The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Disappointing:
http://www.reddit.com/r/tulsa/comments/1byfen/oklahoma_joes_bbq_turned_away_a_fundraiser_they/

	Flyer approved by Oklahoma Joes:
(http://i.imgur.com/i7yjwfc.jpg)	(http://i.imgur.com/bkI5A7d.jpg?1) view full sized (http://i.imgur.com/bkI5A7d.jpg?1)

I saw this today.  I feel for the group.  I never cared much for that Joes, so it won't be much of a loss.  Look at their Yelp page now though, they're getting hammered with bad reviews.

This website

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd/2013/04/camp-quest-oklahoma-kicked-out-of-their-own-fundraiser-by-christian-business-owner/

has screencaps of Oklahoma Joe's facebook page before they took it down.

It's funny to me because I had a couple of posts right in the middle of that screencap that were deleted before this was taken.  In fact, the whole "as an American" thing was in response to a post of mine, though I don't remember what.  I might have eventually made my way to this place before, but surely not now.

http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3tslvz/

Here is a link about a book co-authored by Camp Quest's executive director:

http://parentingbeyondbelief.com/

If Oklahoma Joe's, a Christian company, doesn't want to assist agnostics/atheists/"humanists" (you know, "secularists") with raising raising money, it's there choice. My beef would be the tardiness of the decision, but not the decision itself.

And if need be I will double/triple my order to offset any "boycott"...

It may well, from what I understand from doing some reading, something that a lawsuit might come to pass on it.  An organization in Michigan had something similar happen and I believe wound up settling out of court.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2013/04/08/camp-quest-discriminated-against-in-oklahoma/

And you can see how quick the KC "mothership" disavowed the BA location.

https://twitter.com/OklahomaJoesBBQ/status/321454373433638912

We are in freakin Oklahoma and some people are shocked that one of its restaurants would not want to support a "pro science", er, "free thinker", er, agnostic, er, atheist, organization?  I guess being a Christian means you are anti-science and not a "free thinker". If Camp Quest was truly up front, why not have Oklahoma Joes put in the flyer CQ caters to atheists and agnostics, instead of the ambiguous info that ultimately appeared.

so you are okay with this place agreeing with helping needy children send a science summer camp that simply lacks the religious element of other camps, then backing out of the deal, as well as kicking the supporters out simply because it was discovered they were atheists?

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2

And also, all are welcome, it doesn't cater to atheists. The info given is exactly what the camp is.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2

Rally Rhema.  It's a Chick-fil-a disaster in Broken Arrow.

#1.  If you are going to offer fundraising for groups, and you have some political, religious, or other allegiance to withhold, you need to disclose that in your fundraising contract.
#2.  It is your DUTY to research the organizations before you agree to a partnership, to determine if they are eligible under the law, and conform to your standards.
#3.  Once you engage, it is unethical to break that engagement.

It seems that Joe's fundraising contract needs to include a space for religious affiliation.  I am curious as to how this would play out if it was a Jewish or Muslim summer camp?

Hmm.  Last I checked, religious affiliation and discrimination therein was unlawful.

Maybe I'm wrong.

This is going to be a PR nightmare for Oklahoma Joe's.  It already is for the mothership evidently, as they were blamed from the outset until they disavowed this location.

Broken Arrow location, PR nightmare not so much.  Since BA is a bedroom community, I suspect church-goers would continue to support Oklahoma Joe's, perhaps more so now that there is a crap storm circulating over this.

I've eaten there twice and wouldn't go out of my way to eat there, the food is not that spectacular.  Last time was a couple of weeks ago just prior to a meeting at the hospital out there.  Other time, MC and I stumbled onto them on a Sunday when we were out on a ride on our Harleys.  If not for that I seriously doubt I would have eaten there yet.

I do agree this was very poorly handled and they should have simply finished out this obligation and refused to do another in the future if it offended the ownership's religious sensibilities.  But hey, he's free to piss off whomever he chooses.

Agree. Not only unethical, but just plain rude.

They have lost my business as well.

An organization can refuse the right to affiliate with another organization based on anything.

If you are a business that sells children's toys and you offer fund-raising programs for schools and other "child-oriented" non-profit organizations, you are perfectly within your rights to refuse a fund raising partnership with the North American Man-Boy Love Association, even though they are a "child-oriented" non-profit organization.

I disagree.  I am willing to bet that no one is going to want to touch this with a 10 ft pole.  The event had already started and several people had purchased their meals under the false impression that they were supporting the group.  The proper course of action would be to pay the group for those meals purchased durring the event or at least refund the cost of the meals to the patrons.  Joe is not doing that.  That is dishonest behavior.

Joe needs to make good.  That is the only ethical course of action.

That's my guess as well.
Heck, even Guido said he'll do his best to offset any "boycott" buy supersizing his order.
Spin:   It's Oklahoma Joes that's being persecuted here, not the other way around.
Much like supporting hate groups has been the most successful campaign in Chick-Fil-Eh's history.

Edit: Per the missouri Oklahoma Joe's page http://www.oklahomajoesbbq.com/history/
 (http://www.oklahomajoesbbq.com/history/)

The Kansas City location the co-founder bought out the guy who owns the Oklahoma locations (Joe Davidson)

So it is different ownership.

I'm okay with them not wanting to sponsor the event. I think they signed off on the fundraiser without vetting the organization properly and that is their own problem.

They should agree to host a fundraiser night in the future for the same group. They will come out in a better light and the organization will raise a lot more money than they would have the first time.

That would be the mature way to handle it.

I don't have the brain capacity or memory to keep track of all the affronting businesses that this or that ideology or "right thinking people" are boycotting at any given time.  My purchase decisions are mundanely made on the basis of patronizing those who have a product I want or need.  That said, if some business engages in politics or funds things with which I am strongly opposed, I tend to quietly stop doing business with them – no rally, no petition, no Facebook rants, no picketing, no rousing the rabble on street corners.

Here a business failed to properly vet a group/event it agreed to sponsor.  They've compounded their error by bungling the attempt to fix their mistake.  Hopefully they will try to make it right as best they can – although inevitably some will be upset no matter what they do now.  However, next time I'm craving the best ribs in Tulsa (sorry, Burn Co, I don't eat lunch at 10:30), I'll head out to BA and eat at Oklahoma Joe's because my love of ribs knows no political bounds.

JMO, Albert G's is better than Oklahoma Joe's.  ;)

Someday there might be an Albert G's downtown.    They got the floor poured a couple weeks ago.

And only a year or so behind schedule.

Try Back Alley again.  They have a new smoker and a new pitmaster.  Had their ribs on Friday and they were excellent, in fact, the whole meal was excellent.  Ribs, pork, beans and fried green tomatoes. Topped it off with a nice Tank 7 or three (wife was driving).

I like Back Ally, but haven't had the ribs in a while.  Will give them a try.  I think Back Ally recently introduced an all you can eat rib night (on Tuesdays?).  Uh oh.

That's promising. Nice place but I didn't care for the BBQ when I went several months ago a couple of times. It had no smoke and was really fatty and greasy. I will have to try again.

The hot sauce also had no heat, has that improved?

Good to know.  Will try them again since you recommended it.

They have every right to do exactly what they did.

And let's not act like this was some long standing obligation.  The article reads as if this entire thing came together in less than a month.  That group can put together another "dinner", in a couple of weeks, at a restaurant that shares their beliefs.  Sucks it had to play out how it did, but that's life.  Sometimes things don't happen smoothly.

As for the kids, let's PLEASE not act like this is just so devastating to them.  First, that group will make the money somehow, and the kids will get to attend.  Secondly.....science camp?  I wouldn't exactly call that something that every child is entitled to.

I hope your wife was driving. Tank 7 is 8.5% ABV.  (I just happen to have an empty bottle in the "to be recycled" area.)

I certainly hope that it's a Camp for Adult "kids" Did you read their response and profanity laced rant?

One of the Managers dropped the ball by not being able to decipher the innuendo's written clearly, as to not fully disclose the non Christian beliefs that this camp is about. (not that there's anything wrong with that)

Meh! Not that 10% percent of a two to three hour event is going to make all that much differance, in little Timmy learning how dirt grows flowers.

Also. If you find yourself up 71st at 225th E Av. Swing in "Smokies" BBQ "It's good stuff Maynard"

The more I follow this, the more contrived this whole thing seems to me. Go to Camp Quest websites, and compare the messages there to what was actually stated in the Joes' flyer. I do not see the word "atheist" or "agnostic" anywhere. Why not include it? Only "free thought" and "natural wonder". Wow, that sounds appealing to me, because who doesn't support those descriptions. This is from the "history" page:


http://www.campquest.org/history

Has anyone said that Joes knew this about CQ before agreeing to sponsor the event? And about this fundraiser, if I happened to eat there that night, would part of my purchase be used to support that organization? And how am I to be protected from supporting that outfit which plainly contravenes my belief system? IF, and I mean IF, Oklahoma Joes did not know this before hand, how can anyone fault them for backing out? Grizz is right, if Joes should be faulted, it's because it did not perform due diligence. And besides, could you imagine being a worker at Joes, Christian, Jew or whatever, and hearing, "Hey kids, come to our camp because there is no God"?

And what about Mardel's or Hobbt Lobby, or St. Francis Hospital, should they be required to hold fundraisers for CQ if asked? There are far too many open-ended issues here, but I guess since it involves a Christian place...

And here is a link to some folks offering to help out CQ.
http://www.stiefelfreethoughtfoundation.org/about.html

Can you link that?

It's one of the links already posted on here.

Opps. I'm sorry. It's not their website. Must be one of the followers who took it quite personally.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd/2013/04/camp-quest-oklahoma-kicked-out-of-their-own-fundraiser-by-christian-business-owner/

No.. It was only if you showed the flyer to the cashier.
Sorta like how like if you show your church bulletin to many restaurants on Sunday, that restaurant will supposedly donate 10% to that church.

There's quite a leap from "agreed to" and "required."

I did not know you were a truther.

Oh I agree with the distinction. Some people are claiming constitutional violations, which to me implies a certain action be taken (or else).

You fail to understand the distinction here, it is not an atheist camp.  It is a science camp, and encourages free thought and humanistic values, which are not religious or nonreligious specific.  These are ideas that are shared on both sides of the line.  It's not about saying "hey, there's no god."  Granted, the whole concept was brought about to give kids an alternative to all of these "let me shove my beliefs down your throat" Christian camps, but it's not about pushing any religious or anti-religious dogma.  And yes, Joe's was fully informed on what the camp was, they received a brochure and full disclosure on the camp.  His decision to break his deal had absolutely nothing to do with the camp, but the fact that he found out that horrible, horrible atheists, oh no, were involved in it.  Run for the hills and lock up the kids, the atheists have arrived.  So you tell me, is it legally acceptable for someone to break an agreement with you, costing you money, time, and materials, simply because they find out you are Catholic?  Or do you make it clear to everyone you do business with that you are Catholic before doing so?

Can you link to the brochure you said Joes had? I would like to see it.

Oh I understand completely what is going on, and have some problems with Joes' due diligence. If it was given a brochure and they didn't read it, okay. But I read the flyer; did you? Did you see the word atheist or agnostic? Did you? If no, why not. If CQ is all about being up front, why didn't they announce for all of Oklahoma and Joes' patrons to see right on the damned flyer? I will tell you, because this is Oklahoma and that would turn people off.  These people called themselves anything BUT what they truly are and opted for the ol' euphemism. Bait and switch and misleading/misdirection. If I went into Joes that night and saw that flyer, would I have any idea that at the root of their group was to be a foil for groups like the Boy Scouts? Nope. They kinda left that language out of the damned flyer as well. What pisses me off is if I went in there and spent money, and later found out a portion of it went to CQ, I would be screaming at someone.

Joes' ultimate decision, though, I have no problem with. If Joes said "FU" to the group BEFORE agreeing to host the event--would you even know about it or asked why? This whole thing is another way for some group of people to b!tch about someone being Christian and unbelievably living up to their principles. This is Oklahoma, and it is largely Christian.

As for personalizing it, if I went to Joes and said "I am Catholic and want to raise money to send a group of kids on a mission trip to Jamaica to build homes", and they said NO, "because you are Catholic". I would just freakin move on. It's their business, and Joes is under ZERO obligation to do anything to help me or my causes. If I am out some commitment capital, okay. I'll moan. But sheesh, the whole "I'm going to boycott Joes over this" bullsh!t is just noise.

Here's a news story on this event.

http://www.fox23.com/news/local/story/Broken-Arrow-business-says-faith-gets-in-the-way/vAcwMQrIzUCFekpYFVA8xA.cspx

Obviously you still don't understand, IT IS NOT AN ATHEIST CAMP, and stop with the whole agnostic crap, you don't want to get me started on that misuse of a term.  It has nothing to do with turning kids into good little atheists, or trying to get them to affirm their disbelief in deities, it's simply a science camp with a focus for kids to develop critical thinking and learn some humanistic values (you know, be good to your fellow man kind of thing).  They kicked them out AFTER agreeing to let them host the fundraiser because they found out some of the supporters were atheist.  If you really want to know what the camp is, I'll share a little story about a woman who is sending her kid to the camp:

"I just need to say that tonight as I was tucking my 10yr old into bed, completely unaware of the OK Joes BBQ stuff that was happening, she and I chatted for a long while. We were very excited to talk about Camp Quest, which she will be attending this year. She had asked to go to an away camp for the first time and I was so happy to have found a non-religious camp for her. I was explaining to her how the camp is open to all kids, of any religion, race, etc. We talked about the value of diversity and how wonderful it is! I explained that at Camp Quest, she will not be told what to think, and that her own thoughts and feelings will be treated with respect and with as much value as every other child at camp. We talked about respecting the differences in others, that there must be hundreds of thousands of belief systems among people, and how it is important for us to be tolerant of other's freedom to believe as they choose. We talked about many other things related to this. Later I learned of the incident at OK Joes BBQ. I am very sad that this has happened. I feel angry, anxious, and so much more... Lets hope that the kids going to camp do not experience any fallout from this thing. "

And as far as the brochure, I've got some here, but I don't know of any that are online.  And no, they don't talk about atheism, because, once again, that's not what it's about.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/atheist-summer-camp-heaven-earth-nonbelievers/story?id=17067039#.UWVnFzeJnTo

The woman representing the camp said on the news last night. That it was Joes wife that signed off on the flyer.

You need to do a little more homework.

Because that is EXACTLY what it is.

There is a difference between a non-religious camp and an atheist camp.

The TV had an interview with a Dad who said they are Christians but their kids attend this camp every year. He didn't seem to think it was an atheist camp, but a camp focused on science.

I think poorly of Joe Davidson now. His wife agreed to this fundraiser at his restaurant and he stepped in after it had started and said no. I think he showed very poor judgment and has come across as a donkey in trying to defend himself. Yes, he has a right to not do fundraisers for any group, but when your wife agrees to one and you over-react, you deserve to lose my business.

He should apologize and write a check for the amount the group would have normally made, then shut up about his religion. Anything else proves he is a donkey.   

And the fellow you are referring to who was interviewed is a life-long friend of mine and Christian.  Another life-long friend of mine runs that CQ camp.  Here's friend #1's mention of the Fox 23 interview from his FB page:


What you run into when you mention "atheist" may be just as much or moreso ignorance of what atheism is rather than intolerance.  I believe many people mistake it for devil worship, animal sacrifice, and worse.

Belief in God is one thing. Belief in Joe is another.

Why would a restaurateur alienate a large percentage of potential customers?

In one breath the story says "people not otherwise traditionally religious" and in the next
it's "they don't believe in God," so even the person who wrote the ABC story seems confused.

If Oklahoma Joe's thinks they can put the genie back in the bottle they will just soil themselves further, but they seem blinded by the pursuit.

Somewhere else outside Oklahoma, I'd be worried about a large percentage of customers being alienated.  In Broken Arrow, I really don't see it hurting their business.  Again, I think many Christians around here think "atheist" means "devil-worship".  I suspect it's a very small number who won't return as a result of this bungled fund-raiser.

That said, this will blow over in a matter of weeks and a year from now most people won't even remember it happened if you asked them.  Short attention spans and I'd bet out of people who publicly say "I'm boycotting" 25 to 50% don't end up doing it.

Because to some people, religious beliefs > money.

Apparently you are the one that needs to do the homework. This isn't some new thing to me that I came upon after watching the news, I'm involved with these people, I help promote it at my events, I know people who send their kids to this.  I actually know what I'm talking about, you on the other hand, seem to like talking out of your a$$

Funny, because the same group boycotted Chic-Fa-le and I would say that the vast majority still haven't touched that place.

I'm not sure what is going on up in seattle, but that is not what it is about here.

From the History of Camp Quest:

FIG being an Atheist organization

From Camp Quest Oklahoma's website:

 Camp Quest Mission Statement:

I think my point is now proven out. There is enough subterfuge, euphemistic BS about this group that we in here are unsure what CG's true intentions are. As for atheists=devil worshipping, that sort of discussion gives little respect to "free thinking" Christians in here. I would like to think many know the difference between an atheist and a satanist.
Sh!t, even that "free thinking" label CG tags itself is insulting. Am I not a "free thinker", because I am Catholic? How about my Catholic wife, is she "anti-science" or not a "free thinker", even though she is a physician? Better yet, is she less of a free thinker or less science-oriented than those at CG or its supporters? Make it more local, is CG more about science than RM, an environmentalist? This is precisely why CG needs to just stop with the watering down of its views, Man Up, and just say what they are.

And RM, my sense is that Joes will be just fine without the "atheist" or "atheist supporter" client base. If enough people catch on to this story, it will probably improve their business.

I didn't go to Oklahoma Joes before it was cool.

Yes, it was designed to give atheist children a place to go without the religious crap of all of the other camps.  That does not make it some kind of atheist indoctrination camp.  It's a science camp.  The only reason you can really call it an atheist camp is because it lacks religion, but hell, if we go down that route, then need to start calling our pets atheist pets simply because they lack a religion.    So what is basically being said is that this camp is not being supported because it doesn't make religious claims.  Gotcha.

My dog is a Catholic. 

The cats are all atheist though.

One of them definitely learned it from my pack of heathens I'm sure

(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxs0kr8MeY1r9ovkao1_500.jpg)

I may approach them to see about helping with a fundraiser to send me to "Burning Man" camp.
I hear it's a hoot.

That is categorically untrue. Do I need to pull some more information directly from the organization you claim to speak for?

A camp lacking religion is called a camp lacking religion.

A camp which says that it was created specifically for atheists, discusses how to avoid being bullied by christians, and has classes on how to thinking critically and not supernaturally is an atheist camp.

There are Christian zealots and Muslim Zealots, but I've never known a Zealot more kooky than you and I'm starting to find Scientology with it's spaceships and h-bombs more centered in reality.

Atheists are always so feisty.  ;)

Camp Chapel

(http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/underwire/images/2008/04/01/pastamonster_2.jpg)

My step-cats are from satan, does that make them atheists?   :o  ;)   ;D

Such a cop out.  There are TONS of camps out there that don't bring up religion at all.  YMCA camps for instance.

No.  Satanists have faith.

Best post in this thread. 

Bad analogy.
Young Man's Christian Association

The mission of the YMCA is to put Judeo-Christian principles into practice through programs that build healthy spirit, mind, and body for all.

The YMCA is for:
Youth Development - nurturing the potential of every child and teen
Healthy Living - improving the nation's health and well-being
Social Responsibility - giving back and providing support to our neighbors

The Y is a powerful association of men, women, and children of all ages and from all walks of life joined together by a shared passion: to strengthen the foundations of community.

To learn more about the Y or to find a YMCA near you:
www.ymca.net

Except for the whole Young Men's Christian Organization thing.  ;)

Perhaps the Y day camps aren't at least I don't recall there ever being an overt Christian message at the Westside Y Day Camp.  However, the YMCA's Camp Takatoka is very overtly Christian-oriented, or at least it was when I went in the late '70's and early '80's. 

YMCA MISSION: To put Christian principles into practice through programs that build healthy spirit, mind, and body for all.

I'm done with you.  You really have no clue what you are talking about.

Right...considering that YMCA stands for Young Men's Christian Association.

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ymNre4gQbT4/ULvjgL4AfOI/AAAAAAAADKo/9GJeCViq5Ww/s1600/Facepalm_9a08b9_59080.jpg)

Me thinks his name is not Stanley  :D

I have a feeling this has not been a good week for him.

So, if a camp is open to everyone, including atheists, discusses how to avoid being bullied (though I really don't know where you are getting this from, I'm starting to think you are making stuff up at this point), and how to think critically (yeah, no classes on how to not think supernaturally), it is an atheist camp?  THIS IS A SECULAR SCIENCE CAMP.  Just because atheists are involved in something does not make it a specifically atheist organization, event, or activity.  

Far as I'm concerned. The best one for kids these day's is "Boot Camp"

I spoke to about 60 eighth graders today. It was awful. At least ten of them laid their head on their desks and slept before I even started. Five or six girls sat together and just whispered to each other the whole speech.

I fear for our future.

Back on topic...

I don't think Joe did anything legally wrong, although it would be an interesting and embarrassing trial if the camp were to sue for religious discrimination.

He made a commitment (or at least his wife did on behalf of the restaurant). He then backed out of the commitment. He was a donkey about it.

That is all I need to know.

Nice friendly discussion going on in the World's comments

http://www.tulsaworld.com/article.aspx/Broken_Arrow_restaurant_pulls_plug_on_fundraiser_over/20130410_11_A9_CUTLIN182923

34 times. 

That's how many I know won't be going back...but in fairness, almost 20 didn't really like it all that much anyway....it just doesn't even get close to Albert G's, so why bother??

I buy more than the average amount of BBQ. I throw two parties a year and use different BBQ caterers (one of the parties is for 200 people). I also have bought BBQ for my son's soccer team and parents every summer. I ate at Oklahoma Joe's in Broken Arrow only a couple of times, but went to the Downtown location a few more.

I have never used Oklahoma Joe's for catering, but was going to try them this year. Not now.

I realize that missing out on a few orders from me won't hurt his business much and Joe will probably now go full blown marketing BBQ for evangelical customers. But if enough people like me don't patronize his restaurant now, maybe he will have learned his lesson.

First Baptist and Rhema are big enough to support Joe...they have pretty much taken over the town anyway.

Hmm..  Does this mean any Jewish kids activities need not apply?  "They didn't disclose". Can you imagine if he asked every fundraiser that came in if they were a Muslim or Jewish organization.  Sounds like that's the future of OK Joe's fundraiser form.  Then again..  I wouldn't want a Christian organization like Westboro Baptist fundraising at any place I owned.  But that's just because of what they do not because of their religious beliefs.  To him, this camp = my Westboro.

I have alot more to worry about than where I am going to eat based on someone making a capitalistic business venture and than actually doing what HE wants to do and not considering what the VILLAGE wants or whose little feelings might get hurt...good for him I plan on having him cater out next party and also will be ordering lunch for the entire office today from them!

So how many people is the "entire office"?  2? 3?

Mixing politics, religion and capitalistic business has always been a bad idea unless you intend to commit to the religion or politics more than the business like Michaels. The fact that this is often argued on this forum explains a lot about Tulsa. I won't eat there because of his blunder. If he had kept his mouth shut I wouldn't know how stupid his business was but he opened it and removed all doubt (credit to Mark Twain).

Business is business. Religion is business. Politics is business. One of those three combinations is pure.

Spot on and agreed....

Then why not make the decision based on getting good food then, and actually giving your co-workers something they can enjoy, with NO religious implications whatsoever..?...call Albert G's.


Worked at a place one time where the boss would buy everyone lunch from time to time, but would order from Sooner Barbeque on 51st, when they were around.  Talk about a passive aggressive assault on the culinary senses!!  I guess he could have actually liked their 'stuff', but way over half the group wouldn't participate.  Sounds like a little of that may be going on here....

Who really cares (apparently Joe)?

The point is that he (or his wife) made an agreement with this group.  The group then rallied their membership, facebook peeps, twitter twits, and the public to show up.  Lots of people showed up, and after many of them got their meals, Joe exclaimed that he would not pay the group.

Very cut-N-dry situation here.  His reasoning was secondary to the fact that he redacted a commitment to a group of customers and engaged poor poor customer relations.  The fact that he kept money intended for a non-profit organization is unethical.  When the customer made their purchase, they did so on the premise that 10% of the funds would help the group that they drove to Oklahoma Joe's, and purchased a platter of food, to help.

It's not rocket science.

Agree, they should honor that, I would think that would be some sort of "contract" verbally they could be sued for...but whatever was earned by this, as a general rule of customer service should be given to the group regardless..

If Joe thought that he was mislead (and truth is, NONE of us know if he was or not), he has every right to pull out during the event.

As for my YMCA example above, bad example.  I was in a hurry, and was basing my comment on personal experiences at the YMCA camps, where religion wasn't a factor at all.  That said, I'm sure there are hundreds of summer camps in Tulsa that don't have a thing to do with religion.

Atheists don't have a thing to do with religion either...that is kinda their point.

OTOH, if he breached a contract...

Which would pretty much mean he is incompetent at running the business that constitutes his chosen career path.  There is no scenario where he doesn't come out smelling bad on this deal....

And that is exactly the problem.  Trust me, the group gets turned down by plenty of organizations for their lack of beliefs, and it is never a big deal, it's pretty much expected.  It's the fact that they threw them out in the middle of the fundraiser because of it after they agreed to it is the problem.

Wow, he is incompetent based on this ONE event? Must be nice being perfect. If the manager was misled or operated under a mistaken belief, then as a matter of law there can be no contract to breach. People here have mentioned the contract, has one been published? What was the consideration given up by CQ for the contract?

In my line of work, people make mistakes all the time, and the idea that a mistake must equal financial liability (money changing hands) is incorrect.  CQ is attention whoring right now.

Maybe the lesson learned here is that Joes, and all businesses for that matter, needs to doubt all innocent-enough sounding organizers that "free think" and assume that expression is a euphemism for atheist--because GOD knows they will not put that information in their damned flyer.

Well maybe THAT explains why their flyer does not have the word "atheist" in it--because CQ learned being up front gets them turned down. Also, "plenty of [other] organizations" turning CQ down would lend credence/support to Joes' decision to cancel the event . Once groups know what CQ is really about, they turn CQ down as expected.

No, not just this one - there are several "events" wrapped up into this one... first is the fact that whatever he used to do at the barbeque contests didn't make the trip to the restaurant.  Every contest - and, granted, there have only been two that impinged on my consciousness - where I got to taste his food, I was blown away by how good it was.   Then the restaurant....well, it has been a pretty big disappointment.  I'm betting that he used better grade materials at the contests than he does in the restaurant....maybe economic considerations overrode great food...??  Maybe changed the methods and/or recipes??

And I am not concerned about a legal contract.  If his wife is authorized to make that type of commitment, then he is obligated morally and ethically to fulfill it - she making the commitment in his name is the same as if he made the commitment.  Or would that be a case of the concept of selective morality?

If she is NOT, then he has another management issue that he hasn't resolved.  Which is another issue of management competence.... 


Oh, yeah.... Yes, it is....nice being perfect!

Guido, unilateral mistake doesn't get them off the hook. Under Oklahoma law, in order to rescind a contract because of a mistake, the mistake has to be mutual. Also, to find a contract here is so easy it is trivial. You want consideration? Here it is: in return for Joe's promise of a share of the proceeds, the group agrees to hold its event at Joe's. Win-win and plenty of consideration to spare, especially when the organization performed its end of the bargain.

Even if Joe's wanted to claim fraud, they would need to prove that the organization intentionally misled them as to some material fact. It is highly unlikely that a court would find the lack of religion of the organizers to be material, and it is even more highly unlikely that a court would find a misrepresentation of a fact that is publicly broadcast on the organization's web site. I gather you don't practice contract law.

You want to have this debate with me? How about starting with the statute governing the definition of "mistake" (taking into account negligence is not sufficient); then focus on whether the remedy for the mistake is reformation, rescission, cancellation; then perhaps focus on the existence of a mutual mistake of fact arising from a failed meeting of the minds; then take into account the legal distinction between "motive" and "consideration"--as I remain unconvinced there was even an enforceable contract here. I will not get into the fraud issue because neither you nor I know the circumstances or statements/representation which were made (also, because there are several additional elements needed to establish fraud you overlooked in your post See 15 O.S. Sec. 58). Save your case law research and look at OUJI  23.33, 23.35, then you may want to rethink your view on unilateral mistake.

And best of luck proving your damages if there was a breach, other than perhaps some reliance. All I see is a crappy situation as a result of Joes not looking into CQ more timely.
  
If you want to keep it simple first, review OUJI, starting with:
Consideration:
http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=74210

So let's have it out. And yes I practice contract law, so can you back pocket the condescension?

You need to lighten up a bit here, because I think you are reaching a bit now. Being incompetent to means lacking skills or ability. Because he may not have brought his "A" game to the restaurant biz doesn't make him incompetent. And besides, I really like Joes, so maybe it is you who is incompetent at rating good barbecue, or maybe it's me, if we use your broad brush.

Fact is, your upset because assuming the very worst here, Joes failed to exercise due diligence or even used poor judgment. That's not incompetence, that's what happens in life. 

It shouldn't matter.  Might as well turn someone down for any philosophical difference if this is the case.  Even other Christians.

Even Catholics!  I love the circular logic in this 'kerfluffle'...

I once donated the use of my shuttle bus to a fund raiser for cancer research, shuttling visitors from parking to activities. The driver, the gas, the bus and my time. It had a logo on the side of the bus for my business of a grizzled old sailor with a cigarette hanging out of his mouth.

Once the trips began one person noticed the small cigarette and complained to the sponsors. That person held a grudge against me because I had not used him to paint the logo. I was asked to remove the logo or leave. It was stupid, selfish and shortsighted of them but I nonetheless used masking tape to cover the egregious part of the image.

My point is that the fund raising personnel were so afraid of their "base" that they were willing to offend those who had freely offered services to help them to avoid conflict with bullies. It happened with the breast cancer people, it happens in Congress it happens everywhere that someone feels obligated to punish those who dare to disagree with them.

I fail to see any defense of this businessman's actions as legitimate. He made a commitment and didn't honor it. Whether it passes muster in a court of law is not as important as how it was viewed in the court of public opinion.

  It was bad form.

You know there are plenty of people that think that the Pope is the Anti-Christ and that Catholics are weird and deluded and not really Christians.  What would your perspective be if he had done this to a Catholic group?

Guido, you're still talking around the issue. How can there be a mutual mistake where every essential element of the contract was based on facts both sides understood. Again, taking it back to Contracts I: Offer: In return for your organization holding its event at Oklahoma Joe's, we'll pay 10% of the gross proceeds to your organization.  Acceptance: Okay, we'll host our event at Oklahoma Joe's. Consideration: The promise to pay 10% is consideration for the promise to hold the event at Joe's. The promise to hold the event at Joe's is consideration for the promise to pay 10%. The deal was agreed to and even performed by the organization.

So, what is the mistake? How is that mistake mutual? How is a mistake by Oklahoma Joe's as to its own motivations relevant to the contract? If there is no mutual mistake, how are the remedies for mutual mistake relevant? Is this not just a case of buyer's remorse?

I am well aware of the jury instructions you cite. They don't support your argument. The first element of 23.35 requires the party seeking to get out of performing its contract to prove that it was not negligent in entering into the contract in the first place. In this case if Joe's only wanted to support Christian organizations, it should have said so up front, something it has not claimed to have done. It also could have conducted minimal research on the organization seeking to hold an event there and declined to enter into the agreement based on that research. That didn't happen. The third element of 23.35 requires the mistake to be common to both parties or that there was fraud or unfair conduct on the other party's part. Joe's did not claim fraud. There can be no serious claim that both parties were mistaken about the organization's non-religious nature. So how does 23.35 support Oklahoma Joe's claim for rescission?

The fraud instruction in 23.33, if it applies at all, is a double-edged sword. Only if the organization falsely claimed to be a Christian organization or if Joe's stated up front that it only supported Christian organizations, the organization might be guilty of fraud for not disclosing its atheist roots, excusing Joe's from performing. Since our hypothetical here is based only on facts that have been disclosed by the parties to the dispute, and since Joe's has not said that the organization intentionally misled it, only that it didn't want to support an atheist organization, it can't very well claim fraud. On the other hand, for Joe's to wait until the event was taking place to pull out of the deal shows such egregious bad faith that it might infer an intent to not perform the contract at the time it was entered into. That would be more than a mere breach of contract but would be the tort of fraudulent inducement. Prudent business owners are very careful about such things.

You didn't previously mention damages as a problem. Damages are simple enough to demonstrate, especially because the event was taking place when management backed out of its deal. Multiply the gross proceeds of sales to the participants times the agreed-upon percentage, plus pre-judgment interest. Perhaps offset it by the fair value of the publicity the organization has received.

Only by making up a misrepresentation claim out of whole cloth can Joe's defend itself. It is very difficult to claim misrepresentation when the other party has accurately published its position. It was simple enough for posters on this forum to find out what the organization stood for. It would have been equally simple for Joe's. They didn't bother, which takes them out of the purview of 23.35.

retread.... it's a science camp, not an atheist camp.

If there's a music camp where no religious hymns are sung..  is it an <dr evil>atheist music camp</dr evil>?
If there's a sports camp where nobody mentions Jesus... is it an <dr evil>atheist sports camp</dr evil>?
If there's an art camp where nobody paints the virgin Mary... is it an <dr evil>atheist art camp</dr evil>?

If two bible thumping Christians have a discussion about anything wherein nobody asks "what would Jesus do"..  are they having an <dr evil>atheist discusion</dr evil>?

(http://web-images.chacha.com/images/Gallery/5507/who-are-the-most-likeable-movie-villains-588174254-jan-17-2013-1-600x450.jpg)

If the music camp's mission statement starts with "a camp for atheists and kids of atheists" then yes, it's an atheist music camp.

Actually, I think he really just made an error in judgement that will end up costing him some customers, but gain him others, so the net result will probably be no worse than a wash...and due to some of the ones he is likely to gain, and the preponderance of that attitude in OK, he may well be ahead by a noticeable amount.  This could be a sound business decision that will benefit him.


I guess I could be in error about him, but past discussions about barbeque put Albert G's at or near the top in every conversation for a wide group of people, I suspect I am more mainstream than not on that issue.  And since I don't really care that much for OK Joe, that just means I have a little more finely parsed selection mechanism than many/most....

And in the past, he has demonstrated the ability to make magnificent barbeque - currently, for whatever reason, he has chosen not to continue it today...it isn't the same as when I have eaten it in the past.

It may be a quantity/quality attitude.  I'm glad that BurnCo has avoided that route.

I am not talking around anything. It's just that you were all over the map on the law in my opinion. I was also responding to your issues by setting straight your legal points of view, as well as positing several questions which work against your points. For example:

Mistake. You have got to be kidding as to your analysis on mistake being mutual.  Mutual mistakes are frequently found when one party fails to provide enough information to allow the other party to make an informed decision. This would be the classic case if CQ left out information it knows would tip off folks like "Christian" Joes of their true atheist beliefs.

Fraud.  You only set out maybe 3 of the factors to establish that defense to contract, presumably the fraud towards inducement to contract. You omitted several elements or even factors to be considered that I had to clarify for the benefit of those reading this (and perhaps trying to learn something). Here is a citation to general authority I frequently cited to on this fraud and deceit question:

McCain v. Combined Communications Corp. of Oklahoma, Inc., 1998 OK 94, ¶ 11, 975 P.2d 865, 867:
a) Defendant made a material representation; b) that the representation was false; c) Defendant knew it was false or made it recklessly, without regard for its truth; d) Defendant made it with the intention that Plaintiff act upon it; and e) injury was suffered by Plaintiff as a result.

Citing, inter alia, 76 O.S. § 3; See also, Bankers Trust Co. v. Brown, 2004 OK CIV APP 1, ¶ 14,


Consideration. I have no idea what the terms of the contract were, if both sides came out and said, "You give me this, I give you that", OR if Joes just said, "yeah, I like to help kids, have your fundraiser here".  If it was the latter--which I believe is the truth and not some contrived/factually devoid tit for tat--that is motive and not consideration. No contract. For everyone, this is what Oklahoma's jury instruction 23.8 says about consideration:



Damages. I raised this issue because folks having been talking about Joes paying CQ money for canceling the event. Also, you mentioned that Joes made a representation to share the proceeds. I just assumed you would argue that if there was a breach, CQ would presumably argue that they were out the consideration given for the contract and should be allowed to recover that.


I want to add some info on mutual mistake of fact and unilateral mistake, but I am behind now.

(http://www.sustaining-people.com/ESW/Images/nuclear-explosion.gif)

Griz has not been this jazzed on a subject in here in a long time.

Arent verbal contracts still recognized in Oklahoma?

Yes.

try again, it's right in the brochure they give out. http://www.campquest.org/sites/default/files/CQBrochureSept2011.pdf

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2

Compelling link.

Bottom line, and here's the one question you cannot answer: Why did Joes cancel if it KNEW what CQ was all about? Do you and others think Joes knew CQ was atheist, and in some nefarious scheme decided to schedule its fundraiser any way only to pull the rug out on or near the date of the event? Or, was it more likely just a mistake? If it is the former, stock up:

(http://e-learning-for-educators.wikispaces.com/file/view/afdb.jpg/101773035/afdb.jpg)

Apparently, Joes did not want atheists making money off its name or on its property. Period.  

With that said, I will share with you the one thing I have learned in this thread, and that is that charitable giving needs to be reexamined and strictly scrutinized. I will read every damned detail of every sign, brochure, or other document because God (yes, I said God) forbid that if I make a mistake the freakin whiners will come out in full force. And for this group (CQ), seeing how it responded, I will make sure all those I know in my circle give nothing.

I think this one should work
https://www.campquest.org/sites/default/files/cq_brochure_3.2013.pdf
the camp quest site has links to that 404 brochure all over the place

Free thinking at any age.

Oh...the horror...the horror....

"They have to be carefully taught." South Pacific

It's his biz he can do what he wants.....

Camp: Can my group have a fundraiser at you restaurant, we will bring in business and you will gain customers?

Joe: sure! What kind of camp?
camp: we are a camp for children of middle eastern families.  Here is a flier. Here is our website. Here is the name of our national organization.

Joe: sounds great, have at it guys!

:a month later:

Joe:  holy sh!t, you guys aren't Christian.  Leave and I'm not giving you the 10% (according to people that were and aren't trying to sell more BBQ, they were asked to leave and only got their 10% back after angry threats).

Camp: ummm, we are not religious really.  Buwe teach middle eastern thinking, but most of our members are Muslim.

Joe: gtfo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Here is one...

Joe: hey! You guys said you were Christian but you didn't say you were Catholic.  You don't think like me.  Leave.

...........

fify.

Ain't nothing stopping you from raising money/donating to these groups. Have at it, or is it easier to shout at someone else from the bleachers?  :P

I believe that could have easily happened within my lifetime.

Another one.

"Hey, Goldstein! You didn't tell us your organization was Hebrew.  Your website looked like everyone else's except for that candelabra. We don't do kosher. Sorry."

Legality aside, there simply isn't a good defense for his actions.

Then of course. "Hey Mr Brown, the person I talked to on the phone sounded white. I didn't know you were a black group. Get out."

There are reasons for non-discrimination laws.

"I didn't know your group was fat. That's is bad for me."

Perfectly legal.

It has.

Close family friend went to school in rural area in the 50's and 60's where the kids were literally taught that Catholics are Communists.  Many in the area still believe that....

They aren't?

Beat me to it. Glad to see the rights of atheists are getting the complete civil rights treatment. Wow, be a member of an oppressed race confined to involuntary servitude for their lives being equated to atheists. Talk about sh!tting on true victims of discrimination.

Legally aside is probably a good thing because Joes is guilty of not doing a thorough enough review of what a "free thinker" group that runs a children's "secular" camp is really about. Just think if instead of calling it "Camp Quest", which is innocent sounding, they called it "Camp Atheist"? Would Joes had held the fundraiser? And I really like the Jewish stereotypes. You left out the hooked noses and money grubbing...

Yeah everyone is crazy and racist but the guido. In fact the guido is being persecuted. Yeah that's the ticket!

(http://www.bangshift.com/forum/attachment.php?s=b9f46443b05b8ef693973785b36d0a37&attachmentid=12449&stc=1&d=1341624124)

The family and friends I have that are Catholic aren't Communists...don't know about all of the rest of them...

Communists don't typically tolerate religion in general, unless it can be regulated by the state.

That's always been my impression, so the whole concept that they could be Commies just didn't make sense.  Especially since one of them (Monk from the Order of Cistercians) was arguably the best man I have ever known.  (Rev Dan Allen was close second - just my opinion...)

Guido,  it appears that you understand how what Joe did would be bad if he did it to Catholics, Muslims, Jews... but when done to people who are atheists it is OK.  It is their fault because they didn't make it clear enough that they did not advance Christianity (contrary to what you continue to say, advancing atheism is not their mission).  Its THEIR fault they were discriminated against... said everyone who discriminated against someone ever.

At the end of the day, a business owner discriminated against Oklahoma citizens because their religious beliefs were different than his.  In fact, it is the unpopular groups that NEED the protection.  Which is why you have the perception that white Christian males are the persecuted ones (less action needed to protect them).

His biz he has the right to refuse service....

He might want to be careful though.  If he bases that on religion (or even a lack thereof), it violates state and federal law, is my understanding.

He didn't refuse service, in fact, he invited them to stay.  He refused to uphold an agreed upon business transaction, based on religion. 

Completely different.

"I would like to buy that car."   
"Ok, give me $2,000."
"Here is $2,000.  Can I have the keys now?"
"No, you're an atheist."

Shocking. Some people just aren't good with words.

Perhaps if I cared enough I would go find a semi-humorous p-shopped internet pic to try to help you understand.

To play Devil's advocate (no pun intended).

This group advocates free thought, and "humanist values" in the absence of religious, superstitious, or other traditional moral or framework.  That has an impact on how they can allow themselves to define what is moral or ethical.

Joe has taken an action that is contrary to the concept of the ethic of reciprocity established as the foundation of most religions.  In essence he is engaging in "Free Thought" by advancing the concept that his own personal beliefs and thoughts (no matter what they are) overrule the generally accepted moral behaviors of of society (religious or otherwise).

In reviewing the struggle Humanist organizations have in defining what is moral or ethical (http://www.humanistvalues.org.uk/) and the resistance they encourage in establishing such (because after all, it that would require some degree of finite judgement), one has to come to the conclusion that it would be against the philosophy of Humanism and certainly outside of the general concept of Free Thought to pass judgement on Joe for choosing to break an agreement or contract.  While it would be generally accepted under Humanism to treat people with respect, there is no ethical or moral requirement, because there is no foundation for such.

In fact, for Camp Quest to engage in judgement, and the subsequent organized admonishment of Joe shows little respect for Joe's practice of Free Thought.  While it is true that one of the stated values of Camp Quest is "Integrity" of which typically, honesty or virtue are considered components, unfortunately Camp Quest can only use this value in the most basic of ways without promoting some finite definitions of how a person can be judged as honest or virtuous.  For Free Thinkers, the concept of integrity must remain a fluid concept, otherwise it becomes the component of a belief system, and at odds with their mission.

As long as Joe has done nothing that can be considered against the law, Camp Quest is not being true to their "Values" by persecuting him, because they are engaging in judgment based on some belief that there is an established and finite definition of integrity, virtue, or honesty.  Science provides no such definition, so they are acting contrary to the very mission they profess.

To view the situation from a completely scientific position:
Through an exchange of information, not previously evaluated, Joe came to the late interpretation that this group, Camp Quest, posed a danger (right or wrong, it does not matter).  This caused an immediate adrenal response and triggered the self-preservation instinct, causing Joe to flee from his previous agreement.  Joe had a very typical human experience that happens ever day in the animal world.  To uphold his agreement with Camp Quest, would have been un-natural (and therefore un-scientific) because it would require the concept of moral reciprocity, and the realization that his actions would be judged based on established and finite criteria.

Split a piece of wood.

Try again, they were asked to leave.  And essentially what you laid out is what happened

"I would like to hold a fundraiser here"
"Okay, promote my business"
"Your business has been promoted, we are here for our fundraiser"
"No, you can't, you're an atheist"

I don't have time to sit here and just pick at your entire argument, I'll just pull one part out.  Joe's actions can be considered against the laws, so that completely blows this argument out.  You won't see a lawsuit over it because CQ has decided to focus on the kids, not the incident.  They have also taken the stance that they will not endorse any picket, and request that any that are done are to be strictly informative in nature.  So I would say I they are being pretty true to their "values," and are showing quite a bit of integrity. 

I will eat there now.....

Of course you will.  That was understood...

A shop keeper can legally refuse service to anyone they please with or without explanation.  Whether or not it's a good idea is a different discussion.

Correct, but in this case, since he said he did so because of religious beliefs (or lack thereof), he's likely walking the slippery slope, since it could be construed to violate both federal AND state law.  If he'd have kept his piehole shut, no problems.

There are a number of other issues at hand with the legalities of this action, but yes, this kind of situation has been tested in court as discrimination and has been upheld as being so. 

Geez, could you at least speak in more general terms?  How about citing some cases?

There are plenty of examples of employment and religious discrimination, I don't recall hearing about vast amounts of case law as it relates to retailers and doing fund raisers.

I'm not cust, but here are the specifics regarding the law (part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, believe it or not.  It would fall under the part about 'public accomodation'):

http://www.citizensource.com/History/20thCen/CRA1964/CRA2.htm

Here's a cited case...well, at least in the media.

http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2012/04/center_for_inquiry_michigan_at.html

Conan, I do not know of any cases regarding fund raisers specifically.  However, there are many cases that are closely on point.  Without going to cases - the Oklahoma Constitution and Federal Civil Rights Act are directly on point.  A restaurant cannot treat groups differently because of their religious beliefs.  This post is not directed at you (I started it over lunch and just got around to finish it and saw your post), but your post made a good lead in. . .

I feel the need to clear up what appears to be a common confusion:  NO, HE CANNOT REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE HE WANTS.

He runs a public business.  He can refuse service without giving a reason, but if he gives a reason, or through a pattern, a statement, or some other evidence it is understood that he is refusing service for a particular reason or reasons – that reason cannot be one that is protected.  This fight was fought during the civil rights movement.  In short, it was determined that a private shop keeper refusing service to black people was a violation of their civil rights.  Similarly, you cannot refuse service because you are Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Mexican, female, or because you are NOT one of those things.  Assuming, for the sake of argument, that this group wanted to convert as many children to atheism as possible; that right is just as protected as a Baptist trying to convert people to their beliefs.

To the point that no one was asked to leave (a point which some that were there have not acknowledged) – it was made clear to them they were not welcome there.  That the owner did not approve of their camp.  That he was not going to honor his obligation.  And that all of this was because their religious beliefs did not align with that of the owner.  Even if they were not asked to leave and were explicitly told they were welcome there, it remains that they were treated differently by this institution because of their beliefs.  Not only should that be frowned upon by society, it is against the law of the State and the law of the Country.

Oklahoma Constitution §2, Religious Liberty:
“Perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and no inhabitant of the State shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship; and no religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights."

The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin." That includes such rights in “(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station.”

A business cannot treat one group different than another group on the basis of their religious beliefs.  Each protected group is entitled to equal enjoyment of services, advantages, and accommodations. A business cannot treat an atheist group different than Christian group.  If a Christian group would have been allowed to continue their organized and approved gathering and a group with different religious beliefs can not simply because of those beliefs… that is against the law. 

By definition, that is religious discrimination.  It is not different than the Catholic analogy I laid out above.  “I reserve the right to refuse service” has been utilized against Catholics, Irish, Poles, Chinese, blacks (African, islander, or other), gays. . .  It is THEIR fault I am discriminating against them and it is MY RIGHT to treat them different because of their [insert whatever here].  Historically, those arguments have failed and been mocked a couple decades later.

Many in this discussion are just showing interest in the situation and asking what the actual law is/would be.  Others are not really being honest. The argument that they are not protected or that they did something wrong is weak. At least have the courage to say you don’t think this group SHOULD be protected.  "I don't like non-Christians and I don't care if they are treated different because of their religious beliefs."  At lease that statement has conviction and would be an honest statement.

quod erat demonstrandum

Ahhh, but can you cite religious discrimination when a group of people espouses NO religious beliefs?

An athiest is someone who has no belief in a diety, deities, or religion correct? 

Sorry, can't resist.

No problem, a common point.

To retort, most people are atheists as it pertains to all gods but their own.  They have no belief in any other god.  An atheist merely strikes the remaining god from the list.

Seriously though, religious freedom is also interpreted as the freedom to be free FROM religion.  The alternative is a system in which parties are required by the State to pick a religion or face discrimination.  The matter of agnostic/atheist/or seemingly crazy religions being protected is well settled.  What is a bizarre sect today may be an established religion soon enough (see, e.g., protestants, Mormons, and... dare I say it, Scientologists). What is a minority today calling for protection may be a majority soon whining about the protection of everyone else... 

And that's the beauty of the system.

cannon said it...

I would submit that being atheist is a religion of its own.  A belief based on faith that something is so, with no verifiable scientific background or evidence to prove or disprove one way or the other....



I heard that comment one time that the Buddhist's God is so powerful, he doesn't even have to exist!

Thanks CF and Hoss, I didn't have the time at posting to find the relevant information. 

Heir, no, atheism is not a religion, it does not require believing in something, it only lacks the belief in supernatural deities.  That's it.  A person can claim that even the scientifically verifiable is non-existent and still be an atheist.

So, lack of belief in supernatural deities would be different from believing that supernatural deities do not exist...?

(The atheists I have known have all expressed to me that they believed that God - all supernatural deities - do not exist.  But I have only known a few true atheists...most the rest were really agnostic.)

As for part two, "a person can claim scientifically verifiable is non-existent...."  That happens all the time - it is an article of faith with many religions.  I suppose an atheist could believe that, too.  My limited sample didn't show that, though...they were all scientific believers.

And that is the difference between a gnostic atheist and an agnostic atheist.  But then you start getting into philosophy in ways that even the atheist community cannot agree on (trust me, I've seen discussions last for hours on this subject). 

Parsing it into things like agnostic atheism or is it really atheistic agnosticism.... too much, too much.  Well, just let some of them have a couple of good ole fashion, down home Biblical visions and clarification may ensue....  As an engineer, there is way too much "wiggle room" in convoluted logic.... it's like pushing a chain... lots of energy expended, but nothing accomplished.

This has sparked a great discussion.   

Religion is belief system (it matters not what specific religion), based on the the acknowledgement that there exists something greater than the individual human mind. Individual religions incorporate cultural systems, fables, and rituals designed to enforce that belief in a way that all members can comprehend even though it is accepted that they are by nature incapable of comprehensive religious knowledge (just as an ant in your kitchen is incapable of understanding your mind).  Religion is typically the basis for society, because it establishes a world view and cultural rules that allow humans to share similar ethical and moral positions including but not limited to family, sexuality, law, and life itself.  Basically, religion is the acceptance that we are all children of something greater.

Atheism is simply an individual choice NOT to adopt the belief that anything exists greater than the individual human mind or the collective human experience.  It is an existential and purely materialistic, in that "if a thing cannot be proven through observation or scientific evidence, it does not exist."  In atheism, belief is fluid, in that the atheists of the 1500s are very different than the atheists of today, because the science and understanding of the universe has changed.  Atheists are free to define their own ethics and morality, and common moral positions, and are not bound to any cultural standard. 

Personally I know many atheists. Spending a great deal of my youth in the Unitarian church, I watched many of my friends come to adopt a position of existential materialism as they grew up.  Their lives tend to follow similar themes.  Many are not happy that others would accept the concept of something greater than what experience or empirical evidence can show.  This pushes them to evangelize (or educate as they call it) just as other religions do, and fosters the concept (as Heron mentioned) that they may indeed be a religion.  It would be a struggle to be a real atheist, in that our wishes, hopes and dreams are based on a sense of spirit.  I find that religion IS human nature.  From the time we are children, until the day we die, it is necessary to have the faith that there is something more, something beyond what we can see, read, taste, touch, feel or smell.  Our fantasies are our way of reaching for that.  Otherwise life has little value beyond pleasure or pain, and the sensations from acquisition or loss of the material.

No offense Custosnox, but it is my experience that atheists have very sad lives filled with loss and tragedy, not because of any cosmic or supernatural karma, but because society provides very litte space for them.

And yet, many Christians and people of faith blame the atheists for their pain, instead of looking in the mirror.

I'm sure most of us believe that but do we really know for a fact that is true?
 
 ;D

Weak minds feel content to blame others for their failures.  That is not unique to any particular group, religion or political affiliation.

Once a kid understands religion and how it works, the kid will stop praying for the bike.


The kid will steal the bike and pray for forgiveness.

True.  I just state this because it's the primary reason I am no longer affiliated with any religion.  They ALL are judgemental and think theirs is the singular religion.

If people would just realize that Religion and a Church of you're choice, is only a place you go to be fed in the spirit of the Lord you have chose to follow.
No one Religion is the best of all. It is all about you're relationship with the God of you're choice.
I can't pray you into Heaven. Only you can do that. The Bible is a guide line for the way that you can live you're life. If you choose too.
It can be used to uplift or tear down. And many people are very good at doing both.
No Church will ever be perfect for everyone. We are dealing with human beings. And not all will have as much or as little as the next Church member. That is where you're spirit of discernment comes into play. Once again. Yours not theirs.

In my opinion. It comes down to how you treat others. I won't like you any better if I find out that you are Baptist, Catholic or Atheist. If I am treated with respect, Honesty and just all around decency.

Leave my decisions about my Heaven up to me. The Heart is the Temple where all truth resides.

The Q is not bad.....!!

Not really good, either.

What?  It's sprinkled with exclusion.

Kinda pricey for my low budget.  :(

Mine doesn't.

My condolences....


Have you been to Albert G's?  It really is very good - I think you would like it more than "not bad".... and the price/performance ratio is decent, too!

It be good...!!!... ;D

I went there, felt like I overpaid and the food was pretty meh.

Christianity is fairly unique to that view.  Jews, Hindus, Budists, and Muslims, must answer for trespasses beyond simple confession.

Close, but a little off.  It's not that society follows religion, but more the other way around, as a way to control the masses and explain the unknown.

Wow, you really don't know what you are talking about.  First of, it is not a choice, it's simply a matter of believing or not.  Saying it's a choice is one of the most idiotic statements that can be made on the subject.   Beyond that, it is simply the lack of belief in any supernatural deities.  It does not require anything else.  And yes, atheists of the 1500s are very different from the atheists of today, but guess what, so is every freakin one else.  Oh, and in case you didn't notice, all groups are free to define their own ethics and morality, though they all are bound by cultural standards.  The primary difference between atheists and theists in this respect is that theists pretend (well, most believe it, but belief does not make fact) that they have some holy scripture that they base theirs on, therefore making it better than everyone else's. 
and all of that is one of the biggest crock of shite that I've ever seen, and pushed by so many theists that it's truly sad.  I am willing to bet that I know a great many more atheists than you, and on a large part, they tend to be a good deal happier than the theists that I know. (actually, I think there is a study on this out there as well, but just going from memory here and can't back it up)  Of course the general public sees the ones that are outspoken, often truly pissed off about how they have been treated by others.  These folks, and yes, I'm one of them, only make up a small portion of the community (and those who don't even associate with the community, though that does not keep them from being an atheist).  I'm willing to bet that everyone in this forum actually knows several atheists and don't even know it.  Oh, and the group that is trying to push everyone else into atheism fall into the category of atheism known also as anti-theism.  These are the ones that think that religion is inherently toxic.  No, I don't fall into this group.  While I think we would be better off without all of these mythologies, I feel everyone should be allowed their beliefs (or lack there of), as long as these are not forced on others, and do not hurt others.  However, because the angry and anti groups are generally the most vocal, these are the ones that most people think represent the vast majority of us. 

Praying for forgiveness is different than confession.

Really?  Huh...that kind of surprises me.  Sorry to hear you didn't care for it that much....


I still miss Black Jaxx in Oologah...that guy had it dialed in like nobody I have ever seen before or since.  Very sad day when he shut it down.

It's easier to get forgiven than to get permission.
 
 ;D

But how do you get to that point of believing or not?  Do you not study/investigate/learn/analyze the subject first, then achieve a point of view - believing or disbelieving...??  Was there no input that took you from the blank slate you were at birth to the point where you are now?  If there was, then that would have to imply a decision process of some sort involving a choice of some sort.     ??


I find it difficult to believe (no pun intended) that you just spontaneously woke up one day and said "I don't believe" without some kind of previous input, even if subliminal and not rising to a blatantly conscious level...??  How would the neurons arrange themselves in that fashion without some type of previous electrical activity - input...

Very good friend of mine who is very enthusiastically atheist (amazing Mechanical Engineer!!) was raised Catholic and is a product of the Catholic schools.  His input was at least in part from the nuns.... he appears to have lived the cliche of nuns with rulers in school.

Different world - that's engineering.  No faith there, just the Oompa-Loompa's of science doing the hard work!!  The 1% of the population that is maniacally driven to create wonderful things for an unappreciative society.

How do you know he ever believed to begin with?  I know some people who just didn't attend church at an early age and were never 'indoctrinated' into the religious mindset.  So they never had to make a choice, it was there from the start.

Questioning isn't the same thing as choosing.  You read something that doesn't make sense, or you hear something that makes you start to wonder.  I'm not saying it's a spontaneous process, but just as a person doesn't choose to believe in their particular faith, you don't choose to stop believing.  You might choose to start following the tenets of a faith and eventually, though not always, start believing it, but you don't choose to actually believe it.  Don't believe me?  Why not?  Are you simply choosing not to?  Think about it.

Yep.  That's pretty much what I was saying...I "choose not to believe" - actually find it difficult to believe - you came to that belief - or not belief - without having some kind of input.  Even though you may not have been aware of the accumulation of input.  That input had to have started when you were born, 'cause at that point, you were pretty much a blank slate waiting to be written to - unless you were completely different from the other 7 billion of us....  And how can you get from blank slate status to where you are today without input - followed by "action" determined by your interpretation of that input??

I think that maybe people start their belief in faith by what the parental units put one through.  Same thing with non-believers...  At some point, though, people do evaluate what they have been indoctrinated with during childhood, some earlier, some later.  And it may well be a continuous, ongoing process that may lead to an 'inflection' point of some sort...or not.  Some are 'reborn', becoming recommitted to their belief.  Some walk away from the whole thing - like my friend - not believing any more.  Some just keep on their current path.  People not indoctrinated in childhood may continue as is, or change to something different.  There is input that comes at everyone, all the time.  Every piece of that is a bit of information that one uses to build up the experience base - those neural connections.  Making choices whether to accept or reject; embrace or not, each particle of information. 

If you were raised in a church, then somewhere came not to believe, where was that point?  If raised outside a church, certainly there must have been a barrage of input from various church related entities such that there had to be a 'sorting' process - a picking and choosing of which info to accept/believe or not.  (There has been plenty of discussion here about various religious/non-religious concepts.)

Storms are done for the night here in north/central/south/western/eastern Oklahoma....great show!  Much lightning, lots of rain, several cars stuck in the water around the middle of the state.  And a good solid drenching in the rain! 

Beautiful Oklahoma storm night!  Time for a nice, hot bedtime snack!  Hooray for Pop Tarts!!!!!

I challenge you to choose to believe that I'm typing in French, and that French is your native language.

If it is not a choice to believe or not to believe in something, than it just happens?  Help me to understand your statement a bit more.  If it is not a choice, as you contend forcefully, then free will is not at play.  "Fate or faith" would not support your position.

"You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill;
I will choose a path that's clear-
I will choose Free Will."
-Rush

Who cares what his religious views are or if he can't abide the non-believers, infidels or even those that have different Gods and Jesuses.?

Why would anyone want to buy BBQ from a jackhole?

Threadwinner.

Sound of a bell at ringside of a prize fight - ding, ding, ding, ding......

Sweet!

Yet, I read the writings of atheists who believe their system of beliefs is superior to theists and they are quite condescending to anyone who has religious beliefs.

Likely because they're channelling 'an eye for an eye'.  I know Bill Maher is like this.  He states he was raised Catholic, so I guess I see why he is like he is.

All beliefs/non-beliefs do this.  The believers do this mainly because they can't accept the fact that someone doesn't believe in God.  Non-believers do this (I believe) to partially ridicule those who worship a deity, and as payback for those believers who try to push their beliefs on them.  My brother-in-law tried ministering to me until I told him I'd crack him one if he didn't stop.  He hasn't ministered to me since.

I'm not trying to tell you to believe how I believe, so keep your religion away from me.

We are.  What language did YOU think we were talking in??

C'est finis.

D'accord

I disagree, amongst my most truly spiritual friends, they don't speak of their beliefs unless they are asked.  But I tend to surround myself with like thinkers and tend to avoid people with superiority complexes regardless of where that complex stems from.  My beliefs work for me and that's all that matters.  As an aside, some of the most spiritual people I know never or rarely set foot in a religious institution.

I'm very much a believer, but what I believe might get someone else beaten or arrested in 11 states, that's why I don't push it on anyone else. ;) 

The problem is that my experience draws itself from family interaction in this instance.  You'd have to know my family to understand this.

My friends?  Sure, they don't do that.  For the same reason you state (surrounding yourself with like thinkers and other reasons that are unique to each person).

Just saw this on a friend's FB page today:

"Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does"

LIKE

Intellectual Inbreeding School of Thought....??


Sorry...just couldn't resist.

No, I'm far more superior than that.  ;)

You mortals crack me up.

simply claiming it does not equate believing it. Belief comes from life experiences telling you something is true.  Something in your life had convinced you that it is reality. The example of language comes from you being told your entire life that this is the English language, and you will continue to belief that until information you see as factual comes along to contradict that, at which time you may begin to question it, and eventually, possibly, start to belief otherwise, but not by choice.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2

Some people choose to explore out of what they've been fed their entire life, yet others choose not to.  I can choose to listen in to someone who might change long held beliefs of mine, or choose to tune them out. 

It's all semantics, but I'm in a punchy mood this week.

There's still choice and free will involved.

Sometimes it's just a question of "what makes more sense?"  That's how I came to my present conclusion.

With thousands of years to come up with answers, "That's why they call it faith" doesn't fly for me.

And some people have life-changing events or some other epiphany which can lead them back to their original beliefs with even more conviction...or straight to the looney bin.

You just came around to make my argument!!  

If you start to believe it, then if not by your choice, it would have to be against your choice and will....but if you accept the new information (may or may not be facts) it would have to mean that you accepted another set of 'facts' that became your new belief of choice....

I prefer to think of the sky as green, grass is blue, and this is indeed French.  Just 'cause everyone else is wrong.....

Isn't pushing a chain just ever so much fun....?

you obviously didn't use critical thinking here.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2

Extremely critical thinking!  It's part of my belief structure!  (Another side effect of engineering....)

Interesting.  It seems you put much faith in the existential experience manifesting your beliefs devoid of any choice, even though the interpretation of experience requires choice. As Sartre put it, "we are condemned to be free."

I can certainly respect your position, however the argument of how you form your beliefs without exercising choice simply does not compute, in fact it goes against existential analysis.

"What do we mean by saying that existence precedes essence? We mean that man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world – and defines himself afterwards. If man as the existentialist sees him is not definable, it is because to begin with he is nothing. He will not be anything until later, and then he will be what he makes of himself. Thus, there is no human nature, because there is no God to have a conception of it. Man simply is. Not that he is simply what he conceives himself to be, but he is what he wills, and as he conceives himself after already existing – as he wills to be after that leap towards existence. Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself. That is the first principle of existentialism." --Sartre

Read Being & Nothingness, after a couple of hours, you will be able to argue with yourself over the color of the sky.  ;D

Like I said...sky is green, grass is blue....

You are obviously a lost cause on this, but no matter how you spin it, you cannot choose what you believe, and know that you just sound like an idiot when you tell an atheist that they choose not to believe.  In any case, I'm done with this back and forth.

That is an absolutely amazing statement if you really believe it!

He can't help it.  He has no choice in the matter.

Maybe, like the OK Joe's owner, you should leave religions and lack of, out of the conversation.

I have had a fairly "busy" life, and the older I get the harder it is to truly be amazed!  Or even mildly surprised....

It would be really interesting to meet custosnox and visit for a while...that belief would truly amaze me!

It seems that he is a devout atheist who bases his beliefs on faith rather than analytical reasoning or choice.  ;)

He is, however the first atheist I have ever encountered who is willing to discount free will and logical deduction as the basis for his belief system, which makes him a bit of an enigma.

You really don't know very many atheists, do you?  Do a little checking around, because, quite frankly, there are a large number of us who are tired of this "you choose what you believe" tripe.  Seriously, think about it for a bit.  I tell you that I have an invisible, purple unicorn in my backyard that only I can see or interact with.  Do you believe me?  No.  Why?  Because logic tells you that it is far more likely that I'm off my rocker and imagining things (or lying).  That isn't a choice, it's a matter of facts being presented.  If you really think it's a matter of choice, then choose to believe me.  Make that choice to believe that I have an invisible, pink unicorn in my backyard.  Oh, and saying you believe isn't the same thing as actually believing. 

And something else on that, a great many atheists who de-converted did not do so willingly.  Most wanted to believe in the mythology they grew up with, because it gives you a sense of comfort.  They just couldn't do it anymore.  Here is a good example of how that happens. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/magazine/from-bible-belt-pastor-to-atheist-leader.html?pagewanted=all

Not trying to be in any way offensive.  I just don't understand you're rather unique resistance against free will.  Perhaps most of the atheists I know are atypical.  

It is usually impossible to debate an atheist because theists must resort to faith, and that breaks down under logical analysis. At the very core of atheist philosophy is the acceptance of logic over faith.  From the Sophists of ancient Greece who first began to challenge the fables of the gods to the existential movement in Europe, the concept of religion (or lack therof) is based on individual choices made as a result cultural upbringing, social status, logical deduction, education, and experience.  If you argue that becoming an atheist is not a choice, than the same must hold true for becoming a Christian, or Scientologist, or Pagen.  

Here is my difficulty.  I do not believe that anything just happens.  I believe that there is always cause and effect.  I suppose it is my logical weakness, as a result of an almost disastrous Philosophy major from TU.  Thank Dog, I had a professor that guided me elsewhere.  I am extremely familiar with the Atheist argument(s).  The Thiest is typically the one that will argue his/her faith based on ultimate truth, beyond our comprehension or knowledge (at which the debate can go no further because logic and faith do not mix).  The Atheist, on the other hand, has all of the tools of science, psychology, reason and logic on his side.  He has made the choice not to believe in a deity because he realizes there is no basis for that belief in science, and he recognizes and rejects the psychology behind those that do believe as superstition.  Ultimately it is the theiest that believes they are guided by fate or the hand of God, and their beliefs come from their particular diety.  For the atheist to accept such determinism is illogical.  

Here is your opportunity to clarify.  If you can answer the question "Why are you an Atheist?" then you have made a choice, just as Christians, Jews, Wiccans have made a choice if they can answer the same "Why are you a _______?"  Even though they may argue to the contrary.  If however, if your answer is simply "I don't know why I am an Atheist, I just am." than this discussion is truly over.

Note: I am not trying to debate you on religion, that is silly.  My purpose is to debate the existence and exercise of your free will.  You have posed a logical cupcake that I cannot ignore, by calling me an idiot for my implying that you have free will. ???  I simply want you to acknowledge that you are indeed free to choose how and what you believe in, or do not believe in.  I can't understand why that is so difficult?

Well, is it purple?  Is it pink?  I think you can't be sure since it is invisible.
 
 ;D

I choose to look at the evidence / lack thereof.    So yes, I choose.

Pink unicorns are a belief choice I would have to make.  If you believe it, then you believe it - something impinged on your consciousness such that you "see" a pink unicorn... you mind accepts whatever evidence it has arranged within itself to believe that.  You had to have something make those neural connections - you were not born believing there was a pink unicorn in your backyard - you didn't know what they were, nor did you have a backyard at birth....not your own, anyway.

"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice" - Rush (Freewill)

Sorry, all talk of free will had me humming that song while I was catching up on the thread.  Great paragraph above, and as someone who considers himself a laissez faire atheist it's one of the best synopses of the thought process I've read in a while.  I also think (rather than believe) that "there is always cause and affect".  Everything that happens within our universe is a result of prior actions, causes, etc. The issue, I think, is whether there is a Reason (with a capital "R") behind all things that occur.  The theist looks for a plan, while the atheist accepts randomness.

Good discussion.

Trying to go deep into this using a phone isn't something I care to try, so I'll just respond in brief.  First, let me say I seem to be very emotionally charged on the subject, something I've only recently realized, which makes it difficult for me to not go down the crazy track here and there, so I'll beg your indulgence at those tines. 
On the subject at hand, I do not discount freewill, only that believing or disbelieving is not a choice, but rather an end result of the acceptance of evidence. Where the choice plays a part us if we choose to accept certain things as evidence, out if we choose to analyze the matter.  Even a lot of that, however, is determined in a lot of preexisting factors that effect the psyche. But, in the end, if the evidence you accept does not support a point, than you simply cannot believe it. So you can not choose your beliefs, but you can choose what you expose yourself to that can effect those beliefs.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2

I think we can leave the discussion here.  It seems that we are indeed in agreement, it is only our definition of "Choice" that differs.  I consider the highlighted above as an acceptable definition of choice, even though you require something more rigid.  Either way, I understand your point now and respect it though we disagree on what constitutes choice.

I can live with that

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2

Here's a similar event in Houston re: the NRA.  http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/01/houston-schools-cancel-nra-safety-program-after-discovering-nra-connection/

Don't want those crazies teaching gun safety
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeGD7r6s-zU[/youtube]

So,....the message seems to be that the safest course of action is to make sure no cops carry guns....