# Atheists want God outlawed? (WV\_Woman, please respond) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 27, 2002, 12:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-want-god-outlawed-wv_woman-please-respond/116211 "2002-06-27T12:02:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2002, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-want-god-outlawed-wv_woman-please-respond/116211/241 "2002-07-02T23:41:51Z")
Thank you for that, **kevlaw.** That’s a much more reasonable summary of what you’re getting at: “_Some people_ believe this.” I would take issue with this, though: > [@](#): > > some of those atheist leaders have restricted religious freedoms It’s a semantic thing, perhaps, but it’s worth discussing. China’s government, which is officially secular, has expended great effort in quashing religious movements it doesn’t like. Falun Gong is just the most prominent. That is one example of a country where religious freedom is being curtailed. _However,_ China has _also_ closed Internet cafes, fined publishers, and jailed political dissenters. In other words, they’re not persecuting religion to the exclusion of other beliefs – they’re persecuting anybody who thinks differently, whether religious or secular. Further, I wonder what “restrict religious freedom” really means. As I’ve mentioned in this thread and others, I think there are varying definitions of this concept. Hard-core Christians believe they’re being oppressed because they can’t make their local public school force the kids to pray. That worldview boggles my mind, but I concede it exists. So: If some people believe that their religious freedom is being restricted by having “In God We Trust” removed from the money, well, I think they’re wrong, but they think what they think. But if some people believe that their religious freedom will be restricted by their religion being _banned outright_ and their rosaries and crucifixes confiscated – well, that’s completely insane. Anyway, perhaps some clearer definitions would better inform the discussion. ---
**Author:** ![kevlaw](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kevlaw/32/2281_2.png) [@kevlaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kevlaw)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2002, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-want-god-outlawed-wv_woman-please-respond/116211/242 "2002-07-03T00:01:03Z")
> [@](#): > > Hard-core Christians believe they’re being oppressed because they can’t make their local public school force the kids to pray I think it’s more likely that a few hard-core Christians fear a slippery slope and that it is easier to make a stand on this issue than to lose the first three or four (ONUG, IGWT, Congressional Chaplain ? …) and then make a stand. ---
**Author:** ![Squish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8797f3/32.png) [@Squish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squish)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2002, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-want-god-outlawed-wv_woman-please-respond/116211/243 "2002-07-03T00:02:20Z")
Thanks for the clarification, **kevlaw**. If I may ruminate upon your points: > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by kevlaw \* > **- there are growing numbers of non-believers in this and many other western countries** Agreed. > [@](#): > > **- The non-believers are starting to organize and coordinate their actions** I don’t see any evidence for this, so I don’t agree this is true. > [@](#): > > **- there is a fine, gray line between freedom to practice religion and freedom to impose one’s religions on others** Agreed, and I believe that Christians have overstepped that line in this country. > [@](#): > > \*\*- atheist leaders have come to power in several modern, pluralistic arguments > > - some of those atheist leaders have restricted religious freedoms\*\* Agreed. > [@](#): > > **- the PofA (with ONUG) is constitutional if congress and SCOTUS pronounce it so** Disagree. Congress and the Supreme Court are politically entities and are capable of making decisions in error. Question: if I’m ever required to recite the Pledge, will it still be considered valid if I a) omit the words “under god,” or 2) substitute the words “under Cthulhu”? > [@](#): > > \*\*To make progress in this and other arguments like it, I think it makes sense to listen to the other side’s fears and concerns. \*\* To try to understand another’s fears is not to endorse them; what I think is being said on this board is simply that those fears are unfounded. ---
**Author:** ![kevlaw](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kevlaw/32/2281_2.png) [@kevlaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kevlaw)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2002, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-want-god-outlawed-wv_woman-please-respond/116211/244 "2002-07-03T00:24:27Z")
> [@](#): > > the PofA (with ONUG) is constitutional if congress and SCOTUS pronounce it so I started another [thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=123389) to address this question. I am a newcomer to this fine country and started to doubt myself when so many people in this thread challenged my assertion. I was pleasantly surprised that the posters in the other thread agreed with my position almost unanimously. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > The non-believers are starting to organize and coordinate their actions > > I don’t see any evidence for this, so I don’t agree this is true. How many atheist organizations could you have named ten years ago ? How many can you name now ? I am not suggesting that atheists will sweep the next elections. No. I think it will be more analogous to the way the environmentalists have organized. A short time ago, people who held environmentalist opinions were considered wackjobs by the majority but an environmentalist made a big difference to the result of the last presidential election. I am not sure what you would consider evidence of organization, but I would say that a march on Washington is a pretty good start. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2002, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-want-god-outlawed-wv_woman-please-respond/116211/245 "2002-07-03T02:00:03Z")
Cervaise wrote: > [@](#): > > It serves much the same purpose as sexual porn, which is to say, when I go to the library, I’m not going to be led back into the storage room by the hot-to-fellate supermodel behind the checkout counter. As much as I may want that to happen, it isn’t at all likely, so porn goes toward fulfilling that desire. That’s precisely what’s wrong with America today. There aren’t **nearly** enough horny librarians to go around. We wouldn’t need porn if we all got laid more. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2002, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-want-god-outlawed-wv_woman-please-respond/116211/246 "2002-07-03T02:26:44Z")
**kevlaw** , why don’t go ahead name all of those atheist organizations you’ve alluded to? That way we could take a look and see how powerful and widespread they are. ---
**Author:** ![kevlaw](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kevlaw/32/2281_2.png) [@kevlaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kevlaw)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2002, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-want-god-outlawed-wv_woman-please-respond/116211/247 "2002-07-03T03:22:34Z")
> [@](#): > > kevlaw, why don’t go ahead name all of those atheist organizations you’ve alluded to? That way we could take a look and see how powerful and widespread they are. I am not sure what the point of this is because I didn’t claim that they are powerful … but hey … here goes … The Atheist Alliance ( [http://www.atheistalliance.org](http://www.atheistalliance.org) ) appears to be an umbrella organization. They list member organizations (about 33 in the US ) here [http://www.atheistalliance.org/aai/members.html](http://www.atheistalliance.org/aai/members.html) Similarly, Atheists of America lists their member organizations (about 35) here [http://www.atheists.org/affiliation/](http://www.atheists.org/affiliation/) There’s the American Atheists at [http://www.americanatheist.org/](http://www.americanatheist.org/) There’s the Council for Secular Humanists [http://www.secularhumanism.org/](http://www.secularhumanism.org/) with about 120 member organizations at [http://www.secularhumanism.org/societies/index.htm](http://www.secularhumanism.org/societies/index.htm) These people have a list of other organizations at [http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/orgs.html](http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/orgs.html) and these people list their members at [http://www.campusfreethought.org/community/groups.php3](http://www.campusfreethought.org/community/groups.php3) No doubt there is some overlap between these various lists - I haven’t cross checked. Many of them are international - I only counted the US affiliates. So probably not, as we all know, big and powerful but certainly widespread. And, judging from the fact that many of these organizations are quite new, probably growing. Of course this is pure speculation, but I wonder if certain high profile court cases and a march on Washington might cause them to grow a little more ? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2002, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-want-god-outlawed-wv_woman-please-respond/116211/248 "2002-07-03T03:48:47Z")
Thank you so very much for providing the means to put this to rest once and for all. Would you now mind showing us, via quotes from these sites, justification for your fears that atheists might want to organize and force people to give up religion? ---
**Author:** ![kevlaw](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kevlaw/32/2281_2.png) [@kevlaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kevlaw)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2002, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-want-god-outlawed-wv_woman-please-respond/116211/249 "2002-07-03T06:01:39Z")
> [@](#): > > … your fears that atheists might want to organize and force people to give up religion Not sure what you are talking about Czarcasm … you seemed to have skipped a big section of the thread … show me which of my fears you are referring to. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2002, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-want-god-outlawed-wv_woman-please-respond/116211/250 "2002-07-03T06:15:49Z")
Have you forgotten already? You know, about how the atheists are going to organize and coordinate their actions, and what horrible things they are planning to do? **WV\_Woman** and **dreamer** , perhaps you can go through these sites and show us where the atheists are plotting to destroy your rights to worship. Actual quotations from these websites can do nothing but support your positions, right? ---
**Author:** ![QueenAl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/d26b3c/32.png) [@QueenAl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QueenAl)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2002, 9:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-want-god-outlawed-wv_woman-please-respond/116211/251 "2002-07-03T09:57:54Z")
**Kevlaw** , what’s your point with these (small, international, mostly web-based) organisations? I have looked through many of the sites, and seen no evidence of any effort to ban religion. Is it the very existence of these organisations you object to? Btw, I feel it was extremely dishonest of you to argue for a position that you now claim is not your own (ie, that you are not yourself a fundamentalist Christian). Support whichever position you like, but be upfront about which point of view you are coming from yourself. ---
**Author:** ![Earthworm\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f07891/32.png) [@Earthworm\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Earthworm_Jim)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2002, 11:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-want-god-outlawed-wv_woman-please-respond/116211/252 "2002-07-03T11:58:29Z")
Kevlaw said: > [@](#): > > **But go ahead - call me intentionally dense again. It makes me reconsider my whole argument.** And then he said: > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by kevlaw \* > **I was indeed taking a position that was contrary to my usual position on this issue. But I did so using arguments that I believe to be true …** You **were** being “intentionally dense”, which is to say intentionally ignoring the evidence put before in order to continue arguing. Or, not allowing the issue to be clouded with the facts. I understand you’re playing devils advocate, but I fail to see your point in doing so, unless you’re simply providing us an intellectual excersise. \*\* > [@](#): > > For example I believe, contrary to many of the assertions made in this thread, that > > - there are growing numbers of non-believers in this and many other western countries\*\* True. \*\* > [@](#): > > - The non-believers are starting to organize and coordinate their actions\*\* Yes, but to what end? You’ve specifically ignored comparisons of the Godless fighting for equal treatment to other minorities doing the same throughout history. Do you agree or disagree that it is a valid comparison? Women and blacks organized to fight for equality under law. Atheists are supposed to theoretically already be equal under law. Yet one atheist who asked that that equality be enforced has caused massive outrage throughout the country. One president has gone so far as to suggest atheists should not be considered citizens, one senator recently has suggested that atheists **will** be ruled by theists, and if they don’t like it they can leave. Were it suggested that women **would** be ruled by men, that women should not be considered citizens, and if they didn’t like it they could leave the country, would you not agree they had cause to organize and fight for equal consideration under law? \*\* > [@](#): > > - there is a fine, gray line between freedom to practice religion and freedom to impose one’s religions on others\*\* There most certainly is. However, that line has been crossed by theists inserting God into government. The available cites have shown that those atheists who have taken up the argument simply want God and government to be separate. (It just so happens that that God is usually the Christian God. Arguably, they feel the same way about Allah, Vishnu, etc.) Not one wishes to restrict the freedom of any group to practice religion, they simply want to live in a country where religion is not a part of politics. \*\* > [@](#): > > - atheist leaders have come to power in several modern, pluralistic arguments > - some of those atheist leaders have restricted religious freedoms\*\* Right, but so what? Some black men commit crimes. Does that mean that a black man is not capable of, for example, serving as a leader? \*\* > [@](#): > > - the PofA (with ONUG) is constitutional if congress and SCOTUS pronounce it so\*\* Quite frankly, I don’t think this is germane to the topic at hand, so for the purposes of this thread, I really don’t care. Not that I don’t care about the topic, mind you. Maybe I’ll pop over to your thread. \*\* > [@](#): > > For these and other reasons, I also believe that many christian americans _do_ fear that atheists would want to restrict their religious freedom (present company excluded of course). Many of them are being dishonest in their mock-outrage, but I believe many of them are genuinely afraid - and while they are afraid, it will be hard to convince them otherwise. Fearful people are rarely open minded.\*\* I have no doubt that many fear this. However, I think it’s been pretty conclusively demonstrated that there is no indication that these fears are based in reality. Sure, maybe the Sinister Theist-Raping Atheist War Machine Advancing Nonbelief is holding meetings with the Illuminati, but it can’t be demonstrated. \*\* > [@](#): > > To make progress in this and other arguments like it, I think it makes sense to listen to the other side’s fears and concerns. Otherwise the whole thing descends into a yes-it-is, no-it-isn’t, we’ve got more votes/swearwords/guns than you shouting match/war. \*\* But I think the problem here, which is unfortunately mirrored IRL, is that you’ve not listened to _our_ fears and concerns. I, for example, put up a post making specific comparisons between atheists and other minorities throughout history, while re-stating that there is no evidence of an atheist conspiracy. You ignored those points, and instead chose to respond with (essentially) a one-liner: > [@](#): > > Atheists in general ? Why the stress on atheists in general ? It didn’t take atheists in general to challenge the PofA. It took one. Which, in my mind, is essentially doing what you state is undesirable. You’re ignoring the arguments, fears, and concerns put before you in order to present more strawmen supporting your position. It seems that you’ve frustrated a few posters to the point that they no longer wish to discuss the topic rationally with you. So, I fail to see how you’ve promoted your goal of preventing the discussion from descending “into a yes-it-is, no-it-isn’t, we’ve got more votes/swearwords/guns than you shouting match/war.” Seems to me you’re making sure we go that route, not preventing it. ---
**Author:** ![kevlaw](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kevlaw/32/2281_2.png) [@kevlaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kevlaw)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2002, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-want-god-outlawed-wv_woman-please-respond/116211/253 "2002-07-03T16:43:32Z")
> [@](#): > > Kevlaw, what’s your point with these organisations As I already said, **QueenAl** , I have no idea. Czarcasm asked my to list some. Maybe he was challenging my assertion that atheist organizations are becoming more widespread ? ---
**Author:** ![kevlaw](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kevlaw/32/2281_2.png) [@kevlaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kevlaw)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2002, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-want-god-outlawed-wv_woman-please-respond/116211/254 "2002-07-03T17:14:15Z")
> [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > - atheist leaders have come to power in several modern, pluralistic countries > > Right, but so what? I was challenging Tomndebb’s assertion that an atheist has never come to power in a modern pluralistic country. He said it would never happen. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > the PofA (with ONUG) is constitutional if congress and SCOTUS pronounce it so > > Quite frankly, I don’t think this is germane to the topic at hand I was challenging Tomndebb, EchoKitty & Grendel72 who made assertions to the contrary. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > I also believe that many christian americans _do_ fear that atheists would want to restrict their religious freedom > > I have no doubt that many fear this This is the point on which my argument turns.There are freedoms that they have now (look back up the thread for a list), that atheists will doubtless try to take away (and rightfully so IMO) and they fear that. Many of them fear that atheists will go even further and their fears are no doubt inflamed by some dishonest poiticians and church leaders. But their fears are real. We can repeat the same argument about how, in your opinion and maybe even my opinion, the freedoms that they have now are unfair - but that’s not the point. They have them and are afraid to lose them. And, **QueenAl** > [@](#): > > I feel it was extremely dishonest of you to argue for a position that you now claim is not your own I hope it’s now clear what I was arguing for. I don’t think it’s dishonest to try to understand an opposing point of view. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2002, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-want-god-outlawed-wv_woman-please-respond/116211/255 "2002-07-03T17:19:05Z")
kevlaw, You are aware that most of the organizations you linked to have been around for a long time. Some of them trace themselves back to the 19th century (those usually have “free thinking” or “free thought” in their name - where secular humanist is a newfangled name). Many of them are also self referential - click on membership link on American Atheists and end up at Atheists of America. American Atheists says in their press release they’ve been active since 1963. Your original statement “How many atheists organizations could I name 10 years ago.” Most of these organizations were around 10 years ago. You have just increased your awareness of them. Its kind of like gay people. They used to not have parades, but that doesn’t mean there weren’t gay people. ---
**Author:** ![QueenAl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/d26b3c/32.png) [@QueenAl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QueenAl)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2002, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-want-god-outlawed-wv_woman-please-respond/116211/256 "2002-07-03T17:30:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by kevlaw \* > \*\* > And, QueenAl I hope it’s now clear what I was arguing for. I don’t think it’s dishonest to try to understand an opposing point of view. \*\* Yes, after several pages of discussion it is clearer what your standpoint is. It certainly is not dishonest to try to understand an alternative point of view - we are all trying to do that here. However, this is not what you did. You stated a point of view as if it were your own, and did not deny it was your own point of view, seemingly with an aim to give yourself an advantage over your interlocutors. Those are dishonest tactics not worthy of a proper debate. Czarcasm asked for the list of atheist organisations because _you_ kept mentioning these nebulous organisations. You cannot them claim that you were only doing this at his request, and you had nothing to do with it, guv. Again, that’s dishonest. IMHO, this whole debate has been negated by your tactics - though, of course, the subject at hand has not. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2002, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-want-god-outlawed-wv_woman-please-respond/116211/257 "2002-07-03T19:34:28Z")
> [@](#): > > There are freedoms that they have now (look back up the thread for a list), that atheists will doubtless try to take away (and rightfully so IMO) and they fear that. Many of them fear that atheists will go even further and their fears are no doubt inflamed by some dishonest poiticians and church leaders. But their fears are real. We can repeat the same argument about how, in your opinion and maybe even my opinion, the freedoms that they have now are unfair - but that’s not the point. They have them and are afraid to lose them. If it infringes on _my_ freedom, then it isn’t really a freedom, is it? ---
**Author:** ![kevlaw](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kevlaw/32/2281_2.png) [@kevlaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kevlaw)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2002, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-want-god-outlawed-wv_woman-please-respond/116211/258 "2002-07-03T23:51:27Z")
> [@](#): > > If it infringes on my freedom, then it isn’t really a freedom, is it? Couldn’t you make the same observation about many of freedoms described in the Bill of Rights ? ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2002, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-want-god-outlawed-wv_woman-please-respond/116211/259 "2002-07-03T23:58:54Z")
No, actually, I don’t think I could. Be interesting to see the attempt, though. ---
**Author:** ![frogstar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/91b2a8/32.png) [@frogstar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/frogstar)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2002, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-want-god-outlawed-wv_woman-please-respond/116211/260 "2002-07-04T00:10:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by QueenAl \* > It certainly is not dishonest to try to understand an alternative point of view - we are all trying to do that here. However, this is not what you did. You stated a point of view as if it were your own, and did not deny it was your own point of view, seemingly with an aim to give yourself an advantage over your interlocutors. Those are dishonest tactics not worthy of a proper debate. I think you are giving kevlaw’s interlocutors too much credit and kevlaw too little. With the remarkable exception of tomndebb the responses to kevlaw’s original claim were not trying to understand his argument. Take a moment and re-read the thread… kevlaw could certainly clarified his personal position earlier, and certainly that would have yielded a different discussion. But rather than “seeking first to understand” there was a whole lot of “pile on the christian/fundie”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-want-god-outlawed-wv_woman-please-respond/116211.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-want-god-outlawed-wv_woman-please-respond/116211.md?page=14)