Tomndebb, I raise my hat to you. I believe if there were more people who were willing to try to understand both sides of an argument America and the world would be a happier place with less conflict.
I have tried in this thread to show that there are two sides to this argument and that it is helpful to understand both if you have any intention of winning it.
To answer an earlier question,
Nope. Not really. Nope… and nope.
But I do believe that there is a tide of atheism that will roll back many religious freedoms in America. Including …
the freedom to say prayers in a public school
the freedom to recite a pledge that includes the words “under god” in a public school
the freedom to go door to door to share the Word of God
the freedom to protect one’s children from teachings that refute the word of God
Given all of that, I don’t think it is a great leap to fear the restriction of more fundamental freedoms like …
the freedom to ring church bells
the freedom to say a prayer at the start of congress
the freedom to say God Bless America in the State of the Union address
See where the fear comes in ? And once people are fearful (fear being an emotional rather than a logical state of mind), they may well become afraid that
It’s a slippery slope, but not, I think, a steep one.
This is insane! What do god-fearing christians have to fear from a minority group marching for equal rights, not special treatment, not the abolishment of the majority, just their Constitution-given rights! What do you have to fear, the extreme possibility that “atheists will take power and do away with religion?” Do you know how insane this sounds? Do you have a problem when blacks or homosexuals or Asian dog-eaters march on Washington? Are your God-fearing Christians worried that blacks will grab power and do away with whites, or homosexuals will grab power and outlaw heterosexuality? This is just stupid, however many cites about atheistic leaders you care to throw out.
“God-fearing Christians” need to take their own damn advice and clean up their own house before being worried about someone coming in to redecorate.
Oh heavens on preview I saw you had posted this:
This is ridiculous in so many ways, but mainly I disagree with your progression of an “atheist tide” to making illegal the simple mention of God in the privacy of your own home. No, I don’t see where the fear comes in. Why should a Christian be afraid of Congress not starting with a prayer or any of those other things you cite as “religious freedom?” Are they so unsure of their faith that any evidence of other religions and belief systems contrary to their own makes them fearful? Do they have to be state-sponsored and justified in order to exist? If they are right that God is on their side, there is no need for fear.
These are not freedoms, but an infringement on others freedoms. Or to put it another way, it is not against the law to pray anywhere. What is against the law is forcing others to pray, no one is being forced not to pray.
You seem to have a different definition of freedom than most people.
The bible speaks against public prayer in harsher terms than most atheists: Matthew 6:5-6: “And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men…when thou prayest, enter into thy closet and when thou has shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret…”
Kevlaw said, “Would it be fair, EchoKitty, to characterize this as waiting for the fat lady to be replaced with another fat person who sings the song the way you think it should be sung ?”
Not the way I think it should be sung, but the way the sheet music was written. I don’t see how it could be interpreted any other way. The definitions of the words are clear. What is YOUR definition of “indivisible?” What is your definition of “god”? What is your definition of “separation of church and state”? Is the PoA a government sanctioned declaration of patriotism?
But people plainly do interpret it another way. In fact the senate did (99-0). I’d hazard a guess that either SCOTUS or the 9th circuit court of appeals will interpret it another way.
EchoKitty, do you think they are interpreting it another way or that they secretly agree with you and are being dishonest ?
Well, whatever your reason for posting that “stupid” statement, your words said more than just this is evidence of atheist assembly, you said it gives Christians reason for concern, assumedly that it will lead to “God being outlawed.” I wanted to know if homosexual assembly gives Christians (or anyone!) reason to fear heterosexuality being outlawed. I was saying the whole idea of pointing to a lawful assembly of a minority group of people being threatening to Christians was stupid.
And yes, I do disagree that “atheists are becoming organized.” A web page does not indicate organization and purpose. Besides, like someone said earlier, lumping all atheists into a group and assigning characterizations to it makes as much sense as lumping all theists into a group and characterizing it as rabid, illogical, blind, self-important, and convinced that its goals are the right ones for everyone, not just those in their group.
Slippery slope arguments fail to convince me that keeping any religious iconography/prayer out of state-sanctioned, taxpayer-supported activities is the same as, and leads to the state-sanctioned destruction of all religions.
I think they interpret it exactly as it’s written, but would rather have a religion-based government (their own particular brand of religion, of course). Each of these little encroachments chips away at the basis of our government. School vouchers, The Pledge, the President “god blessing” us at every turn…each thing bringing us closer to a christian-based government. They know that the court interpreted it correctly, but still want to wave their religious banner. Next we’ll be seeing little Jesus finials on top of our flag poles!
Point #1: You are aware, I hope, that that godless organization, the ACLU, has fought for the rights of students to pray and read scripture in school, provided that it is not an act imposed by the school administration? There was a fairly significant case a few years back where a teacher prohibited a student from reading the bible during an independent reading period and the ACLU took the child’s case.
The only thing prohibited by the Supreme Court has been the imposition of those prayers by the administration or staff. (There have also been a couple of rather stupid decisions regarding what kids can bring in to show in class or present as a project, but those have not been the norm.)
Point #2: If someone wants to spontaneously recite a pledge and drop in the words “under God,” no atheist group has ever lodged a protest against any similar practice. (There were protests over the last couple of years where the school administration went out and privately “suggested” that all the students “spontaneously” break out in prayer, but no opponent of government entanglement in religion has fought to prevent genuine personal prayer.)
Point #3: I’m not aware of any bans on door-to-door evangelization originating with an anti-religious group. The city ordinance that was struck down a week or so ago by the SCOTUS was imposed by a traditionally “Christian” city council “protecting” their citizens from outside evangelization. The Supreme Court said that they could not regulate the evangelists.
Point #4: Depending on what you mean by this, we could wind up disagreeing. I object to people with a religious message trying to corrupt my children’s biology classes with Creationism or “Intelligent Design.” If the parents think that that harms their children, then they should petiton for a “we’d rather be ignorant” opt-out to the class, rather than destroying the value of the texts or preventing the teaching of scientific information.
So, it looks to me as though the first four fears are unfounded.
Given that, I would respond to the next set,
with
I can see no reason why anyone (not sleeping in on Sunday morning) would care one way or another about church bells.
A congressman would have the same right to address a personal prayer on the floor of Congress as a child would before the big calculus exam, so I cannot see that being taken away. (Congresscritters have immense leeway with what they can say on the Senate and House floors or enter into the Congressional Record, anyway, so I do not see them ever curbing that for themselves.) (The issue of the hiring of a Congressional chaplain may arise, but I don’t see where they need one–he doesn’t seem to have done them any good, so far, and it is hardly an imposition on their individual beliefs to not have an “official” opening prayer.)
A statement in the State of the Union is, for all that it is Constitutionally mandated, still a personal expression of the President. I don’t see how he could be prohibited from including any catchphrase he wished in his address.
I don’t see most of these events as imposing non-belief on a person–and I certainly do not see them impinging on the practice of one’s faith in the home.
Yes, I do see that some people are threatened by some of these ideas. I do not believe that they have legitimate cause for alarm. I suspect that they are simply so used to having their religious expressions unthinkingly expressed, that they are upset that the world is more variable than they had expected.
Even with a generalized drift away from organized religion, it would be many years before the non-theistic citizens would have the votes to restrict religion more than it currently is in the U.S. In the meantime, we could easily see another resurgence in religion as encountered at various other times in our history.
(Regarding your exchange with EchoKitty, I would very definitely read that 99-0 vote as a frightened, election year “save our seats” vote.)
Just out of curiousity, what is with the constant use of “god-fearing”? If the JC god is, as touted by his followers, a loving god, shouldn’t the term be “god-loving,” “god-following,” or “god-respecting”?
Given the Christian majority in the US, I think that if we need fear anything, it would be a return to the Burning Times, not to repression of Christianity.
Here we are in agreement, Tomndebb - except that I’d suggest that people plainly do have those fears and that it’s not for you to say whether or not their alarm is legitimate.
Who were they fighting against ? People who wanted to restrict the rights of students to pray in school ?
I believe atheists, if they become organized, could become a political force to be reckoned with…and as I showed before - despite AlItalia’s protests - atheists do appear to be becoming organized.
School administrators who are so overwhelmed by the Religious Right’s propaganda that the Supremes banned all religious expression in schools (even personal expression) that they tried to enforce the rules according to the propaganda rather than the actual rulings.
As to whether their fears are or are not legitimate: I can not demand that a person stop being afraid, but I think it is quite appropriate to point out that their fear has no basis in reality (requiring that over 50% of the voting public both become non-religious and become militantly anti-religious which is what their fears require in order to be acted upon) especially when they use that baseless fear to drive public policy to the point of infringing on others who do not share their views.
Why do you think it would take 50% of people to become non-religious to enact legislation ? Aren’t there minorities much smaller than 50% who have successfully lobbied for legislation in their favor ?
I’d suggest that it would take a tiny minority to become militantly anti-religious plus a large enough non-religious minority to help make them heard.
