# 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:** 7
**Author:** ![Noctolator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Noctolator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Noctolator)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2005, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/121 "2005-11-15T03:13:50Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > So, > freedom-hater=anti-capitalist=atheist > Ahh were all God hatin’ commies if we disagree with you? Consider the difference between things being equivalent and things being equal. I certainly did not equate all of those things. I merely gave examples of ideas that are on the fringe relative to the national character. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2005, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/122 "2005-11-15T04:17:58Z")
> [@Noctolator](#): > > Nor do I advocate nebulous platitudes. But when I see the lack of moral restraint in this country, particular in times of dire need, I think something that isnt or shouldnt be nebulous is… missing. And with folks getting uppity about the word God appearing on government property, we are being pushed even farther from it. Well, from where I am standing, the people who are currently demonstrating the least moral restraint are the ones who are most vociferous in claiming an allegiance to various religious tenets. Lies to indulge in warfare, the defense of torture simultaneous with lying to deny it occurs, calls for the assassination of leaders of other countries, the insertion of false science into classrooms, campaigns of hatred directed toward people based on sexual orientation, and, of course, the interesting fact that people in states supporting the most conservative religious views tend to have fewer successful marriages, more births out of wedlock, higher percentages of STDs, and higher rates of murder (to say nothing of those “religious” people who choose to resort to harrassment of their neighbors to enforce religion on their communities) all combine to lead me to the conclusion that a lot of lip service to some sort of religiosity has absolutely nothing to do with the welfare of the nation. [http://www.andrewsullivan.com/main\_article.php?artnum=20041128](http://www.andrewsullivan.com/main_article.php?artnum=20041128) [http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week\_2004\_11\_07.php#003958](http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_11_07.php#003958) [http://www.oregonherald.com/n/radicalruss/20041212\_red-state-moral-values.html](http://www.oregonherald.com/n/radicalruss/20041212_red-state-moral-values.html) > [@magellan01](#): > > Let me ask you this: If we found a document, possibly more notes from the Convention, that showed—unequivocally—that the Founders were unanimously of the mind that the limits on reigion expressed in the First Amendment were simply to stop one Christian sect from becoming too dominant, or that the wording was intended to protect religious beliefs and NOT atheism, do you think their clear explanation of their own words should take presence over any latter day interpretation? If you can find notes from the convention that indicate that atheism is fair game for abuse and persecution, I will acknowledge that the framers did not intend to protect atheism. (Of course, if you come up with some personal quotation that has nothing to do with the actual First Amendment as written, I am going to cry foul.) However, in terms of how the issue should be decided, today, I remain in the practical camp. Vague references to the divine are constantly cited by religious bigots as support to attempt to turn the U.S. into a “Christian” nation. With 229 years of sporadic religious intolerance as witness, I see no practical reason to support more of the same watered down pap that expresses no genuine religious belief while providing bigots more ammunition for their attempt to turn the U.S. into a theocracy. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2005, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/123 "2005-11-15T05:18:02Z")
> [@Noctolator](#): > > Consider the difference between things being equivalent and things being equal. I certainly did not equate all of those things. I merely gave examples of ideas that are on the fringe relative to the national character. Hmmmm, [equivalent](http://www.answers.com/equivalent&r=67). e·quiv·a·lent (ĭ-kwĭv’ə-lənt) pronunciation adj. 1.a. Equal, as in value, force, or meaning. b. Having similar or identical effects. 2. Being essentially equal, all things considered: a wish that was equivalent to a command. 1. Mathematics. a. Capable of being put into a one-to-one relationship. Used of two sets. b. Having virtually identical or corresponding parts. c. Of or relating to corresponding elements under an equivalence relation. 2. Chemistry. Having the same ability to combine. 3. Logic. Having equivalence: equivalent propositions. n. 1. Something that is essentially equal to another: “Prejudicing vital foreign policy considerations in order to rescue individuals finds its domestic equivalent in the inflated awards paid to … accident and malpractice victims” (Moorhead Kennedy). 2. Chemistry. Equivalent weight. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2005, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/124 "2005-11-15T12:38:50Z")
I know that “In God we trust” Is on our Money,and Under God has been added to the pledge in the 50’s,but I see very little trust in God,and if we are a “Nation Under God” I wonder why people are forever saying God Bless America! Wouldn’t it imply that America is already blessed(what ever blessed means)? Are they asking God to bless America(when it is already blessed? Just wondering about the logic of the situation. Monavis ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2005, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/125 "2005-11-15T12:55:54Z")
I’ve read most of the thread, and I keep seeing the same three problems that seem to pop up in every single Establishment Clause discussion. 1. Atheism/Secularism is not a religion. 2. The GOVERNMENT was/is/and should be secular. The NATIONAL IDENTITY, or the people in the government, however, may very well be Christian. 3. Being forbidden from establishing your religion is NOT putting Christianity under fire. Christians who believe that the government is somehow stopping them from practicing their religion when it forbids the pushing of their beliefs on others need to get the fuck over it. You are not, nor will you likely ever be, martyrs. It is an excruitating rare occurence when you can have a fruitful debate about Establishment clause when there is a disagreement about these three things. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2005, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/126 "2005-11-15T16:27:59Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > If you can find notes from the convention that indicate that atheism is fair game for abuse and persecution, I will acknowledge that the framers did not intend to protect atheism. Yes, but that should not affect how we interpret the amendment anyway. It doesn’t matter the motivations of the people that wrote it, what matters is what the words were understood to mean by the people who _passed_ the amendment, the state legislators. The phrase “original intent” is a little misleading - it’s not the intent of the people who write something, but the people who vote on it that counts. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2005, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/127 "2005-11-15T16:43:47Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > If you can find notes from the convention that indicate that atheism is fair game for abuse and persecution, I will acknowledge that the framers did not intend to protect atheism. (Of course, if you come up with some personal quotation that has nothing to do with the actual First Amendment as written, I am going to cry foul.) That does not address my hypothetical, but never mind. > [@tomndebb](#): > > However, in terms of how the issue should be decided, today, I remain in the practical camp. Vague references to the divine are constantly cited by religious bigots as support to attempt to turn the U.S. into a “Christian” nation. With 229 years of sporadic religious intolerance as witness, I see no practical reason to support more of the same watered down pap that expresses no genuine religious belief while providing bigots more ammunition for their attempt to turn the U.S. into a theocracy. I notice how often you and others argue this issue by focusing on the “religious bigots” and those that wish to “turn the U.S. into a theocracy”. Could you please answer these specific questions: 1. Do you think that is a fair way to argue? 2. Can no one interpret the Establishment Clause differently than you and not be a “religious bigot”? 3. Can one not hold the opinion that our Founders intended the “Divine” to be more a part of our public experience without it being “watered down pap”? 4. Do you agree that you do not know what the Founders intended and, like the rest of us, try to glean their intent from the documents they left us. 5. To what degree should the Founders personal notes be considered in attempting to divine the intent of official documents? 6. If we, as you say, have 229 years of “sporadic religious intolerance”, does that automatically justify relegating religion to a more minor role in the public sphere? Shouldn’t the good and bad both be weighed? 7. Do you think the “slippery-slope argument” (which you seem to be invoking) is valid justification for determining a position (give them an inch and they’ll want a mile)? Or should an issue, like gun control, gay rights, abortion, and this one, be determined by the actual merits of a position? Direct answers would be much appreciated. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2005, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/128 "2005-11-15T17:17:38Z")
> [@Pochacco](#): > > Of course mythology is relevant to the understanding of the development of culture. I don’t know of any evolutionist who argues that it’s not. Despite what you say it’s not “frequently thrown out with the bathwater” and I challenge you to demonstrate otherwise. > > Mythology, however, is utterly and completely useless for understanding the origins of the human species. If mythology is completely useless for understanding the origin of the human species, are you then arguing that until recently we were absolutely clueless about the origins of man, and that the people attempting to encode what they had learned via the transmission through myth had nothing to teach us about the origin of the species? You do realize that many myths are encoded scientific knowledge right? In the vedas they talk about ways to properly grow crops, and many other such civil advancements. Are you arguing that you now, know more about the origin of humans than all of the people born before Darwin combined? 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 15, 2005, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/129 "2005-11-15T17:29:45Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > If mythology is completely useless for understanding the origin of the human species, are you then arguing that until recently we were absolutely clueless about the origins of man, and that the people attempting to encode what they had learned via the transmission through myth had nothing to teach us about the origin of the species? “Clueless” is a good word for it. > [@mswas](#): > > You do realize that many myths are encoded scientific knowledge right? In the vedas they talk about ways to properly grow crops, and many other such civil advancements. They actually _knew_ how to grow crops back then; they knew nothing about human origins. > [@mswas](#): > > Are you arguing that you now, know more about the origin of humans than all of the people born before Darwin combined? They knew nothing, so yes. It’s not that hard. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2005, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/130 "2005-11-15T17:36:15Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > “Clueless” is a good word for it. No thank you I don’t want one of your tracts right now. > [@](#): > > They actually _knew_ how to grow crops back then; they knew nothing about human origins. You know all the myths huh? > [@](#): > > They knew nothing, so yes. It’s not that hard. You’re an expert on what our ancestors knew eh? Erek ---
**Author:** ![JustAnotherGeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/58f4c7/32.png) [@JustAnotherGeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JustAnotherGeek)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2005, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/131 "2005-11-15T17:36:36Z")
Sorry, I hate to wander late into a thread, not actually read all of it and post, but I don’t think I have seen anyone actually respond to the OP (with the following argument) > [@Noctolator](#): > > the question is whether legal pushes to remove non-denominational\* mention of God from American practices such as the Pledge of Allegiance, religious institutional tax-exempt status, what we print on Federal Reserve notes [and the obverse of our coinage] would in fact be respecting an establishment [of nihilism, materialism, or what have you] which the amendment itself expressly forbids. No, it is not. By removing the “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, it is not adding “under no God.” That is, it merely removes the material that mentions God without adding wording to denote the philosophy of no God. The removal allows one to honestly say the pledge without forcing them to take a Theistic view. The new version would not force a Theist saying it to feel they were being atheistic\*. It makes the pledge as theologically nuetral as, say, a law on drunk driving. -Geek \*The Theist may feel that anyway, but that feeling will have nothing to do with the wording. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2005, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/132 "2005-11-15T17:40:51Z")
> [@JustAnotherGeek](#): > > Sorry, I hate to wander late into a thread, not actually read all of it and post, but I don’t think I have seen anyone actually respond to the OP (with the following argument) What an odd thing to say. How would you expect to see such a response without reading all the posts? Had you read them you would have realized that many before you had made the same point. ---
**Author:** ![Noctolator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Noctolator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Noctolator)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2005, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/133 "2005-11-15T17:47:22Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > Hmmmm, [equivalent](http://www.answers.com/equivalent&r=67). They are equivalent in terms of being aspects out of line with the national character. You are so very talented with your dictionary, but how is it that you refuse to recognize what it was I was saying with that point and would instead force words in my mouth? Be reasonable. > [@hamlet](#): > > I’ve read most of the thread, and I keep seeing the same three problems that seem to pop up in every single Establishment Clause discussion. > > 1. Atheism/Secularism is not a religion. > 2. The GOVERNMENT was/is/and should be secular. The NATIONAL IDENTITY, or the people in the government, however, may very well be Christian. > 3. Being forbidden from establishing your religion is NOT putting Christianity under fire. Christians who believe that the government is somehow stopping them from practicing their religion when it forbids the pushing of their beliefs on others need to get the fuck over it. You are not, nor will you likely ever be, martyrs. > > It is an excruitating rare occurence when you can have a fruitful debate about Establishment clause when there is a disagreement about these three things. 1. If it is not a religion, then there is nothing in the atheist viewpoint that is “trampled” by acknowledging viewpoints they’d find discordant as their right to practise their non-religion is not affected. 2. Yes, though Christian, as a term, is very general. I go back to the term “theist” because “Christian” is a term that has specific connotations for individuals that they treat as general connocations and this is frequently innacurate. 3. I am not a Christian and don’t advocate pushing religion on anyone. I don’t believe not having theistic allusions stops them from practising religion, in the same way that the presence of theistic allusions doesn’t stop atheists from practising their non-religion. ---
**Author:** ![Noctolator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Noctolator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Noctolator)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2005, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/134 "2005-11-15T17:50:18Z")
> [@JustAnotherGeek](#): > > By removing the “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, it is not adding “under no God.” That is, it merely removes the material that mentions God without adding wording to denote the philosophy of no God. The removal allows one to honestly say the pledge without forcing them to take a Theistic view. The new version would not force a Theist saying it to feel they were being atheistic. It makes the pledge as theologically nuetral as, say, a law on drunk driving. This point has been made frequently. And what I have said is that since atheism is not an establishment, their practise thereof is not impeded by the presence of theistic allusions in government, even while the government practises successful secular legal procedures. I asked by what further right they would limit these allusions. ---
**Author:** ![JustAnotherGeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/58f4c7/32.png) [@JustAnotherGeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JustAnotherGeek)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2005, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/135 "2005-11-15T19:17:41Z")
> [@Contrapunctual](#): > > What an odd thing to say. How would you expect to see such a response without reading all the posts? Sorry, I scanned. Since I did not see what I thought were any arguments around the point I was making, I made the point. My apologies for having repeated what was already said. > [@Nocto](#): > > And what I have said is that since atheism is not an establishment, their practise thereof is not impeded by the presence of theistic allusions in government, even while the government practises successful secular legal procedures. I would argue the point that Atheism is not an establishment. > [@Dictionary.com](#): > > es·tab·lish·ment n. > > 1. > > –1. The act of establishing. > –2. The condition or fact of being established. > > 1. Something established, as: > –1. An arranged order or system, especially a legal code. > –2. A permanent civil, political, or military organization. > –3. An established church. > –4. A place of residence or business with its possessions and staff. > –5. A public or private institution, such as a hospital or school. > > 2. often Establishment An established social order, as: > –1. A group of people holding most of the power and influence in a government or society. Often used with the. > –2. A controlling group in a given field of activity. Often used with the. Atheism as a philosphy has been established, has within it established codes of thought, has many political organizations, (ok, no church, got me on that one), and I say, e.g., JREF is a place of business and a private institution. It’s an establishment in the same way that Christianity is. There are many subsets of belief systems within both Atheism and Christianity (and any other philosophical group, theism, etc.). As to the other part of your argument (that e.g. “under God” does not impede the practice thereof), I would argue that it does, but not through a direct method. Do I feel, as an atheist or miltant agnostic, that the government is out to get me or keep me from publically naming myself as such? No, so far, the government has not. However, and here is the point, there are individuals in government who do feel that atheism is a bad thing and have historically equated it with, e.g. communists. Yes, I am refering to Joe McCarthy. No, I don’t mean that all Theists secretly want to kill all Atheists. What I am saying is that some people in power may want to force their views on others. Keeping such phrases as “under God” or “in God We Trust” in use by the government is a reminder that some people in a supposedly secular government get “authorization” from a deity. The right to limit these allusions comes from “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. Although there is no law that declares “a USA citizen must be a Theist,” the inclusion of references to God in governmental documents is an ipso-facto statement that our government uses the existance of a deity to grant authority to its legal system, which is a religious position, and thus a de-facto law respecting the establishment of religion. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2005, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/136 "2005-11-15T19:34:19Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I notice how often you and others argue this issue by focusing on the “religious bigots” and those that wish to “turn the U.S. into a theocracy”. Could you please answer these specific questions: > > 1. Do you think that is a fair way to argue? Yes, because the hypotheticals are without foundations. Until you have a real-world example of what you are proposing (and I have not seen one), then I offer my real-world history in opposition to it. > [@](#): > > 1. Can no one interpret the Establishment Clause differently than you and not be a “religious bigot”? Sure they can. I do not claim that everyone with whom I disagree on this topic is a bigot. I simply think that they are letting a majoritarian view of the world drive them to accept bad decisions that will be corrupted by the bigots who follow. If this is a “Christian nation,” (for example), are you willing to demonstrate that fact by joining the Christian Dominionists? If this is not a “Christian Nation,” (or if our references are to some vague deity that has no definition), then what is the point of injecting that word into governmental actions? > [@](#): > > 1. Can one not hold the opinion that our Founders intended the “Divine” to be more a part of our public experience without it being “watered down pap”? No one has demonstrated an example of “divine” in a governmental context that is not either expressly denominational or pap. If the government recognizes “god,” is it recognizing the Earth Mother, Jesus, Marduk? People who actually hold religious beliefs can come together to share their beliefs. There is an ongoing discussion between different Christian groups and some Buddhist groups, for example. However, those people find themselves very carefully defining their terms and their experiences to avoid getting to the end of a discussion only to discover that they have been talking at cross purposes throughout their discussion. So just what care is taken when the government tosses out the word “god” in some declaration? > [@](#): > > 1. Do you agree that you do not know what the Founders intended and, like the rest of us, try to glean their intent from the documents they left us. > 2. To what degree should the Founders personal notes be considered in attempting to divine the intent of official documents? Sure. So what? I do not hold, to begin with, that _original intent_ is innerrant Gospel handed down from God so when I notice that many founders and framers had _conflicting_ views, just as we do, then I look to the logic of their arguments, _in the context of how their words have been used subsequently_ to determine the appropriate actions for our time. > [@](#): > > 1. If we, as you say, have 229 years of “sporadic religious intolerance”, does that automatically justify relegating religion to a more minor role in the public sphere? Shouldn’t the good and bad both be weighed? I have no desire to relegate religion to a smaller place in the public sphere. (Some) churches took the forefront in moving first for abolition of slavery and later for the recognition of civil rights and (some) churches are active in calling attention to economic and class injustices in this country and (some) churches are active in providing education for those who follow those beliefs. I believe that those religious groups should continue their efforts and I believe that the government should do nothing to impede the adherents of belief from exercising their religious liberty (provided those groups are not actively working to destroy our society). I have no problem with the President swearing his oath of office on a bible to demonstrate that he is taking his oath with the utmost seriousness implied by his religious beliefs. (I could wish he was less hypocritical, but that is a different topic.) I have no problem with Presidents Washington, Lincoln, and others declaring their thanks to God for deliverance from war or seeking God’s guidance. They are humans and their religious beliefs are part of their characters. Where I draw the line is when Congress (or some legisture) creates a law (or a president issues an executive order) that places either some denominational god (or some vague word with little meaning) into a formal action of the country. > [@](#): > > 1. Do you think the “slippery-slope argument” (which you seem to be invoking) is valid justification for determining a position (give them an inch and they’ll want a mile)? Or should an issue, like gun control, gay rights, abortion, and this one, be determined by the actual merits of a position? I see no slippery slope. I see a pretty clear line (that is, admittedly, sometimes fuzzier than at others) that keeps government from interfering with religious belief and keeps government free from religious interference. The adherents of any religious belief are bound by civic duty to bring their beliefs to the public for consideration, but the decisions regarding actions should be determined by the arguments of the issue, not by some popularity vote of who owns the most church buildings. Churches led the drive for civil rights, but the laws to ensure civil rights needed to conform to our secular Constitution, not be swept in because it was a “Christian” thing to do. ---
**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 15, 2005, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/137 "2005-11-15T19:46:21Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > You know all the myths huh? I don’t need to, as the knowledge wasn’t available to be put into the myths. > [@mswas](#): > > You’re an expert on what our ancestors knew eh? No, but this is hardly an expert level question. > [@Noctolator](#): > > 1. If it is not a religion, then there is nothing in the atheist viewpoint that is “trampled” by acknowledging viewpoints they’d find discordant as their right to practise their non-religion is not affected. A belief doesn’t need to be a religion to be trampled. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2005, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/138 "2005-11-15T20:24:16Z")
> [@Noctolator](#): > > I’d say atheists opt out of a certain aspect of the national character, just as anti-capitalists and freedom-haters do. You think Jefferson was a capitalist? Italians were not part of the national character in 1787 - do you think they’re not now? Hindus? Black people who aren’t slaves? Is the national character frozen as it was over 200 years ago? > [@](#): > > The constitution prevented that character from taking on a tangible form in alliance with one protestant establishment. But it was written to be more general than that. > [@](#): > > So an official cannot say he is making a certain decision or taking a certain action because he believes it is right? Of course not. But even if a representative decides to back a law based on the Bible, there must be a secular justification. Banning, say, the wearing of mixed fibers because the Bible says it is prohibited would not stand up, no matter how right the representatives think this law is. For instance, Blue Laws only stand on their secular, not religious purpose. [Link](http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/rel_liberty/free_exercise/topic.aspx?topic=blue_laws) ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2005, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/139 "2005-11-15T20:32:01Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > You’re an expert on what our ancestors knew eh? > > Erek You cannot know a false thing, so they could not “know” that we are all descended from Adam and Eve, for example. Want to give a cite to a myth that correctly describes human origins - without a lot of radical reinterpretation? ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2005, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/140 "2005-11-15T21:11:28Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > I don’t need to, as the knowledge wasn’t available to be put into the myths. Cite? > [@](#): > > No, but this is hardly an expert level question. Do you find diminishing a question’s importance to be a good way of addressing it normally? Is this the rational approach? > [@](#): > > You cannot know a false thing, so they could not “know” that we are all descended from Adam and Eve, for example. 1. How do you know that we are not descended from Adam and Eve? 2. Adam and Eve are not the only creation myth. > [@](#): > > Want to give a cite to a myth that correctly describes human origins - without a lot of radical reinterpretation? No that’s reframing the question in a way that benefits you unecessarily. Myths are about interpretation. They are allegorical in nature and are an attempt to pass on knowledge in a way that it can be extrapolated by future generations who may not speak the language in the same way on down the line. You seem to be expecting myths to accomplish something they were not intended to accomplish. There is a wide gulf between a myth being the end all be all of the creation story, and claiming that they do not have clues as to our origins as Der Trihs does. Dismissing their value outright is just as irrational as accepting them as gospel. Erek [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868.md?page=8)