Obama is a self-declared Christian, not some new-agy spiritualist (that was his mother). He believes in a literal God, which I don’t find substantively different from believing in a literal devil-- at least not in relation to judging a person’s intelligence.
Go back and look at the post I was responding to.
I think is just a nod to that document that set the U.S. apart philosophically: The Declaration of Independence, which is an affirmation that our rights are not subject to the whims of kings, but are eternal, as suggested by:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them,…
<snip>
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
[QUOTE=Dr. Drake.]
Atheism is a belief.
Atheism is NOT a religious belief.
[/QUOTE]
You agree with me and disagree with Little Nemo. Explain it to him.
I would think so. Why do you think not?
And our constitution forbids them from using the power of law as one of the tools in establishing those norms, or in the enforcement of their observation.
I can live in a community that’s 99% Christian…and they cannot legally stop me from working on my car on Sunday.
I completely disagree. Agnosticism may arguably be described as an abstention from belief, but atheism definitely stakes out a position on the spectrum of belief, namely a position more or less on the opposite extreme from fundies like Biblical literalists.
Like other religious beliefs, atheism has both philosophical and political qualities. Philosophically, whether atheists acknowledge it or not, true atheism is based on faith just like religion. Atheists may argue that they are hard-nosed scientists and their beliefs are based on scientific evidence, or the lack thereof. But it’s not so, because science only disproves a particular narrow concept of God, and as science is – and always will be – incomplete, it cannot rule out every possible kind of God in whatever unimaginable form such an entity might exist.
Politically, and more pragmatically, strong-minded atheists have as much right to take offense at having Christianity shoved in their face by a Christian majority as might devout Muslims or orthodox Jews, and for the same reasons: because it contradicts their deeply held beliefs.
Wrong. See above.
Do you really think that (a) that quote establishes Obama as a Biblical literalist, or that (b) it is in any way comparable to Scalia describing the devil as “a real person” who has “gotten wily” in modern times and no longer possesses people or drives pigs off cliffs as much as he used to? And to get even that much of a quote about religion, you had to dig up a battle’o’faith between Obama and Romney conducted by Cathedral Age in which each was trying to outdo the other to show how pious they are. Whereas Scalia eagerly volunteered his lunatic views about the wily modern devil. Frankly it’s hard to dispel the notion that Obama doesn’t believe any of that BS which was mostly for political show, while Scalia might actually be a little mentally unbalanced.
Yes, to the question posed in the OP.
Care to elaborate slightly?
I should have written “to the question posed in the title.” Any attempt to honor the freedom of religious belief should, if it is made in good faith, honor the freedom to have no religious belief. In fact, it seems to me that the state (or whatever entity is making this effort) should itself be free from religion, since there is no way to honor them all without bias. Simultaneously, the state/etc. should not be able to prevent the free exercise of religion (or refusal to exercise any religion), unless said exercise negatively affects others.
In other words, I think the establishment clause and free exercise clause of the First Amendment are wise in principle, but I question their feasibility. In the end, I crave a world in which religion is not suppressed, but rather deemed passe’.
I disagree obviously. I feel these atheists do have a religious belief. But religion doesn’t follow from a religious belief. If my religious belief is that all religions are worthless, then I don’t have a religion.
Democrats, mostly. 
I also do smile a bit at folks who seem to think Obama is just pretending to be a Christian, when everything he’s said on the topic seems to indicate that he is your ordinary garden variety liberal mainline Protestant. One can argue that Obama’s faith seems much more important to him [Obama] than George H.W. Bush’s faith was to him [H.W.], simply based on how they’ve spoken about their faith publicly (Obama tends to do it quite a few times when he isn’t campaigning or trying to sway poll numbers).
Some people will object to the statement that atheism is a belief, pointing out that it’s a lack of belief. That’s true, but I’d also argue that most of us atheists also have a belief that there really is no god.
Atheism isn’t a religion, but it seems entirely reasonable to me to say that, if you believe there is no god, that atheism is a religious belief. It’s a belief regarding religion.
No. At most, it can be considered a belief regarding gods, but it is not a belief regarding religions.
I think people are using “belief” too narrowly, and (ironically) in the religious sense. From context, “belief” seems to mean “hold faith in.” To me, “belief” means “accept, but have not independently tested.” Most of what we know we know by belief. Some of it is based on good authority, and some on faith.
I wouldn’t call atheism religious because it is not of a religion, but I can see how with your usage of “religious” it makes sense. It’s like my musical toaster—there’s a scene from Oklahoma! on one side, and The Sound of Music on the other. Never mind that when I say “musical toaster,” people think it plays music. Burden is on me to be clear.
I think part of the problem is the assumption that religion involves belief. For Protestants it’s essential, and for all Christians there’s the Creed and therefore it’s important. If you expand the network out a bit, in some religions belief is taken for granted and individuals don’t really profess it or worry about it or even do it. Praxis is much more important.
I want a musical toaster.
I’m baffled with what you find surprising here. This is absolutely bog-standard Christian teaching, deriving straight from the Gospel accounts. It’s what I would assume most Christians believe- it’s certainly what I believe. And I say this as someone who disagrees with Scalia’s politics on a whole hell of a lot (not on everything). I’m genuinely curious about what you find strange about this.
I don’t know if the devil particularly makes an effort to turn people into atheists- I think people are good enough at doing that themselves- but certainly it’s standard Christian teaching that as truth is of God, so delusion, all sorts of delusion, is a tool of the devil.
What you have sounds to me like a philosophical position about religion. That’s all.
The primary definition of “religious belief” is “The belief in the reality of the mythological, supernatural, or spiritual aspects of a religion”, so I am going to continue to see any attempt to apply that term to atheism as an attempt to muddy the conversation.