It means all religions collectively. For example, you could make it illegal to make derogatory statements in public about any religion, without constraining what a pastor may say inside his or her establishment. A blog open to anyone would be another matter.
The nature of God, including whether or not he exists, is a religious issue. So if you don’t believe God exists then you have a belief on that religious issue. And that qualifies as a religious belief.
This is an old, old debate here…but note the exact phrasing. “If you don’t believe…” If I don’t believe, then that isn’t a belief.
If I definitely do believe that there is no God…that’s a belief. If I don’t know, or don’t care, then that isn’t a belief.
Full agnostics have no religious beliefs. Uninvolved atheists have no religious beliefs.
Hard-core firmly convinced atheists…well, maybe.
I feel this is just a semantic game. “I don’t believe God exists” and “I believe God doesn’t exist” are equivalent statements.
I suppose it’s possible for there to be somebody who honestly has never considered the question. But I have a hard time imagining such a person existing in the real world. Religion is a pervasive issue in human society.
As for the nature of belief, I think it’s the appropriate term. Or are you argued that you can prove there is no God? I can’t think of any evidence you could offer for such an argument that couldn’t be refuted. Ultimately, the counter to such an argument is that an omnipotent God could create evidence of his non-existence. So believing God doesn’t exist cannot be a provable fact.
It’s more than just symbolic-- it’s a joke. It’s a way of thumbing our noses at King George and saying “We have no king but G-d.”
Remember singing “My Country 'Tis of Thee” in elementary school, and not realizing at the time that it was to the tune of what was England’s national anthem during the revolutionary war? One of the slogans of the time was that the US has no other king than “The king of all.” The first slogan to appear of continental currency was actually “Mind Your Business,” but it was changed to “In G-d We Trust” in line with the slogan regarding the king of all. I have no idea whether England’s money at the time had some slogan regarding the seated monarch, but that’s the whole of the symbolism, and probably something even an atheist at the time could get behind as a jab at the unpopular King George.
240 years later (yes, it has been almost 40 years since the bicentennial), it’s not so relevant, although I don’t see it coming off the money any time soon. But that’s how it got there.
I doubt people were thinking much of King George in 1864 when it first appeared on currency or in 1956 when it was adopted as the official motto of the US. If it was thumbing its nose at anything, it was “Godless Communists” in the '50s.
Exactly. I’m a traditionalist in these matters and I prefer the pledge in its original form. Cramming “under God” into it takes some of the punch out of “One nation, INDIVISIBLE.” It’s particularly ironic because doing so turns the pledge into something divisive. Instead of being an affirmation of our unity as Americans (despite our many differences) it becomes a tool for excluding atheists from the body politic.
True, but I hope it’s not just atheists. I like to believe (hah!) that there are more than a few religious folks who cringe at mixing religion and governance in that way, preferring to keep their beliefs to themselves.
I know that they would cringe…but I fear that they would step aside and quietly let it happen anyway. Like the “good” atheists that go along to get along, I think that there are far too many “good” Christians that stay silent when religion gets shoved into politics.
I don’t know about that. To me, as an atheist, I look at it this way:
-
How important is “In God We Trust” on our money relative to the other issues?
-
How much effort would it take to change things, and what is the likelihood of success?
For #1, the answer is: not very important. For #2, the answer is: a shitload of effort and almost no chance of success.
I prefer to focus on issues that are 1), more important and 2) have an actual likelihood of success.
Now, if you want to talk about teaching Creationism in school, then you can get my attention!
I’m not talking about the motto on the penny.
I’m talking about all the shit we have to put up with on radio, television, internet, Congressional lobbying etc., that when brought up brings an all too common response of “Oh, those right wingers aren’t real Christianity! You’re just making a mountain out of a molehill.” The fact is, an organized minority that is willing to take action is much more powerful than an unorganized majority that might, at best, cringe on my behalf. To any Christian that says, “Those people that are trying to restrict your rights? That’s not us.”, I have to ask, “Then who are you then, to me?”
How do you know what Obama believes? Why would it necessarily be a “literal God”? Most people who aren’t avowed atheists believe in God in some sense, but it’s often an abstract, spiritual sense. Is that the same thing?
Rather than making glib generalities trying to equate Scalia and Obama, let’s look at what Scalia actually said. He claims the devil “is a real person” who is documented in the Gospels as “making pigs run off cliffs … possessing people and whatnot. And that doesn’t happen very much anymore … because he’s smart.” In modern times, Scalia says, the devil has “gotten wilier” and makes it his mission to go around turning people into atheists, because disbelief in God “certainly favors the devil’s desires”.
So there you go. This also ties in to the recent discussion about whether atheism is a “belief” – Scalia certainly thinks so – he thinks it’s a belief that is the work of the devil. This doesn’t in itself argue that Scalia is stupid, but it certainly seems to argue for his being scarily weird, not exactly what one would think of as enlightened. I think one need look no further to understand Scalia’s judgments about the role of religion in American society, or, for that matter, his virulent homophobia.
I hadn’t noticed this sentence until you quoted it, but now that I read it: what an odd thing to say!
If an intelligent believer in God thinks in terms of “old guy with a beard riding on a cloud” at all, that’s a metaphor, symbol, or image—as opposed to the literal God behind the image.
But then, I’m starting to believe that the words “literal” and “literally” should be retired, since nobody can agree on what they mean.
But many atheists, even some on these boards, have argued that Atheism is NOT a religious belief.
Atheism is a belief.
Atheism is NOT a religious belief.
It’s not. It may be a belief about gods(not religions) in general, but it is not a “religious belief”, and I hope you can understand the difference.
edited to add: I have no problem believing religions exist.
Nope. Norms are establish d by society, or even communities. There might be peer pressure for a student to cheer, “Go Eagles!” Or that “City X id the Best!” Or that The Lord is All Powerful." The state can’t disallow the last one due to it’s religiosity any more than it can say that everyone has to participate in the belief (small “b”).
Are you saying that communities are allowed to establish “religious norms”?
I don’t really think it’s all that complicated. Remember, that at the time some states had actual established religions. And I’m not aware of people viewing that as a problem. In fact, an impetus for the First Amendment was the fear that the federal government would establish a national religion (like England had) which would be in direct opposition to each of the states who had established religions.
I disagree with this strongly, as I’ve expressed before. Whether there is a god or not is a philosophical position. Once you get into a particular flavor of god, and what beliefs flow from it, what requirements it imposes on you, etc, you enter the realm of religion. Not before.