Atheism and the First Amendment

American Thinker ^ | 07/28/2013

[Ira_Louvin]

The First Amendment states the following:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech...

To all Americans prior to the 1940's and to most Americans today the intent is clear: the Federal government shall not give preferential treatment to any one faith and the Federal government shall not stop people from practicing their religious beliefs.

Liberals confuse the banning of preferential treatment for a particular faith tradition with the banning expression by any faith tradition. The intent of the First Amendment was to allow all faiths to be freely practiced not to restrict the practices of any particular faith.

But liberalism's perspective is completely different when addressing the atheist faith tradition. That's why liberals are comfortable silencing speech that is offensive to atheists, such as a military chaplain preaching the Gospel, while simultaneously supporting government funding of atheists attacks on Christianity, such as the infamous Piss Christ piece of "art".

[yarddog]

It always seemed to me that the point was there will be no “Church of the United States”. Such as the “Church of England” or the “Church of Scotland”, plus everyone could worship as they pleased.

[GenXteacher]

Atheism is the tool of communism:

http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a “religious crutch.”

28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”

[Kip Russell]

plus everyone could worship as they pleased.

Or not.

[James C. Bennett]

A representative government will, by implied design, reflect (or try to, at least) the “values” of the constituents. When Islam spreads to the point that it becomes a majority religion, people will vote in Sharia “law”. How does a constitution that is blind to religion prevent this? How can a constitution favour a particular sect and still be unbiased?

[Kip Russell]

I think the article makes in inaccurate generalization when describing atheism. While it certainly is the case that many atheists assert that there is no God, there are many who simply have no belief in a God or gods. It’s the difference between positive and negative atheism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism

The former is an article of faith, but the latter is not.

[Publius]

I'm an atheist, and I agree with this sentence.

It is time for Americans to recognize that atheism is a faith-based belief system that does not have any special privilege in our country.

True.

I have no interest in forcing my Unbelief on others. Nor do I wish to interfere with crosses in public places, nor murals of the Ten Suggestions in county courthouses, nor do I desire any kind of interference in what chaplains or clergy have to say. I also find the idea of an "atheist chaplain" absurd.

There are times when I want to whomp my fellow Unbelievers upside the head and tell them to get a life.

[James C. Bennett]

Would you support artwork honouring the “contributions” of Muhammad to law in US court premises?

[Gay State Conservative]

It's freedom *of* religion.not freedom *from* religion.And yes,the government must never force anyone to believe in God or practice *any* religion.When I was a kid I went to public school in the first grade and then Catholic schools through HS.While in first grade we used to say the Lord's Prayer...the “Protestant” version.Our priest taught us a simple and unobtrusive way of getting around that dilemma...he said that when we got to “deliver us from evil” and the class went on to “for Thine is the Kingdom..” we should remain silent.No outrages...no protests...no disruptions.

[Publius]

Did Islam contribute to our law system, which is based on English Common Law? I doubt it.

I'd be a bit concerned if Dearborn (MI) put something like that in their courthouse, but my objections would be the same as to those who make the "out of Africa" argument about Hellenistic civilization. That's why I scoffed at Michael Jackson's video in the Nineties showing the Pharaonic Egyptian court as being black, with Eddie Murphy playing the Pharaoh.

My objection in this case would be based on factual inaccuracy.

[Standing Wolf]

There are times when I want to whomp my fellow Unbelievers upside the head and tell them to get a life.

I'm another, Publius.

[DWar]

Argument with a friend...

I said,"Once again, we need to implore pastors and men and women of faith to get involved in the political process. The culture war is very real and our religious liberty is at stake."

My friend said,”NO, NO, NO, NO!!!! That's exactly where we do not want “men of faith”. I do not want “men of faith” telling politicians what to believe and what not to believe and then having said politician force that particular religious belief on me in the form of some law, Sharia or otherwise. Separation of church and state is a serious matter.”

I said,””Pastors and men and women of faith” are individuals, distinct and different from the organizational institution called ‘the Church”. These individuals are protected by the first amendment of the Constitution to be able to speak out and be involved in political process. You may not like the diversity of thought they bring but as property owners, tax payers and citizens of the United States they have the right and responsibility to do so.

Second, The idea of ‘Separation of Church and State’ is found no where in the Constitution. The ‘religion’ clause of the first amendment says, in part, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. The fear of the day was that the US might establish a ‘national church’ as in England. Secular humanists often reinterpret the first part of that clause to make it mean whatever they want but they always ignore the “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” part. I think there is little need for concern that we are on the verge of establishing a ‘national church’ but a great concern is arising about the free exercise.

Third, Christians do not want a theocracy in America. We generally want our culture to reflect a certain level of morality and mutual respect. We believe God's desire is for humankind to exercise free will. We think government should want no less. Freedom is the point. You and America today do now exist in a secular humanist Sharia shackled by a myriad of laws based on secular humanist religious beliefs. You don't see it because secular humanism pretends to not be a religion and because it is YOUR religious faith. Millions of American citizens are murdered each year before the god of sex without consequences; Millions of acres of farm land are shut down to pay homage to the god of ‘green’; Millions of American jobs are shipped to Asia and South America in worship of the god of multi-nationalism; Energy production is devastated for the carbon based god of pseudo science; Ever escalating taxes, regulations, fees, levies and licenses restrict your behavior and steal your money to burn it on the altar of the ever increasing parasite class and before the god of false altruism. There has never been a time in American history during which this culture has been more thoroughly dominated by a religious faith, secular humanism. You “do not want men of faith telling politicians what to believe?”... Sorry pal, but that's exactly what you've got.

[dhs12345]

Exactly. Communists don't want anything to compete with their goal of absolute control. Religion is direct competition. Marx forgot to mention that Communism is the opium of the people. We have two perfect examples — China and the USSR. It was the plague of the 20th century.

Also, Atheism is a religion. It requires the same leap of faith and those whole follow its church can be just as fanatical and irrational as those from other religions. Atheism is often anti-religion versus not believing in a deity. Atheists often have a “hatred” of religion.

[Zeneta]

As an Atheist, you must also have belief in the extraordinary.

I suppose you recognize this ?

[strider44]

Yup. Just shut up about it. However, most of the time it’s the religious types that cant keep quiet. I’m from a large Irish Catholic family. I get funny looks and some unwelcome comments when friends and family ask when My kids will be baptized (usually asked soon after birth). I have 3 sons. When I say they won’t be baptized the grief starts.

I usually calmly say that I’ve never said a word about your kids being baptized. I’ve even attended the ceremony. I can respect beliefs in a polite way. The problem is my beliefs usually arent accepted in a polite way. Unfortunately, my in laws are the biggest offenders. I always remain calm and polite. Even let my MIL drag my kids to church when she comes and visits. They get over it fast (the kids that is).

I even tolerate my wife making the impression that the lack of faith and attendence in church is my fault. I can understand her not wanting to dissapoint her parents. But in ten years of marriage she’s never mentioned going to church on Sunday. She’s just as content as I to read the paper and drink coffee and then go hiking with the kids.

To each his own. And yeah, yeah I get it. Most of the people on this site think Me, my wife, and kids are on the hell express. It’s the ones who seemed pleased by this that scare me the most.

I’ll end my rant with some Heinlein:

“The most ridiculous concept ever perpetrated by H.Sapiens is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of the Universes, wants the sacharrine adoration of his creations, that he can be persuaded by their prayers, and becomes petulant if he does not recieve this flattery. Yet this ridiculous notion, without one real shred of evidence to bolster it, has gone on to found one of the oldest, largest and least productive industries in history.”

[Olog-hai]

History shows communist countries to feature state-imposed atheism. The precedent is already set.

Wikipedia is a user-edited encyclopedia that has pretty much been (since its inception) a tool for leftists. The footnotes of its articles bear that out. (The article is biased by citing Antony Flew as a primary source.)

[James C. Bennett]

"I'd be a bit concerned if Dearborn (MI) put something like that in their courthouse..."

You're a rebel, here's your cause:

In 1929, Chief Justice William Howard Taft persuaded Congress to authorize the construction of a permanent home for the U.S. Supreme Court. Construction was completed in 1935, and the Court finally had a home to call its own after 146 years of existence. Sculpture figures prominently in the Corinthian architecture of the Court Building. One chamber features a frieze decorated with a bas-relief sculpture by Adolph A. Weinman of eighteen influential law-givers. The south wall depicts Menes, Hammurabi, Moses, Solomon, Lycurgus, Solon, Draco, Confucius and Octavian, while the north wall depicts Napoleon Bonaparte, John Marshall, William Blackstone, Hugo Grotius, Louis IX, King John, Charlemagne, Justinian and, you guessed it, Mohammad.

[Zeneta]

I find your comments very real and personal.

I am a Christian, not because I was told what to believe, but as the result of years of exploration and ultimately the process of elimination.

Thankfully, I was allowed to figure things out for myself, despite the superficial bible bangers and my own family’s history that was always present.

What I know to be true.

Nobody can TELL someone WHAT to believe.

Belief in virtually everything is conditionally and subject to revision upon the introduction and acceptance of new information.

Some people are more curious and thoughtful than others.

[sakic]

If the people of a country want Sharia law, they can have it if that is the majority opinion. Since it could never happen here, I am not concerned.

[Kip Russell]

The article is biased by citing Antony Flew as a primary source.

He coined the terms "positive atheism" and "negative atheism" back in 1976...how could the article not cite him?

In any case, the fact remains that article in the OP doesn't make the quite valid distinction between positive and negative atheism...it lumps all atheists in the "positive" camp, and makes arguments that in no way apply to negative atheism.