Atheists want God outlawed? (WV_Woman, please respond)

[Mighty_Maximino]

*Originally posted by dreamer *
**

So if there was a ballot going around with the idea to make religious practice illegal, you would not vote for it?

I admit, the idea of banning religion completely is far fetched, but I do believe we are heading towards a time where the choice of which religion you’d like to practice will be limited. I have no “cite” or “proof”, just my opinion, but it happens in other parts of the world which leads me to believe it could happen in the future of America. **

Not only would I vote against such a ridiculous measure, but I’d be right out there in the streets with you protesting it, and participating in the revolution should it pass.

However, dreamed, you keep ignoring me! Can you name any politician that would support such a measure? At least where I live, a public profession of atheism would be a death knell for a political career. (And I notice that Robert Byrd didn’t invite Christians to leave the country if they want to have state-mandated religious phrases.) So I find it much more likely that a bill would be passed requiring me to be a Christian than forbidding you from being one. Or are you simply determined that you’re the one being marginalized here?

[dalovindj]

So if there was a ballot going around with the idea to make religious practice illegal, you would not vote for it?

Now you’re starting to get it. Not one person here (or anywhere else I have seen) has displayed a desire to make religion illegal.

I, for the most part, hate the organized religions of the world and feel that we would be much better off without them. The mechanics of the brainwashing most of these religions use are conducive to ignorance and are designed to protect statements (which are most likely untrue) from rational thought and examination.

Convictions are the end of knowledge, not the beginning. They are the enemy of truth more than lies.

Religion, as it exists today and for the last few thousand years, IMO, is a hindrance to intelligent society, a source of great cruelty, pain and suffering, and an enemy of knowledge, truth, and understanding.

Yet still, I would never advocate making religion illegal. Nevermind the absolutely ridiculous idea that we would make only certain religions illegal in this country. I want to see religious worship ended through reasonable thought, examination of evidence, and the pursuit of verifiable knowledge. Force won’t work, and even if it did, it would be the wrong way for it to happen.

I admit, the idea of banning religion completely is far fetched, but I do believe we are heading towards a time where the choice of which religion you’d like to practice will be limited. I have no “cite” or “proof”, just my opinion, but it happens in other parts of the world which leads me to believe it could happen in the future of America.

Well I must say, that just in my opinion, that there is not a chance in hell the government in the US will ever pass a law against Christianity. To assume so without proof, cause, or any real reason is ignorant at best and bigoted at worst. Keep religion out of the government is all we are saying. To build a strawman atheist who wants religion illegal (when no such animal seems to exist) just clouds the issue. Bait and switch. A common tactic among many religious folks I know.

The fact is that athiests (and even us agnostics who accept there isn’t enough data to make a conclusion yet - the only reasonable position IMO) do not want religion illegal. We want separation of curches and the State. It really is a great part of the constitution.

I personally want to see it out of the courtrooms and off the money too. But do what you want in private locations. Just don’t hurt anybody.

DaLovin’ Dj

[dreamer]

*Originally posted by Mighty Maximino *
**
However, dreamed, you keep ignoring me! Can you name any politician that would support such a measure? **

No Mighty Maximino I can’t name one, and I’m sorry I ignored your earlier question about that.

** So I find it much more likely that a bill would be passed requiring me to be a Christian than forbidding you from being one. Or are you simply determined that you’re the one being marginalized here? **

I could go far, far into what I believe to be the future but I can’t imagine there ever being a law that would require you to be a Christian, besides you would not really be one if you did not believe it to be true.

[Apos]

—Along with an occassional bit of fraud. I don’t recall the name offhand, but there was a Christian author a while back who manufactured quotes from Jefferson and Adams showing them to be staunch supporters of a religious state and that they themselves were devout Christians. —

It was Daniel Barton of Wallbuilders Inc. To be fair, he did later admit what he had did, though he still saw fit to continue producing promotional videos containing the false quotes.

Not before various Congress people in state and federal levels quoted his non-existent quotes in defense of some or other tragedy of freedom.

[Kirkland1244]

Does anyone know where we can find a list of Mr. Barton’s fictitious quotes?

[blowero]

*Originally posted by vanilla *
**I’d been told in some of the fundie churches I’ve gone to, that the term “separation of church and state” was not intended at all by the writers.
UL? **

What cracks me up is that often the SAME people who favor a strict interpretation of the Establishment Clause, favor a liberal interpretation of the right to bear arms.

[rjung]

*Originally posted by dreamer *
Yes, in fact I have and a few are close friends of mine who have no problem saying they would like a world “religion free”. I can’t understand why you have such a hard time believing there are people who feel this way.

I can believe it. It’s no less implausible than folks who would like a world where Jesus has returned, the Final Battle has been waged, and everyone is either sitting happily by God’s side or gnashing their teeth in despair.

The beauty of the American system of government is that it accomodates both of these viewpoints, by maintaining a neutral stance vis-a-vis religion (Amendment I all over again). And that’s why us atheists get upset when religious influences get into the government, because we see it as violating this neutrality.

The problem, as I see it, is that some religious fundamentalists see this desire for a religion-neutral government and assume/extend that to mean that atheists was everything to be religion-free. Which, as earlier messages in this OP tell us, is a false conclusion.

Summary: you believe what you want, I believe what I want. But let’s make sure the government doesn’t favor either one of us, mmkay?

[JThunder]

*Originally posted by spoke- *
**Of particular note would be the views of Thomas Jefferson (drafter of the Declaration of Independence) and his protege James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution.” Both of these men adamantly and in plain language endorsed the notion of a “wall of separation” between church and state. **

I don’t know about Madison, but in Jefferson’s case, the context clearly shows that he was referring specifically to the non-establishment of a state religion… which is quite different from the sense in which “separation of church and state” is bandied about nowadays. In fact, Jefferson himself said,

Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the States, as far is it can be in any human authority. (The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, ed. Emphasis added.)

.

So clearly, Jefferson was not advocating the complete separation of church and state. (See http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/social_issues/churchan.htm for further commentary on this matter.)

[quixotic78]

*Originally posted by dreamer *
So if there was a ballot going around with the idea to make religious practice illegal, you would not vote for it?

I think you’re missing the point of many posts in this thread (or, at least, what I deign to be the point of many posts in this thread). The point as I see it is that such a ballot would never, ever even get started. Witness the recent 99-0 vote by the Senate against the PoA decision. [Quick aside–does anyone know who the one abstention was?] Even proposing such a bill would get a publically elected official run off on a rail.
**

I admit, the idea of banning religion completely is far fetched**

Well, good. I agree.
**

…but I do believe we are heading towards a time where the choice of which religion you’d like to practice will be limited. I have no “cite” or “proof”, just my opinion, but it happens in other parts of the world which leads me to believe it could happen in the future of America. **

If this does indeed come to pass, then I strongly suspect that it will be in your favor, i.e., the choices will consist solely of Baptist, Southern Baptist, or conservative Southern Baptist Or do you really expect me to draw a parallel from, for example, Communist China and what they did to “outlaw” religion? If that’s your contention, then please read up a little bit and find out what America did in the 1950s to counteract China’s actions. Hell, in this very thread, it’s been mentioned that “under God” was added to the PoA in 1954 by Ike. So you’re going to have a tough time convincing me that because Christianity is being assaulted in other countries, it’s going to be assaulted here in the U.S., too.

If you believe otherwise, then I think you’re subscribing to what one poster (Ben) once labelled “Fundie Porn.” You WANT people to discriminate against you and all of Christendom, so it will make your eventual victory that much sweeter.

[dreamer]

*Originally posted by quixotic78 *
**

You WANT people to discriminate against you and all of Christendom, so it will make your eventual victory that much sweeter. **

By no means do I want that. There’s no victory in forcing others to believe something they don’t want to believe. I’m not quite sure I follow what “victory” you think I’m looking for anyway.

I think you’ve missed the point of what I was saying. You can’t say that a ballot like that would “never, ever even get started”, I wouldn’t be surprised if someday it did. What I’m saying is there are people out there who would want it to be started and would vote for it. And Please don’t ask me for their names :rolleyes:

[vanilla]

And thank you all for the links.
There Should be a separation of church and state, WV.
What if a church you didn’t agree wtih came to power?

[Largo62]

Bertrand Russell once observed: “I think that if people solve their social problems religion will die out.”

My own observation of his statement was that I don’t believe people will solve their social problems until religion dies out.

That said, I would fight against any proposed law that would deny anyone the freedom to believe or practice or advocate any religion or philosophy they chose. For religion to die out is a situation I would receive with joy. But for religion to be forced out is as repugnant an idea to me as to have religion forced upon me.

If VW_Woman could produce any evidence of anyone in our society who actually advocated forcing God out of private homes, I might take her statement seriously. But as far as I can see, her statement was only a lame attempt to build a straw man, the destruction of which might support her limited view.

Advocates might be found for such a view among expatriot Soviets, but the immediate rebounding of religion in the former Soviet Union after nearly seven decades of religious repression makes me doubt even that possibility.

[jayjay]

My sig seems particularly appropriate at this point,

jayjay

[hansel]

*Originally posted by dreamer *
**What I’m saying is there are people out there who would want it to be started and would vote for it. And Please don’t ask me for their names :rolleyes: **

The point of asking for their names is to determine whether or not you have evidence that a noticeable part of the populace want it, or are simply indulging in some kind of Christianity-in-America doomsday scenario. You’re free to do the latter if you want, but your opinion will carry little weight in the argument without something tangible to indicate that it’s an actual danger. In a nation of 300 million, you can always find someone who would be terrifying to you if they were in charge; but unless they stand a reasonable chance of making something happen, then it’s nothing more than dystopian daydreaming.

[Largo62]

My apologies, WV_Woman, on transposing your initials. I never could get that spray lubricant right either: “Let’s see, was it 'D.W. Griffith and WD-40…or was it the other way around?” :o

I tried to get right back in to fix the mistake, but I think another hamster bit the dust.

[JDM]

*Originally posted by dreamer *
**

So if there was a ballot going around with the idea to make religious practice illegal, you would not vote for it?

I admit, the idea of banning religion completely is far fetched, but I do believe we are heading towards a time where the choice of which religion you’d like to practice will be limited. I have no “cite” or “proof”, just my opinion, but it happens in other parts of the world which leads me to believe it could happen in the future of America. **

It’s Metaphor Time!!!

I am allergic to peanuts. Peanuts are incredibly prevalent, I might say, almost ubiquitous, in American society.
I can honestly say that I would prefer that peanuts did not exist.
I would never support or vote for any ballot banning peanuts.
I would, however, use every means available to me to ensure that the government did not:

1. force me to eat a peanut, and
2. provide a service for all (such as education) but then make a certain portion of that service contingent upon my eating a peanut, no matter how small that portion was, particularly if my partaking of that service was compulsory.

Notice that I have not said anywhere in this: “Keep dreamer from eating peanuts.”

See, in a society in which there are other people, those other people will have specific needs, desires, beliefs, allergies, etc. The purpose of an enlightened society is to ensure that the needs, etc., of each member will be met as far as possible within the framework of the society as a whole. Madison warned against the “tyranny of the majority,” which tyranny corresponds to the majority limiting my diet to Stuckey’s Peanut Brittle. Even if 99.99% of the people felt that a diet of Stuckey’s Peanut Brittle was best, it would be bad for me. Madison felt that the mandating of any religion by the government was a bad thing:

The danger of silent accumulations and encroachments by ecclesiastical bodies have not sufficiently engaged attention in the United States. They have the noble merit of first unshackling the conscience from persecuting laws, and of establishing among religious sects a legal equality. If some of the states have not embraced this just and this truly Christian principle in its proper latitude, all of them present examples by which the most enlightened states of the old world may be instructed; and there is one state at least, Virginia, where religious liberty is placed on its true foundation, and is defined in its full latitude. The general principle is contained in her declaration of rights, prefixed to her Constitution; but it is unfolded and defined, in its precise extent, in the act of the Legislature, usually named the Religious Bill, which passed into a law in the year 1786. Here the separation between the authority of human laws, and the natural rights of man excepted from the grant on which all political authority is founded, is traced as distinctly as words can admit, and the limits to this authority established with as much solemnity as the forms of legislation can express. The formal appeal to the sense of the community, and a deliberate sanction of a vast majority, comprizing every sect of Christians in the state. This act is a true standard of religious liberty: its principle the great barrier against usurpations on the rights of conscience. As long as it is respected and no longer, these will be safe. Every provision for them short of this principle, will be found to leave crevices at least through which bigotry may introduce persecution; a monster that feeding and thriving on its own venom, gradually swells to a size and strength overwhelming all laws divine and human.

The Preamble to the Virginia “Religious Bill,” to which Madison refers, is described here, by its author, Thomas Jefferson:

[When] the [Virginia] bill for establishing religious freedom… was finally passed,… a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word “Jesus Christ,” so that it should read “a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion.” The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination.

See, the government’s mandating of a religious observance would be equivalent to the government’s mandating that I eat peanuts. But bad as the government’s mandating that I eat peanuts would be, such a mandate is not specifically countermanded in the Constitution (we’ll talk about the ninth amendment elsewhere). The government’s mandating of a religious observance, however, is clearly and specifically banned in the Constitution. That ban is meant to ensure the rights of:

the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination.

which includes everybody in the USA, and indeed, everybody. JDM

[dreamer]

*Originally posted by hansel *
**The point of asking for their names is to determine whether or not you have evidence that a noticeable part of the populace want it, or are simply indulging in some kind of Christianity-in-America doomsday scenario. You’re free to do the latter if you want, but your opinion will carry little weight in the argument without something tangible to indicate that it’s an actual danger. In a nation of 300 million, you can always find someone who would be terrifying to you if they were in charge; but unless they stand a reasonable chance of making something happen, then it’s nothing more than dystopian daydreaming. **

So then if I tell you that I know of someone who wishes that religion be abolished in our country and would be quite the happy camper if there ever was a ballot that tried to do that, that I should tell you his/her name? And if I don’t “my opinion will carry little weight?”.

Whether or not I tell you who or how many individuals I have heard that statement from has little effect on the fact that it’s true. Obviously there isn’t a “noticeable part of the populace” who want this or there already would be a ballot, but there really are people I know who have said this stuff and if you don’t want to believe it then that would be entirely up to you. As far as it being “an actual danger” I can’t see the ones I know picketing the White House or starting anything, but I know they would be the first to hop on the bandwagon if it ever came to pass.

[Cervaise]

*Originally posted by quixotic78 *
[Quick aside–does anyone know who the one abstention was?]

Hilariously enough, it was Jesse Helms, who was, as I understand it, away on some sort of engagement. Otherwise I’m sure he would have been elbowing his way to the head of the crowd to recite the pledge for the TV cameras.

[Stuffy]

Dreamer, I believe what posters are asking for is some organized group of people out to make this happen. Otherwise it appears you seem to be suffering from an imagined persecution.

[EchoKitty]

Dreamer, the sad part is that there is ALREADY a ballot going on in the court system to PUSH CHRISTIANITY AND RELIGION down the athiest’s and agnostic’s and polythiest’s throats. The entire senate got out there and practically prayed to make the resolution go away. This inability for some Christians (most Christians) to accept the separation of government and religion. They refuse to respect our religious views (or lack thereof) and they flat out make up “evidence” to support why god must be imprinted on our money and our minds in the name of flag-waving patriotism. The religious groups are doing to us EXACTLY what you don’t want to happen to you. We’ve never shoved it down anyone’s throat!