# Is Atheism protected by the Establishment Clause? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 13, 2005, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868 "2005-11-13T18:24:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/81 "2005-11-14T12:38:04Z")
[QUOTE=Voyager] > [@](#): > > ??? By removing a religious test? By not allowing the establishment of any religion in the First Amendment? Where do you see it considering religion important? Perhaps pretty dam important is too strong but religion is clearly significant enough to be protected. > [@](#): > > Each person is permitted to worship or not worship as he or she wishes - so long as they do not do it as a representative of government. How much simpler can it get? I don’t think this is quite as simple as you seem to. I can see some problems determining where the lines are drawn when it comes to federal employees who hold religious beliefs. Such as , if a teacher is a believer and wants to say under God when she recites the pledge at school is she allowed to do so? How do you balance free speech, freedom of worship and the establishment clause? > [@](#): > > Evangelicals do not have to believe in evolution. (Actually, no one should - it is a matter of evidence, not belief.) But they should not attempt to get unscientific, religiously motivated crap taught in a science class. I’ve been wondering about this. I remember in high school our science teacher refused to teach evolution. We didn’t care at the time and nothing was said by anyone that I recall. In private schools set up by churches are they allowed to teach whatever they choose. There must be some minimum requirements. Are there state tests the students have to take? Are they being taught bogus history as well as creationism? ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/82 "2005-11-14T12:40:49Z")
Does any one other than Christians feel the need to include the “word” God on our money, in our pledge etc? From what I have read of History, the first Christians didn’t need such things. I fail to see how having the word God on anything makes the USA a better place. Perhaps if the believers really followed their beliefs instead of worrying that the word God Is not posted then their faith maybe taken away. Isn’t faith a personal thing? I know mine will not change unless personally feel I need a change(regardless if God is Printed,posted or not).I do not know of any Atheists who could forbid a person to believe or dis-believe in a God since no one can read another’s mind. There were many believers in The USSR who were not allowed to practice their beliefs, but still believed. In this country people are guaranteed the right to practice their beliefs or non-beliefs,that is the greatness of our constitution. Monavis ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/83 "2005-11-14T13:13:59Z")
While looking for something else I stumbled on this. It’s an example of defrining where the lines are drawn and how it can be tricky. In [this](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/14/politics/main666977.shtml) article an atheist who wanted “under God” out of the pledge also wanted to prohibit Bush from swearing on the Bible. > [@](#): > > Newdow argued that saying a Christian prayer at the Jan. 20 ceremony would violate the Constitution by forcing him to accept unwanted religious beliefs. This is part of the problem of balancing free speech, free worship and the establishment clause. IMO a blanket attitude that federal employees should not be allowed to talk about God while they’re at work is dead wrong. A federal employee expressing their beliefs is not “the government” establishment of religion. In a somewhat related story. In [this](http://atheism.about.com/b/a/095717.htm) article a Muslim family sues over haressment when their kids refuse to stand and say the pledge. On that I agree. Teachers and others must understand that the pledge is voluntary and should never punish or tolerate haressment if students decline to participate. I find it interesting though that one child also refused to play the Star Spangled Banner in school band. What’s the objection to that? It’s a musical number which requires no oath. If your kid refuses to play a song without some legit reason then I think the band director has the option to say, “Okay, you’re out of the band” ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/84 "2005-11-14T13:23:22Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > Does any one other than Christians feel the need to include the “word” God on our money, in our pledge etc? From what I have read of History, the first Christians didn’t need such things. I fail to see how having the word God on anything makes the USA a better place. Perhaps if the believers really followed their beliefs instead of worrying that the word God Is not posted then their faith maybe taken away. Isn’t faith a personal thing? I know mine will not change unless personally feel I need a change(regardless if God is Printed,posted or not).I do not know of any Atheists who could forbid a person to believe or dis-believe in a God since no one can read another’s mind. There were many believers in The USSR who were not allowed to practice their beliefs, but still believed. In this country people are guaranteed the right to practice their beliefs or non-beliefs,that is the greatness of our constitution. > > Monavis I agree with you. I just wrote an Email to my sister who forwarded some bogus Christian propaganda about the ACLU sueing the Marines to not pray. I’m thinking the whole confrontation will benifit people by making them think about their faith rather than preform mindless tradition. I have a real problem with people who claim to worship the truth but eagerly pass on BS about our history and feel that CHristianity has some sort of spiritual dibbs on the US. If you want people to have respect for your religion then start living it. Stop supporting jackasses like Robertson, Falwell, and Swaggart, and calling them Christs representatives. Jesus told the pharisees exactly what he thought about their abuse of the name of God. Christians should be a lot more outraged about their faith being misrepresented by those who only mouth the words, than by an honest atheist. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/85 "2005-11-14T19:05:28Z")
**tomndebb** Civil Religion would be the nation-state itself. We consistently get into wars over ideology. For the past 50 years every one of our wars has been about ideology, with the possible exception of Desert Storm which was refreshingly actually just about oil. However, we’ve been trying to impose Democracy on the whole world since World War II. The establishment clause is completely shredded in this country. The needs of the Mammonite capitalists generally wins out, and other rights are trampled into the dirt. Why can’t I smoke pot/hash/lsd as a sacrament? Why do I need to PROVE to the civil authority that my religious ritual is a valid expression of my religion? Every time you talk about sacramental rights, people start with bullshit arguments about human sacrifice and cannibalism as a sacrament. While almost no one actually sees moral equivalency between taking LSD and Cannibalism, why can’t consentual cannibalism be allowed as a sacrament, if we truly want to respect the establishment clause? The truth is that there are a lot of conflicting ideologies, and the way we argue about them is generally determined by the way they are organized. One can take two paths toward arguing their right to practice their own ideology. One is establishing oneself as a religion and showing that one’s religion fits within the legal framework of what is a religion. (This is of course establishing some religions over others) Or they can argue that their ideology is not religious but secular in nature. Now the organized religion has an advantage because there is a way to actually organize people under a single banner. The advantage of the other type is one of loose affiliation. The organized religion can bring to bear considerable weight by voting as a bloc. The other one can take the tactic that their ideology is not religious in nature, and therefore should not be debated as a religion, regardless of whether it directly conflicts with religious belief. A good example of the civil religion’s attempt to establish it’s secular ideology is the middle-east. We look at theocratic regimes as a bad thing. So we try and impose democracy. This takes away their right to their religion, because many of them believe that religion should be an integral part of the functioning of the state. So by denying them the ability to build a muslim theocracy, we are denying them the right to practice their faith as they see fit. The prevailing wisdom however, is that it’s not a religious matter, because we aren’t imposing ‘religious’ values, we are imposing ‘secular’ values, so it’s not a religious matter. However, the people being imposed upon see it quite differently. In America our legal system is based entirely off of semantic tricks, it’s all about how things are worded, wording is very important. This figures very centrally into the entire system, so if we word something so that it is no a religious ideology, but rather a secular ideology, then we don’t have to worry about the whole religious issue. However, the conflict of ideologies is most DEFINITELY a religious matter, because we are imposing it upon people who don’t speak our language, for whom the words secular and religious probably do not translate directly in the way we understand them in English. There most certainly is an establishment of religion in this country. The national religion of the United States of America is Secularism, clever semantic wrangling that seperates secularism from the idea of religion in our minds doesn’t make it so, especially when our ideology is being imposed as superseding another’s religious belief. Not only that but we look at those other people as being unreasonable for not wanting to accept a secular ideology. In many cases a secular ideology is in direct conflict with the doctrine of a person’s faith, as anyone who has ever actually bothered to read what Osama bin Laden has written would understand that this theme figures pretty centrally into why he wants to bring down America. Erek ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/86 "2005-11-14T19:44:01Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > The establishment clause is completely shredded in this country. The needs of the Mammonite capitalists generally wins out, and other rights are trampled into the dirt. Why can’t I smoke pot/hash/lsd as a sacrament? Why do I need to PROVE to the civil authority that my religious ritual is a valid expression of my religion? Every time you talk about sacramental rights, people start with bullshit arguments about human sacrifice and cannibalism as a sacrament. While almost no one actually sees moral equivalency between taking LSD and Cannibalism, why can’t consentual cannibalism be allowed as a sacrament, if we truly want to respect the establishment clause? (Incidentally, I think sacramental drug use would fall under the free exercise clause, not the establishment clause.) Why is it a bullshit argument? Practically everyone, from secular humanists to Christian fundamentalists to practioners of New Age religions agrees that it’s legitimate for the state to prohibit murder (and indeed it would be illegitimate for the state _not_ to prohibit murder), and no matter how ardent and how sincere the beliefs of the members of the First Neo-Aztec Church of Huitzilopochtli, we’re not going to allow them to go around carving out the still-beating hearts of their enemies in order to keep the sun rising each morning. Now, _ **IF** _ you agree that the state has a legitimate interest in prohibiting people from using hallucinogens, I don’t see why or even how we can carve out an exemption for “sacramental” use. If you want to argue that the state doesn’t have any legitimate interest in prohibiting people from putting hallucinogens into their own bodies (unless they’re operating heavy machinery in public places under the influence), whether it’s part of an organized religion, individual semi-religious philosophical experimentation, or just for the sheer hell of it, I would agree with you. But I definitely don’t want to put any government agency–certainly not the DEA–in charge of determining which religions are “real” religions and which are just fake religions made up by guys who want to smoke pot, or parsing such fascinating theological questions as whether white guys may legitimately convert to Rastafarianism. And there are plenty of “generally applicable laws vs. freedom of religion” cases in between sacramental drug use and sacrificing infants to Moloch. How about plural marriage? Islam permits polygamy, and the “Mormon fundamentalist” fringe groups basically demand it as a religious duty. OK, maybe if several consenting adult women want to marry some guy, we should allow it (although if we’re going to allow polygamy I don’t think that right should be limited to consenting adult women who have converted to Islam or “Mormon fundamentalism”). But what about the “adult” part? What if someone sincerely believes he has a religious, God-given duty to marry a 13-year-old girl? Must the state of Georgia waive its law which sets the age of consent at 16 in favor of this guy’s “free exercise of religion”? ---
**Author:** ![Ponder\_Stibbons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ponder_stibbons/32/343_2.png) [@Ponder\_Stibbons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ponder_Stibbons)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/87 "2005-11-14T19:49:23Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > … no matter how ardent and how sincere the beliefs of the members of the First Neo-Aztec Church of Huitzilopochtli, we’re not going to allow them to go around carving out the still-beating hearts of their enemies in order to keep the sun rising each morning. Awwww, you’re no fun. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/88 "2005-11-14T21:57:58Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > (Incidentally, I think sacramental drug use would fall under the free exercise clause, not the establishment clause.) > > Why is it a bullshit argument? Practically everyone, from secular humanists to Christian fundamentalists to practioners of New Age religions agrees that it’s legitimate for the state to prohibit murder (and indeed it would be illegitimate for the state _not_ to prohibit murder), and no matter how ardent and how sincere the beliefs of the members of the First Neo-Aztec Church of Huitzilopochtli, we’re not going to allow them to go around carving out the still-beating hearts of their enemies in order to keep the sun rising each morning. Now, _ **IF** _ you agree that the state has a legitimate interest in prohibiting people from using hallucinogens, I don’t see why or even how we can carve out an exemption for “sacramental” use. If you want to argue that the state doesn’t have any legitimate interest in prohibiting people from putting hallucinogens into their own bodies (unless they’re operating heavy machinery in public places under the influence), whether it’s part of an organized religion, individual semi-religious philosophical experimentation, or just for the sheer hell of it, I would agree with you. But I definitely don’t want to put any government agency–certainly not the DEA–in charge of determining which religions are “real” religions and which are just fake religions made up by guys who want to smoke pot, or parsing such fascinating theological questions as whether white guys may legitimately convert to Rastafarianism. > > And there are plenty of “generally applicable laws vs. freedom of religion” cases in between sacramental drug use and sacrificing infants to Moloch. How about plural marriage? Islam permits polygamy, and the “Mormon fundamentalist” fringe groups basically demand it as a religious duty. OK, maybe if several consenting adult women want to marry some guy, we should allow it (although if we’re going to allow polygamy I don’t think that right should be limited to consenting adult women who have converted to Islam or “Mormon fundamentalism”). But what about the “adult” part? What if someone sincerely believes he has a religious, God-given duty to marry a 13-year-old girl? Must the state of Georgia waive its law which sets the age of consent at 16 in favor of this guy’s “free exercise of religion”? I said consentual human sacrifice. However, we as a society commit human sacrifice daily. We sacrifice murderers all the time, there’s a ritual and everything. While I do believe philisophically that human sacrifice should be legal if it’s consentual, I don’t have any ardent zeal to see it passed. However, with hallucinogenic sacraments, I do think that the government is prohibiting the free excercise of many people’s religion. This to me is a far more pressing concern than whether or not it says “In God We Trust” on the money. Erek ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/89 "2005-11-14T22:11:03Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I said consentual human sacrifice. However, we as a society commit human sacrifice daily. We sacrifice murderers all the time, there’s a ritual and everything. That is not religious, and therefore has no bearing on what **MEBuckner** said. ---
**Author:** ![Noctolator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Noctolator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Noctolator)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/90 "2005-11-14T23:05:09Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > **Noctolator** , you have a particular set of political and philosophical or religious beliefs about the source of human rights. No one is arguing with your right to hold those beliefs (if you want to debate about them, I’m sure you’ll get replies from various perspectives); but you also want those beliefs enshrined as some sort of official doctrine by the federal government. How far do you think that should be taken? Do you think Section 2 of [Article VI of the South Carolina State Constitution](http://www.scstatehouse.net/scconstitution/a06.htm) is reasonable and proper, or constitutional under the United States Constitution? Its not that I want these beliefs enshrined. I think thats where folks are getting me wrong. It’s that I bristle when folks try to disentangle them from what actually happened. I dont need God talk. I notice that one must swear on a Supreme Being in order to take the oath of office in the state of South Carolina. That is a tricky issue, of course. But seeing how the Constitution kicks those powers down to the state, I see it as a States Rights issue. While I do not feel that belief in or a willingness to swear upon God directly relates to fitness in governmental service, I think it’s up to South Carolina to make that determination for themselves. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/91 "2005-11-14T23:12:03Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > That is not religious, and therefore has no bearing on what **MEBuckner** said. Isn’t it easier to argue for your dogmatic ideologies simply by claiming they are not religious in nature? It’s one of the most ingenious ways I’ve ever found to try and diminish another’s ideology in favor of your own. However, as you will understand in a few years when current events becomes history, and the west is no longer at the head of the world empire, it hasn’t worked. Erek ---
**Author:** ![Noctolator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Noctolator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Noctolator)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/92 "2005-11-14T23:14:26Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > No, those trying to establish religion in the US are trying to erase the legal philosophy that established the country. Religious tests are specifically forbidden in the Constitution. There is no mention of god in the Constitution. If the founders had wanted to establish a civil religion, they damn well could have done so. I am not advocating those trying to “establish” religion in this country. I am detracting from those who insist, because they are atheist, that their view is the only one that is relevant to the national character because anything else would impinge on their beliefs [even though these, they are still free to hold.] > [@Voyager](#): > > In the DoI rights were from nature’s god, the god of deism, as a reaction to rights stemming from the King, who got them from God (and the Christian God in this case.) By the time of the Constitution this source of rights was no longer seen to be necessary - rights were from the people. (Or the truths were self evident.) If the founders wanted to name any sort of god as the source of the right they could have. The founders did in the DOI, where the truths are held to be self-evident. I have pointed out over and over that this is not a legal point and as such is rightly not to be found in the Constitution. And yet… > [@Voyager](#): > > ??? By removing a religious test? By not allowing the establishment of any religion in the First Amendment? Where do you see it considering religion important? By enshrining freedom of religion first. If atheism isn’t a religion, this section of the amendment shouldn’t be important. > [@Voyager](#): > > Saying that god is not part of a government does not remove god from our national character. No one is planning to tear down churches, or forbidding believers from being elected. (Quite the opposite.) Each person is permitted to worship or not worship as he or she wishes - so long as they do not do it as a representative of government. How much simpler can it get? I did not opine for simplicity. I also didn’t say God was a part of government, though it is central to the founding values. > [@Voyager](#): > > You don’t get the argument at all. It is not mention of god which is at issue, but official mention as an agent of the government, which should be of all the people, not just believers. The pledge is voluntary, but not saying it is not an option for those atheists who want to pledge allegiance to this country. The minister who wrote the Pledge did not include god, after all. The pledge is stupid and pointless. But I think there is nothing wrong with an agent of government talking about his faith, unless your atheism is more important than his or her freedom of speech and religion. > [@Voyager](#): > > Evangelicals do not have to believe in evolution. (Actually, no one should - it is a matter of evidence, not belief.) But they should not attempt to get unscientific, religiously motivated crap taught in a science class. Again, while I am not a creationist by any means, Evolution is not a matter of evidence by way of conclusive proof. It is merely a very promising scientific theory with significant gaps. Lots of folks feel trampled in that this is taught as the Answer when that isn’t conclusively so. It’s no more the answer than what evangelicals choose to believe… > [@Voyager](#): > > You should read **The Age of Reason** some time. Though Paine was not a signer of anything, he did get rescued from France by Madison, and Jefferson sent a government ship to bring him back to the US, despite squawking by the early 19th century version of the religious right. Paine was not an atheist, then, since he thought a deity was required to explain the solar system, but I suspect he would be one today. > > And you clearly do not understand atheism worth diddly as you show over and over again. What is it I don’t understand about atheism? Sounds to me like atheists are super-sensitive about other folks talking about their religion and take any chance to view this as a trample on their own determination. > [@Voyager](#): > > Franklin Pierce. He affirmed, not swore, and put his hand on a law book, not the Bible. Cite Heh. I sure am glad there was an exception and that he is regarded as one of our worst presidents ever. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/93 "2005-11-14T23:23:12Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Isn’t it easier to argue for your dogmatic ideologies simply by claiming they are not religious in nature? It’s one of the most ingenious ways I’ve ever found to try and diminish another’s ideology in favor of your own. However, as you will understand in a few years when current events becomes history, and the west is no longer at the head of the world empire, it hasn’t worked. > > Erek What in the _world_ are you talking about ? > [@Noctolator](#): > > Again, while I am not a creationist by any means, Evolution is not a matter of evidence by way of conclusive proof. It is merely a very promising scientific theory with significant gaps. Lots of folks feel trampled in that this is taught as the Answer when that isn’t conclusively so. It’s no more the answer than what evangelicals choose to believe… Nonsense, evolution has _massive_ amounts of evidence for it’s existence; it is a fact, not a theory. The only theory involved is in the details of it’s operation. It has no serious scientific rivals. > [@Noctolator](#): > > What is it I don’t understand about atheism? Sounds to me like atheists are super-sensitive about other folks talking about their religion and take any chance to view this as a trample on their own determination. _Because you religous people won’t leave us alone !!_ We get tired of being harrassed and attacked and fired and preached at because we are not superstitious. ---
**Author:** ![Noctolator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Noctolator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Noctolator)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/94 "2005-11-14T23:26:52Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > I’m sorry, but if you are not arguing for the inclusion of the word “god” in the Pledge of Allegiance or the minting and printing of money, then what is your actual complaint? Where are all those nasty atheists offending you? Folks who believe open and frank discussion of religious character from agents of government is an inappropriate trample on their rights to be atheist. People who believe that because freedom of religion is enshrined here, the country’s government must be atheist. Most government action is a-theistic so folks get their panties in a twist from the slightest bit of imagery. It’s as if people stopped worshipping Wisdom when they stopped worshipping Athena. > [@tomndebb](#): > > There really are not many atheists wandering about demanding that churches be stripped of identifying marks and omitted from phone books. (Actually, despite the fact that one or two such people even post to the SDMB, I would still put the number of atheists so inclined at a much smaller number than the number of Christian Reconstructionists and Christian Dominionists, so we’re not merely talking about fringe groups, we’re talking about fringe groups that are dwarfed by opposing fringe groups.) I never suggested atheists interfere with anyone else’s right to worship or mar churches or synagogues or mosques or whatnot. I have suggested however that folks should not be so quick to bristle when the government adopts religious language at times, especially when that language is not Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, or of any particular establishment. Nonetheless, faith is an important aspect of politics in this country. I say this as a non-Christian resident of Manhattan, by the way. > [@tomndebb](#): > > As to the angst you suffered for liking the “wrong” kind of music, I hope you have recovered. Still, I suspect that you have not had to look for alternative ways to get home from school each night to avoid being beaten up and I really doubt that your parents had to face the prospect of paying for repairs to repeatedly bashed mailboxes, keyed cars, turfed lawns, shot out windows, spray-painted walls and similar vandalism just because you had a poor choice in musical tastes. On the other hand, people (even Christians) who have shown the temerity to not support the “civil religion” continue to suffer all those things. > I think that letting the government promote the sort of iconography that legitimizes the beliefs of such people is wrong. > If you are not arguiing for the maintenance of that iconography, then you have completely failed to indicate what you _are_ arguing. As it happens, our mailbox was frequently destroyed. Once or twice a year, actually. Other times it was just stolen or filled up with lunch meat. I suspect that’s because we were one of few non-Christian families in that neighborhood. That was not the only incidence of vandalism but it was the most oft-repeated and memorable. I think iconography is just that, iconography. You think we should get rid of the roman eagle? Or the five-pointed stars on our flag? Those are on CHRISTMAS TREES! Should we amend the presidential seal because the number of feathers is a Masonic allusion and Masons swear by God? Where does it end? While I was not arguing the merits of “the money” or “the pledge” as I think both are stupid ideas as implemented in this country, I was however arguing about the essence of the aesthetic and iconography of this country, yes. ---
**Author:** ![Noctolator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Noctolator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Noctolator)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/95 "2005-11-14T23:31:14Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > Nonsense, evolution has _massive_ amounts of evidence for it’s existence; it is a fact, not a theory. The only theory involved is in the details of it’s operation. It has no serious scientific rivals. Thanks for missing the point. I did not offer science contrary to evolution because I do not find there to be a better theory. It is, in fact a theory. A Scientific theory. [Cite](http://evolvetv.tv/node/124/play) I do not doubt evolution is the best science we have and Ive been crystal clear on this point. But it is not conclusive. It just isn’t. > [@Der Trihs](#): > > _Because you religous people won’t leave us alone !!_ We get tired of being harrassed and attacked and fired and preached at because we are not superstitious. I am not a prostelytizer. I have not bothered you or told you to change your beliefs. You, however, make repeated attempts to belittle any person of faith on this board. That you feel belief in God [which I maintain over and over again is separate from religion] is superstition shows your pejorative attitude towards views that differ from your own. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/96 "2005-11-14T23:34:49Z")
Refraining from endorsing a position is not the logical equivalent of endorsing its opposite. Refraining from mentioning God is not an endorsement of atheism. If U.S. money were printed with “God Does Not Exist” above the Treasury Seal … now \*\*that \*\* would be an endorsement of atheism. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/97 "2005-11-14T23:38:43Z")
> [@Noctolator](#): > > Thanks for missing the point. I did not offer science contrary to evolution because I do not find there to be a better theory. > > It is, in fact a theory. A Scientific theory. [Cite](http://evolvetv.tv/node/124/play) I do not doubt evolution is the best science we have and Ive been crystal clear on this point. But it is not conclusive. It just isn’t. You don’t even understand what the word theory means in science, do you ? > [@Noctolator](#): > > That you feel belief in God [which I maintain over and over again is separate from religion] is superstition shows your pejorative attitude towards views that differ from your own. Any belief in a god is religious, as it is based purely on faith, not reality. The difference between religion and superstition is, a religion is a superstition with power. ---
**Author:** ![Noctolator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Noctolator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Noctolator)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/98 "2005-11-14T23:41:08Z")
> [@Pochacco](#): > > Refraining from endorsing a position is not the logical equivalent of endorsing its opposite. > > Refraining from mentioning God is not an endorsement of atheism. > > If U.S. money were printed with “God Does Not Exist” above the Treasury Seal … now \*\*that \*\* would be an endorsement of atheism. To me, I don’t see endorsing the existence of a supreme being as having much to do with religion, so I find atheists invoking the establishment clause to be of interest. And I see it as going too far in trying to trample an essential character of the US: That everybody is free to believe in any religion or not, or in God or not, but that the country was founded by folks who believed in God and wanted to enshrine a pluralist approach that would also retain certain common virtues that come from a tradition of theism. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/99 "2005-11-14T23:41:08Z")
> [@Pochacco](#): > > Refraining from endorsing a position is not the logical equivalent of endorsing its opposite. > > Refraining from mentioning God is not an endorsement of atheism. > > If U.S. money were printed with “God Does Not Exist” above the Treasury Seal … now \*\*that \*\* would be an endorsement of atheism. No one has addressed a point I made about the pledge of allegiance. Compelling children to say the Pledge is a violation of the first amendment whether or not it says “under God”, so why do people argue that we should remove “Under God”, rather than doing away with the pledge outright if not for a pseudo-religious agenda? Erek ---
**Author:** ![Noctolator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Noctolator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Noctolator)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/100 "2005-11-14T23:54:57Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > You don’t even understand what the word theory means in science, do you ? Uhm, I just referred you to a video clip where biologist Dr. Paul Myers explains what a scientific theory is. That’s what I refer to in my understanding of the word. I have also said evolution is a pretty good theory. It is called the “Theory of Evolution” is it not? Not the “Law of Evolution” or the “Fact of Evolution” Am I right? Or do I misunderstand. I have stated very plainly that I do not respect Creationism/ID because they make an end-run around science to try to hijack scientific education. However, the point that you, and most enemies of C/ID miss is that evolution is not a concluded matter, regardless of how optimistic the picture is now. So the C/ID folk may be right in their protest of how it is taught as if it’s _stare decisis_ to borrow a law term. I happen to take the view that there can be a supreme creator who smartly devised the mechanism of evolution to keep things interesting and to make sure that our explorations into our past are fruitful. Please do not continue to miss the subtlety of what I say in order to claim I do not understand. > [@Der Trihs](#): > > Any belief in a god is religious, as it is based purely on faith, not reality. The difference between religion and superstition is, a religion is a superstition with power. It is not religious in the dogmatic sense that mere belief in God is in and of itself an Establishment, as known to the Constitution. For example, my belief in God will be completely different from the next person. That person and I are not of the same religion. I do not subscribe to a dogmatic religion, which is why the dogma of atheism amuses me. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868.md?page=6)