Indeed. I believe that it was Goethe who said
The God to whom a man proves devoutSome people do not worship God; some people “worship themselves,” believing that they alone are “the captains of their souls, the masters of their fates.” They “give law” unto themselves, and resent the idea that there is a God to whom they owe any duty. Clearly, this is a religious view, specifically the religious view of the atheist. It seems to me the First Amendment protects this view just as assuredly as it protects the views of theism.
That is his own soul, turned inside out.
In short, the First Amendment says that what a man does with his own spirituality is none of the federal government’s business. Whether he opens his soul to God, or shuts it down to Him and “Katy bar the door!” is a matter of private conscience. (In thinking of some of my friends here at FR who shall be nameless, I sometimes conjure up an fanciful image of them slamming shut the “door of the soul,” activating seven deadbolts and innumerable other types of locks, then piling up all the household moveables against an already “hermetically sealed” door, just to make sure no “thief” can break in, in the dead of night… offering grace and light….)
I’m so sorry to have been so scarce lately. I am just buried in work lately. Sigh…. Will try to catch up asap.
Thanks so very much for your informative essay on SCOTUS’ current view of atheism as a form of religious expression, and its view that the Establishment Clause "mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion."
"Some people do not worship God; some people “worship themselves,” believing that they alone are “the captains of their souls, the masters of their fates.” They “give law” unto themselves, and resent the idea that there is a God to whom they owe any duty. Clearly, this is a religious view, specifically the religious view of the atheist. It seems to me the First Amendment protects this view just as assuredly as it protects the views of theism."
This brings up an interesting point. According to this view, a person's soul is their own responsibility.
Their conduct, however, is a matter for public concern.
A person's religious opinions are irrelevant compared to their opinions on the rule of law, justice, capitalism vs. socialism, conservatism vs. liberalism- to the State and their fellow citizens, these are much more important.
If a (hypothetical) person denys God, but obeys society's laws and traditions, then this person has been a "good citizen." Their fate after death has no bearing on their fellows.
I believe in the concept of a secular morality. I believe that there exists a code of conduct, written and unwritten, that allows humans to interact socially without decending into howling barbarism and killing each other off.
Some of these rules are simple, some more complex. These are some examples:
Protect the breeding-age females and young children.
Do not kill other humans except in defense of life or property. (In a survival situation, protecting food, water and shelter is equivalent to protecting life.)
Speak to others quietly and politely; do not present yourself as a threat unless you mean to.
Do not enter another's territory without permission.
Do not touch with your hands another's property.
Speak no word that is not true.
Perform a "courtesy flush" immediately after defecating in a public restroom.
These "rules" can be found everywhere from the Ten Commandments to the Thirteen Satanic Principles to "Everything I need to know I learned in Kindergarten" to bus-station graffiti. And it is these rules- either through mutual agreement, or as codified in civil law- that allow a society to function and thrive.