Posted on 10/04/2008 2:27:00 AM PDT by AndyTheBear
MADISON, Wis. — The nation's largest group of atheists and agnostics is suing President Bush, the governor of Wisconsin and other officials over the federal law designating a National Day of Prayer.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Please don’t put words in my mouth, tpanther. I was not offering those as examples of morally upright communities. (Though I wouldn’t lump France and China together, if we’re going to talk about moral uprightness.)
Actually, I pasted your words:
“In fact, history has shown that atheists can form morally upright communities.
China is one example. Though, of course, I am not holding China up as an example of moral perfection”.
If China is a morally upright community, forget about perfection, then the rams are going to win the superbowl.
“France is way more aggressively secular than the USA, and they’re not so bad off.
My point is, we have no grounds for concluding that all atheistic nations are doomed to immorality. I wouldn’t jump to such conclusions”.
France is pitiful. Their secularism has allowed militant Islam to backfill their moral vacuum and we see riots, terrorism and the like.
Truly, our Constitution guarantees the freedom of religion - not the freedom from religion. The restriction is that congress shall not establish a (state) religion.
More specifically, Alamo-Girl, the first amendment says there shall be no laws “respecting an establishment of religion.”
It does more than prevent the government from establishing a religion. It prevents the government from making any laws which support or decry religion.
“I was quite clearly not presenting China and France as examples of morally upright communities.
China is one example. Though, of course, I am not holding China up as an example of moral perfection.
France is way more aggressively secular than the USA, and they’re not so bad off.
My point is, we have no grounds for concluding that all atheistic nations are doomed to immorality. I wouldn’t jump to such conclusions”.
Ok, so show us a NON-failed NON-immoral atheistic society already!!!!!
FWIW an immoral society IS a failed society.
You gave France and China as examples of what exactly?
You continue to deny that they’re moral societies, but WHAT ARE you mentioning them for then?
Specifically?
You don’t want us to lump atheism with communism/socialism/liberalism, then fine...
“And let’s face it, governments generally tend to be corrupt. Religion does not protect governments or individuals from corruption. It does not eliminate sin. It does not protect people from pain, sorrow, or suffering”.
don’t lump false religions and cults in with Christianity then.
There simply isn’t any reason to believe that if a person is doing as the New Testmanet directs them to do, that they’ll somehow BE corrupt.
Human beings are failed on their own. Christians fail too, but they can’t blame it on Christianity.
It prevents the government from making any laws which support or decry religion.
Which begs the original question of this thread...by what authority do atheists sue to silence Christians?
''[F]or the men who wrote the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment the 'establishment' of a religion connoted sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity.'' 41 ''[The] Court has long held that the First Amendment reaches more than classic, 18th century establishments.'' Supp.3 However, the Court's reading of the clause has never resulted in the barring of all assistance which aids, however incidentally, a religious institution. Outside this area, the decisions generally have more rigorously prohibited what may be deemed governmental promotion of religious doctrine.
I also suggest reading this very important decision:
This of course demolishes the atheist argument under the Establishment Clause, since atheism is a religion per Supreme Court caselaw.
I will be buying popcorn on the day this Kaufman decision is used in litigation for an expanded publicly funded science curriculum vis-à-vis evolution. The legal theory would be that limiting publicly funded explanations of origins to metaphysical naturalism (atheism) is unconstitutional since it is an establishment of religion based on the same caselaw plus Kaufman.
Thanks for the ping - and please consider yourself pinged to my last post!
Why do you insist on continuing to post cut-up, jumbled, and therefore misleading, representations of my posts?
Are you hoping that people who haven’t read my actual posts (or who just don’t remember them) will see what you posted and think I actually wrote those words in that order?
It’s dishonest and manipulative posting, and it shows an unwillingness to treat me and this forum with respect.
Please try to be more respectful and . . . yes, moral . . . tpanther. We all would appreciate it.
As for the moral uprightness of China and France, I’m not expert enough in their cultures to say much about them.
Hey, we all have issues with China’s government and many of their practices. However, I would not condemn the Chinese people as immoral. And, considering China’s powerful position on the world’s stage, I don’t think it is accurate to call it a failed nation. The same goes for France, though I have fewer qualms with their government.
But really, this whole discussion of France and China is somewhat tangential to the issues here.
Religion has been a dominant institution throughout the world for a very long time, and it is only quite recently that secular institutions have even attempted to replace them. So, when we look back throughout history, we see many failing nations, most of them religious.
Yes, we have also seen frightening atheistic nations, communist and fascist nations, though I think they were terrible because of their fascism and corruption, and not their atheism.
We have also seen the USA and France set examples as powerful, forward-thinking nations able to erect a boundary between church and state. We are only beginning to see what a rational, democratic and capitalistic atheistic society could look like.
That is why I say that there is not enough evidence to conclude that all atheistic societies are doomed to failure and/or immorality.
“The caselaw involving the Establishment Clause is much more complex than your simplistic retort suggests.”
I don’t think I was suggesting anything very simplistic. In fact, what I said is a fair interpretation of the Constitution, which as you know is much more complex than your simplistic original statement suggests.
But thanks for posting those interesting links.
About atheism being regarded as a religion for the purposes of interpreting the first amendment, I found this part of the decision particularly interesting:
“Without venturing too far into the realm of the philosophical, we have suggested in the past that when a person sincerely holds beliefs dealing with issues of ‘ultimate concern’ that for her occupy a ‘place parallel to that filled by . . . God in traditionally religious persons,’ those beliefs represent her religion.”
Frankly, I’m not persuaded by that reasoning. I don’t think that definition of “religion” is what the framers of the Constitution had in mind. And the court’s unwillingness to deal with the philosophical issues here is a little embarrassing. If the court is going to allow such an unconventional definition of “religion” into the law, they should at least try to back up that action with some philosophical argument.
But in any case, as flawed as that decision may be, I do not think it will lead to much popcorn eating for you. The ruling does not suggest that science itself is a religion. Any education about origins in the classroom should be done on scientific grounds, and not explicitly atheistic grounds. (The fact that science and atheism are closely connected for many people is not reflected in the law books, so far as I know.)
Perhaps what you are hoping for is a day when we will no longer be able to distinguish between science and religion, and so the science classroom will be indistinguishable from a theological discussion group. Is that the case?
At the root, the intelligent design movement had as its objective the elimination of methodological naturalism as a presupposition in scientific investigations. Or to put it another way, it wanted to bring all disciplines of science to be more like physics where postulates apply to the specific investigation at hand.
In that regard, the intelligent design movement was a frontal assault to metaphysical naturalists (Dawkins, Singer, Pinker, Lewontin et al) who do "theology" or "philosophy" under the color of science (methodological naturalism.) Therefore we see the mantra that intelligent design is religion under the color of science and that mantra's success so far in the courtroom.
But thanks to Kaufman, the legal argument now cuts both ways. So, we'll see. At the very least, it will be entertaining.
Rather than debate point by point, which is beginning to create some rather lengthy posts, let me just say that I think your attacks on religion are misplaced, if you are conservative. Conservatism and religion are allies against liberalism, secular or otherwise. They compliment one another. I’ve lived 57 years without once being threatened or oppressed or otherwise cheated by religion in this country. Liberals do it every day. When I look at the cess pools that are the coastal liberal enclaves and compare them with what they call, with disdain, “fly-over country”, I see clearly where the high standards and solid knowledge of right from wrong reside. I see good people being trashed by liberal scum, and most of those good people, to some degree or another, are of faith. They don’t attack atheists. Atheists attack them, and for what? Why ally yourself with folks who guarantee chaos at best? You’ll find you have no enemies among the faithful, only lively debate. If you’re conservative, in their company you’re among friends.
I leave you to your thoughts, friend.
“I brought the original meaning and subsequent caselaw to the table.”
I know that. And from what I see, my original statement was neither inaccurate nor overly simplistic. I think yours was, however.
But we don’t need to bicker about that, do we?
“I do find the Kaufman decision to be particularly relevant for such cases in the future.”
I have my doubts, as I said. But I guess we’ll see how it plays out. Intelligent Design just isn’t science, as you well know. That has nothing to do with whether or not we interpret the first amendment’s establishment clause as applying to atheism.
But we’re getting pretty far off-topic, I think. The issue here is about this lawsuit against the National Prayer Day, right?
In any case, it’s getting late here on a Sunday night. I’ve got a very full week ahead of me, and I doubt I’ll be able to keep up with this discussion very much. So, to everyone who’s engaged me in this discussion, don’t be surprised if you don’t hear back from me for a while. Sorry if that’s a disappointment for any of you.
Thanks for the thoughts. As I just wrote to Alamo-Girl, I’m not gonna be able to participate much in this discussion for a while. To address your last thoughts, though: I’d say I lean closer to Liberatian Conservatism, as opposed to Christian Conservatism. And as for why I align myself with atheists: It’s because I value rational thought as a tool for understanding ourselves and our place in the world.
Oh, just one more thing Alamo-Girl:
“At the root, the intelligent design movement had as its objective the elimination of methodological naturalism as a presupposition in scientific investigations.”
I’m not sure why you used the past tense there. Is that no longer an objective of the movement?
In any case, the notion of a “supernatural science” is an oxymoron. It just doesn’t make sense.
Democracy is now and always has been MOB RULE by mobsters..
-----------------------
Democracy is the road to socialism. -Karl Marx
Democracy is indispensable to socialism. The goal of socialism is communism. -V.I. Lenin
The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism .-Karl Marx
Also, I forgot to respond to this:
“I think your attacks on religion are misplaced . . .”
I don’t think I’ve said anything that could be construed as an attack against religion.
Sorry, I wrote “Liberation Conservatism,” when I meant to write, “Libertarian Conservatism.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.