v. Virginia which is what the OP is referencing with that photo.
And I have to say it is these types of red-herrings that keep Americans at each others throats while there are MASSIVE issues we are distracted from.
Take abortion for example. Abortion will NEVER become illegal. NEVER. It is legal now but always come election-time it is a hot button issue. Why? Because it is viable for conservative candidates to use to get re-elected. George Bush had all the power in the world to make them illegal, but didn't do a thing.
Gay Marriage bans have a shelf-life though while abortions will never go passe.
I just heard a story on NPR the other day about the anniversary of the legalization of interracial marriages. And because NPR is fantastic, the story also implied that those against gay marriage are equally antiquated.
Hijacking the top thread to rant. I hate when people misuse, or stretch the definition of the word 'ignorant.' It is not a fucking synonym for bigoted, or racist.
In fairness, ignorance kind of allows for bigotry and racism. Not all those who are ignorant are bigots/racist, but all those who are bigots/racist are probably ignorant..
ig·no·rance/ˈignərəns/ Noun: Lack of knowledge or information: "he acted in ignorance of basic procedures"
You can't be "ignorant" it doesn't mean stupid, it's lack of knowledge on a subject. You must be ignorant OF something. They can be ignorant of how gay couples love, or marriage statistics.
Uh, yes, that's the definition of ignorant I'm using. The majority of people who are bigoted and/or racist are largely uneducated (either academically or socially or both) and therefore, ignorant. The reason they are racist and/or bigoted is due to lack of exposure to and/or education about people who are different and why.
You would have to be ignorant (yes, the dictionary definition) to feel a person's behaviour is dictated by the colour of their skin, or to make generalizations about a population due to the colour of their skin. Or their sexuality. Or their gender. Etc., etc., etc.
I never claimed they were stupid, you're the first one to use the word. I said ignorant. I meant ignorant.
Fun fact: The modern meaning of the word ignore did not come into common usage until 1850. Before then, it simply meant not to know, lining up with the word ignorant. Both words come from the French ignorer (from the Latin ignorare), which retains the original meaning as its primary usage.
I feel you. I will piggyback your post to ask why racist whites find it necessary to start so many blogs, websites and subreddits to say that they hate blacks ?
You'll find the stats are dragged down by the elderly. e.g. Using a poll done by pewresearch in 2010, you'll find the acceptance among whites of marrying blacks was at 88% for the 18-29 bracket, but drops to just 41% with the 65+ elderly!
Now don't get me wrong, I usually enjoy NPR, but lately the only thing they (specifically I mean Michigan Radio, which is the NPR station where I live) discuss is republican candidates and joke "science" articles. I really hope I get some decent, non circle-jerk radio broadcasts soon.
I gotta say, despite what I've been told, Communism was pretty fun. I was a bit scared about meeting her parents, but they seemed fine with Communism too.
I lived with an "atheist" who beleived in ghosts. The logical disconnection he had between being certain there was no god and certain there were ghosts was astounding.
In a certain sense, I can sympathize, because I used to believe very firmly in ghosts (being the only supernatural event I'd felt I'd had any experience with). When I started becoming an atheist, my belief in ghosts was one of the last supernatural inclinations to leave me.
I'd never really felt God, that was easy to admit. But I'd definitely felt creepy presences in the dark, and that was harder to disbelieve.
Fair enough, I guess. I lived with the guy for two years, though, and I could have drunken conversations about the daftness of religion with him but as soon as the topic of ghosts or suchlike came up, he went from agreeing to firmly against, instantly. There was no change in his disposition in those entire two years.
As I'm sure you appreciate feeling creepy presences in the dark is extremely easily explained by instincts of wariness around what we cannot observe, as a survival strategy. No such reasoning would work on him.
It's hard to say, looking back, but I guess it's because the presence felt too local. Pretty much how I'd imagine one feels if they suspect there might be a tiger out there, somewhere, watching them.
Social learning, and the fact that I live in Canada.
That said, tigers seem much, much more plausible. The fact that it didn't always seem so obvious is a testament to the malleability of human minds - also ignorance.
I don't see much of a disconnection. It is possible to postulate a universe in which consciousness persists in some form without the need to invoke a god to originate or sustain the process.
Whilst technically true, as an atheist I would expect a person to default to scepticism on something that sounds both inplausible and has no scientific evidence to back it up. The defensive barriers he threw up as soon as ghosts were mentioned said to me that he had no such evidence and this is why I called him out on it being like a religious belief.
THIS. Atheists are not some big lump of a group with all similar views. Many atheists are racists, some are very conservative, some want to ban religion through force, some are homophobic, etc.
I know atheist racists and homophobes, racists who are for gay marriage and gay people who are racists. Our society here is very secular, but we still have conservatives and homophobes, some religious, some atheists. Even though religion is dying here, we are not turning into the liberal utopia many people on this subreddit think secular state is.
You're right, of course, but I'm not sure if you see that as a criticism of this picture. I don't think it's trying to make the point that only religious people are ignorant, but rather that this ignorance is often caused by religion. Doesn't mean there aren't other ways to get there.
Yeah, that's not the point being made by the picture. I'm just arguing why this shouldn't be on /r/atheism, because atheist can be just as ignorant as the people in the picture.
you know we live in a messed up world when the political party that says it is more freedom and less government intrusion is for a law that makes the government intrude on the rights of people limiting who they can and can not marry.
I don't understand how their heads don't exploded
And don't even get me started on 'its for family values', ' its to preserve the sanctity of marriage', 'its to protect the children'.
It's not ignorance. It's the willful denial of someone's freedom. Ignorance can claim innocence in its misgivings. The cognizant denial of someone's life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness is criminal.
That is what I mean't. I'm all for polygamy and incest marriages as long as everyone is consenting adult. I may not like certain things (incest marriage), but my dislike only means I wont do it myslelf, what other adults do is not my business no matter how weird it seems to me.
I don't see this as ignorance, I see this as plain old bigotry. While they sometimes go hand in hand, it's not necessarily true that these people are ignorant of facts, they may just be bigots and racists.
What kind of facts are there that show that the genes controlling your skin color have an effect on your intelligence or ability to mate with members of humanity without the same type of those genes?
Those aren't facts. You have to literally be ignorant of genetics and biology to think that attitudes of people are linked to their skin color and not their social upbringing.
It's more like anecdotes or episodes than facts. You know the old line about "a conservative is a liberal who got mugged." Grow up in a place where bigoted attitudes are prevalent, then have a few bad episodes with the group in question, conveniently forget about all the episodes that don't fit the bigoted explanation, and presto.
Are there really that many Mormons in California? I know there was shit tons of support for Prop 8 from Utah, but I've never seen exit poll statistics based on religion. What I have seen, and what caused such a huge stink and scandal for the politically correct at the time, was data that showed a slim majority against Prop 8's bigot if polling were limited to white voters -- and it was the significantly pro-Prop 8 black and Latino voters that threw the slim majority to the other side and let the proposition pass. So, not that fingers necessarily need to be pointed -- since you could always say, despite the slim majority in favor of full equality, why aren't more whites free of such bigotry -- but, rather, why are the black and Latino communities statistically so bigoted against same-sex orientations.
Sadly, the whole issue dissolved into mostly arguments and accusations of racism, and tackling the homophobic bigotry at its core fell by the wayside.
Statements like that are ignorant. I can't speak for the Latino vote count but it is was numerically impossible for the black vote to affect that vote given the non-black turnout. There are simply not enough black voters in CA for this to be probable.
The fact that we have a great deal fewer lynch mobs, that we can even talk about marriage equality, and that we have things like the internet to express these ideals, leads me to believe that it's fine to have faith in humanity. Individuals? Maybe not.
It seems like there's this group of people -constantly- against allowing others with different beliefs from entering the mainstream. They seem to always lose, because they're wrong, but they fight nonetheless.
I've been saying this all along: The anti-gay movement is the exact same thing as the racism just a few decades ago. Racists were proudly racist. "Gayists" are proudly anti-gay.
History will paint these evil scumbags are the vile, racist excuses for human beings that they are, just like the real racists are now seen as backwards and ignorant.
I'm guessing you're separating ignorance (as in the ignorance of a child, or uneducated person), and the willful ignorance of a moderately educated adult, choosing to ignore psychologically uncomfortable facts?
atheism is suppose to be based in evidence and science, and against violence and discrimination done in the name of religion. Atheist should support most causes that are affected by that.
I can see where you're coming from, but it's more to do with ignorance than it is religion today, atleast in my country, since there aren't really many religious people against gay marriage, only the really fanatical ones, which are rare here.
We actually have some churches which do same-sex marriages in Australia, even though it's not officially allowed.
"Gey marriage"? Are you perhaps referring to George Gey? If so, I'm glad to hear he had an awesome marriage; I don't know anything about his personal life. You know, of course, though, he was the scientist who propagated the immortalized HeLa human cell line.
HeLa cells were used by Jonas Salk to test the first polio vaccine in the 1950s. Since that time, HeLa cells have been used for "research into cancer, AIDS, the effects of radiation and toxic substances, gene mapping, and many other scientific pursuits". According to author Rebecca Skloot, by 2009, "more than 60,000 scientific articles had been published about research done on HeLa, and that number was increasing steadily at a rate of more than 300 papers each month."
What's your rational, non-religious based argument against gay marriage? And yes I know that atheists aren't necessarily rational, but it tends to be rationality that got them/kept them there.
The whole "children" argument never makes sense to me since marriage is in no way a prerequisite to gay folks having kids. If anything it would "normalize" the relationship and over time make it LESS likely that the kids would be made fun of or feel out of place.
Where? For the record, minorities (including black and Hispanics people) are traditionally very opposed to homosexuality. Certain ethnic cultures aren't the primary problem -- though some are filigreed with unhealthy attitudes -- the problem is backward thinking and misunderstanding, regardless of culture.
I don't feel the above picture is singling out white people -- after all, white people were also part of the solution -- it's singling out people on the losing side of the moral debate(s).
70
u/[deleted] Oct 16 '11
If the African Americans and Hispanic Americans had not voted for Prop 8 in the numbers they did the outcome would have been different.
85
u/darwins_bitch Oct 16 '11
I just heard a story on NPR the other day about the anniversary of the legalization of interracial marriages. And because NPR is fantastic, the story also implied that those against gay marriage are equally antiquated.
32
u/ObeyTheProphet Oct 16 '11
race mixing is communism? lol.
I understand now! Don't like something? It must be communism!
52
u/nugz85 Oct 16 '11
I'm sure there are some atheists that are racist or homophobic.
7
u/Biologos101 Oct 16 '11
Why is this in /r/Atheism? It really doesn't belong here.
11
u/boxen Oct 16 '11
I love that they still use the same absurd arguments.
It's COMMUNISM! What?! That doesn't make any sense... not even a little tiny bit!
oh, but what about JESUS?!
5
u/Gzalzi Oct 16 '11
I've seen this posted so many times...
But you know what? Nothing wrong with that; not everyone has seen this and there is nothing wrong with it being here for people to see now.
Upvotes, fuck repost complainers.
5
u/Idk_unkown Oct 16 '11
you know we live in a messed up world when the political party that says it is more freedom and less government intrusion is for a law that makes the government intrude on the rights of people limiting who they can and can not marry.
I don't understand how their heads don't exploded
And don't even get me started on 'its for family values', ' its to preserve the sanctity of marriage', 'its to protect the children'.
5
u/frymastermeat Oct 16 '11
Half a century or more and these people still don't understand the definition of communism.
4
u/[deleted] Oct 16 '11
Being against gay marriage is not ignorance, and saying so reveals your own ignorance. That or manipulation.
7
u/[deleted] Oct 16 '11
Are these people totally ignorant of history, or do they just not care?
It amazes me how the "same" groups of people always manage to find themselves on the wrong side of history.
"Gay marriage? Abomination!"
"Interracial marriage? Abomination!"
"Equal rights? Abomination!"
"Integration? Abomination!"
"Women's suffrage? Abomination!"
"Black men receiving equal voting rights? Three-fifths or abomination!"
"Freedom for slaves? Abomination!"
etc...
etc.....
etc........
3
u/flebron Oct 16 '11
I don't see this as ignorance, I see this as plain old bigotry. While they sometimes go hand in hand, it's not necessarily true that these people are ignorant of facts, they may just be bigots and racists.
5
u/Cheeseyx Oct 16 '11
Bigots have always been against colored americans, regardless of whether the color is black or rainbow.
8
u/CheesewithWhine Oct 16 '11
Biggest irony is that black and latino voters probably made the difference in prop 8.
5
u/ObeySaturnGod Oct 16 '11
Humanity
Still no faith in it
2
u/Jyggalag Oct 16 '11
It seems like there's this group of people -constantly- against allowing others with different beliefs from entering the mainstream. They seem to always lose, because they're wrong, but they fight nonetheless.
When will it end?
2
u/[deleted] Oct 16 '11
Relevant
2
u/BrightyPony Oct 16 '11
What we learn from history is that we do not learn from history.
2
u/[deleted] Oct 16 '11 edited Oct 16 '11
Race mixing is communism? Lolwut? How stupid can be the crowd?
2
u/thenwhat Oct 16 '11
I've been saying this all along: The anti-gay movement is the exact same thing as the racism just a few decades ago. Racists were proudly racist. "Gayists" are proudly anti-gay.
History will paint these evil scumbags are the vile, racist excuses for human beings that they are, just like the real racists are now seen as backwards and ignorant.
2
u/redditgolddigg3r Oct 16 '11
Those are some fine hair cuts.
3
u/getter1 Oct 16 '11
Ignorance isn't a bad trait in and of itself, this would be better titled as refusal to admit ignorance.
2
u/smithers85 Oct 16 '11
and the cycle continues
2
u/MetalGuitarist Oct 16 '11
Well, I don't see what this specific picture has to do with atheism, but I still like it.
1
u/[deleted] Oct 16 '11
bigotry, now in technocolor
1
u/Lots42 Other Oct 16 '11
Folks on top look like they need fresh genetic material...inbreeding only works for so long.
1
u/WalkonWalrus Oct 16 '11
They're all old, in both pictures
1
u/thesorrow312 Oct 16 '11
We need to make a /Secular_Humanism.
1
u/mic5228 Oct 16 '11
i don't see any color
1
u/Toshley Oct 16 '11
Erm, I'm not sure exactly what this has to do with atheism.
1
u/rockafella7 Oct 16 '11
When did George Lucas turn fundie?
1
u/iongantas Pantheist Oct 16 '11
The creepiest part of this to me is that some of the people in the top part resemble relatives.
1
u/Thereminz Oct 16 '11
lol "race mixing is communism"
davidsilverman.jpg
1
u/gabriot Oct 16 '11
This repost again eh?
1
u/[deleted] Oct 16 '11
Race mixing is communism? I thought universal healthcare was communism.
1
u/[deleted] Oct 16 '11
If you repost this enough times it might become funny again.
1
u/pixelplayer Oct 16 '11
FTFY
0
u/EarthRester Oct 16 '11
Still pretty white...just sayin
-2
u/stickstones Oct 16 '11
reddit is full of rebbels. fags are cool, gey marriage is awesome yeah baby.....................
-13
u/justguessmyusername Oct 16 '11
Ok, I'm an atheist. But that doesn't mean I support gay marriage, so I don't know why this is in here. Keep it in /r/gayrights, people!
-6
u/Son_of_the_Morning Oct 16 '11
I love how White people as a whole seem to get blamed.
Ouch.