# 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:** 8
**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, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/141 "2005-11-15T21:29:12Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Cite? The fact that humanity’s origin was only discovered post Darwin ? > [@mswas](#): > > Do you find diminishing a question’s importance to be a good way of addressing it normally? Is this the rational approach? When the question is that trivial, yes. > [@mswas](#): > > 1. How do you know that we are not descended from Adam and Eve? Because we know we aren’t; this is a foolish question > [@mswas](#): > > 1. Adam and Eve are not the only creation myth. And being myths, all of them are wrong. Myths are a type of fiction, you know. > [@mswas](#): > > 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. How could they have any clues; none of the people who made them had any way of knowing. ---
**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, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/142 "2005-11-15T21:41:55Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > The fact that humanity’s origin was only discovered post Darwin ? Cite? > [@](#): > > When the question is that trivial, yes. Ok, can’t argue with your opinion. > [@](#): > > Because we know we aren’t; this is a foolish question Cite? > [@](#): > > And being myths, all of them are wrong. Myths are a type of fiction, you know. Cite? > [@](#): > > How could they have any clues; none of the people who made them had any way of knowing. Cite? Erek ---
**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, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/143 "2005-11-15T21:58:20Z")
> [@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. Which has absolutely nothing to do with the Establishment Clause. > [@Nocotolator](#): > > 1. 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. This has nothing to do with my point. > [@Nocotolator](#): > > 1. 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. Which has nothing to do with the Establishment Clause. Your point? ---
**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, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/144 "2005-11-15T22:30:14Z")
> [@](#): > > And being myths, all of them are wrong. Myths are a type of fiction, you know. Fiction, of course, is neither antithetical to being correct nor antithetical to the truth. Myths are expressions of the perceived truth held by a group. As such, it is fruitless to argue over whether myths are “correct” or “wrong” because that is not their purpose. One may take issue with a belief held by a group and point out that their belief is based on inadequate or erroneous assumptions, but it is simply foolish to attack the myth, itself, which is merely a fictive presentation of the underlying truth that is held. ---
**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, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/145 "2005-11-15T22:31:33Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Cite? _You_ are the one claiming this knowledge exists, you are the one who should prove that it existed. There _are_ no “cites” for my position; that’s the _point_. Before Darwin’s time, there is nothing _to_ cite. > [@mswas](#): > > > [@Der Trihs.](#): > > > > Because we know we aren’t; this is a foolish question > > Cite? Because we evolved, of course. > [@mswas](#): > > Cite? > [@Dictionary.com](#): > > myth ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mth) > n. > > 1. a. A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth. > b. Such stories considered as a group: the realm of myth. > 2 : A popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence, especially one considered to illustrate a cultural ideal: a star whose fame turned her into a myth; the pioneer myth of suburbia. > 3 : A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology. > 4 :A fictitious story, person, or thing: “German artillery superiority on the Western Front was a myth” (Leon Wolff). > [@mswas](#): > > Cite? Once again, _there is nothing to cite_. The knowledge is _recent_.You keep making these insane assertions and demanding that other people prove them wrong; meanwhile, you take offense at demands for evidence. That is hypocracy, and it’s very irritating. Rather than whining “cite”, why don’t _you_ provide the slightest evidence that your beliefs are anything other than delusions ? ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/146 "2005-11-16T00:37:00Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > 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. The Volstead Act outlawed the manufacture of alcohol but still allowed it to be produced for sacramental use. ---
**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 16, 2005, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/147 "2005-11-16T01:28:37Z")
> [@Noctolator](#): > > 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. Then don’t put atheists and freedom haters in the same sentence, > [@Noctolator](#): > > I’d say atheists opt out of a certain aspect of the national character, just as anti-capitalists and freedom-haters do. and then try to back-paddle your way out of it, > [@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. There’s a difference between “opting out” and being “on the fringe”, stop moving the goalposts. Please define “the national character”. ---
**Author:** ![Noctolator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Noctolator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Noctolator)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/148 "2005-11-16T18:00:24Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > Then don’t put atheists and freedom haters in the same sentence I certainly can put them in the same sentence. I can name values that are contrary to the mainstream. That we live in a country where people are free to do this is not something I’d deny. > [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > There’s a difference between “opting out” and being “on the fringe”, stop moving the goalposts. What is the difference? Either you’re in or you’re out. Or you’re on the outside, which is the fringe. > [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > Please define “the national character”. > [@](#): > > 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, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. > > We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal and independent; that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these ends, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government shall become destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying it’s foundation on such principles and organizing it’s power in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Interestingly, I found a [cite](http://www.duke.edu/eng169s2/group1/lex3/hyprdecl.htm) that shows Jefferson changed the first line from > [@](#): > > We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/149 "2005-11-16T20:06:18Z")
> [@Noctolator](#): > > I certainly can put them in the same sentence. I can name values that are contrary to the mainstream. That we live in a country where people are free to do this is not something I’d deny. However, your definitions are arbitrary and your grouping of “atheists” and “freedom haters” both is arbitrary and appears to be intended to simply provoke reaction.\* We could just as easily claim that the values of the nation are individualism, charity, anti-authoritarianism, isolationism and insularity, bigotry, anti-intellectualism, various levels of xenophobia, or a host of other attributes. We clearly have firm examples of each of those traits being enshrined in law, discoverable in the writings of the founders and framers, and practiced with enthusiasm by the populace. At times, the populace can be encouraged to overcome their natural bent toward these traits, (the good, unfortunately, as well as the bad), but they are clearly part of the national character. Singling out some vague notion of an undefined religiosity to claim it has a preeminent place as part of the national character, a place that we need to recognize by law, does not seem to make sense, to me, unless we are also going to enshrine in law various xenophobic utterances or expressions of hostility toward authority. - I do not suggest provocation in the sense of trolling, but simply in the sense of using a strong (if flawed) argument to place your opponent at a rhetorical disadvantage. ---
**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 16, 2005, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/150 "2005-11-16T20:53:19Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > 1. How do you know that we are not descended from Adam and Eve? Because genetic information shows that our common male and female ancestors are separated by a lot of time, that’s how. > [@](#): > > 1. Adam and Eve are not the only creation myth. That’s why I said, “Adam and Eve, for example.” :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > 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. Myths have a lot of value in describing what is important to a culture. I’m just dismissing their value in giving accurate scientific information. I asked you for a myth that reveals that the writers of a myth do have a clue to our origins, and you dismiss the question. It appears you know of none, so I conclude that **Der Trihs** is, in this case, absolutely correct. You are again invited to submit a myth that shows a clue. The key to the evaluation of the myth is whether a reasonable person, without access to the right answer, would say the myth was accurate. As for your statement on the value of myths - I can publish a table of random numbers from which a future generation could extrapolate the set of winning lottery numbers. Want to buy? All you have to do, just like with myths, is to figure out what parts to keep and what parts to discard. ---
**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 16, 2005, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/151 "2005-11-16T20:57:13Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Fiction, of course, is neither antithetical to being correct nor antithetical to the truth. Myths are expressions of the perceived truth held by a group. As such, it is fruitless to argue over whether myths are “correct” or “wrong” because that is not their purpose. > > One may take issue with a belief held by a group and point out that their belief is based on inadequate or erroneous assumptions, but it is simply foolish to attack the myth, itself, which is merely a fictive presentation of the underlying truth that is held. We’re not attacking the myth, we are “attacking” (too strong a word) people who claim that the myths include scientific fact. Saying that someone is foolish for expecting the spells in Harry Potter to work is not saying anything against J K Rowling. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/152 "2005-11-16T23:28:58Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > We’re not attacking the myth, we are “attacking” (too strong a word) people who claim that the myths include scientific fact. Saying that someone is foolish for expecting the spells in Harry Potter to work is not saying anything against J K Rowling. Actually, different individuals participating in this thread are attacking different things and those chewing on “myth” do not appear, to me, to hav e a single set of opinions. I am not going to wade into the middle of that part of the discussion because I see most of that debate as futile, (if fun for the participants), but I strongly suspect that the “nature god” model of mythology has never actually been the model that people have used (prior to the 19th century) and, this being the Straight Dope, I prefer that readers understand how the word is used in anthropology–especially since its popular usage is probably wrong. A claim that myth is “wrong” because it is “fiction” is, itself, “wrong” because it misrepresents how myth exists and how it is used. ---
**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 17, 2005, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/153 "2005-11-17T05:15:01Z")
> [@Noctolator](#): > > I certainly can put them in the same sentence. I can name values that are contrary to the mainstream. That we live in a country where people are free to do this is not something I’d deny. While you don’t deny it you certainly do not seem to embrace it! Where in the DoI is capitalism mentioned? Where in the DoI is religion mentioned? Nowhere in the text is capitalism written in, nor is atheism written out of the national character ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2005, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/154 "2005-11-20T13:36:13Z")
iN RESPONSE TO Crowmanyclouds earlier post: Asking where our rights would come from , to me they came from an evolution of thought over the centuries when people realized that in order for the human population to continue they had to decide not to kill, steal etc. from other people or they would be in a sense giving others permission to do the same to them. Just as I taught my children that if you steal from a store you are stealing from all your friends and relatives because the stores raise the prices to make up for their loss. It just amounts to common sense. Monavis ---
**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 21, 2005, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/155 "2005-11-21T23:01:35Z")
I’m about a week late responding, but here goes … . > [@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? Yes. Prior to the development of archeology and the theory of evolution, humanity was utterly clueless at to its true origins. > [@](#): > > 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. Some myths are indeed encoded knowledge. (I wouldn’t go so far as to say scientific because that implies a particular systematic approach to knowledge gathing that I don’t think applies in these circumstances. However, that doesn’t mean that ALL myths have a basis in fact. Some are made up out of whole cloth. > [@](#): > > Are you arguing that you now, know more about the origin of humans than all of the people born before Darwin combined? Yes. I also know more about why the sun shines and why the sky is blue. ---
**Author:** ![Othersider](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/cab0a1/32.png) [@Othersider](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Othersider)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2005, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/156 "2005-11-22T01:35:59Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > 1. 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. I sure hope not. I thought martyrdom went out a couple of millennia ago. ;j (of course, the same could be said of any faith…obviously not just Christianity…) ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2005, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/157 "2005-11-22T02:21:20Z")
The answer to the OP is really very simple. The Establishment Clause says that the state is not allowed to endorse a particular religious view. That means the government is not allowed to take a stance on whether gods do or _do not_ exist. Removing statements like “under God” and “In God we Trust” from the public lexicon do not equate to statements that God does not exist. They would merely amount to the government doing what it is supposed to do, which is to _remain silent_ on religious questions. I’d also like to add that the argument that simply intimating that God exists does not represent an endorsement of a _particular_ one is a specious one. For one thing, it’s hard to argue with any seriousness that monotheism is not a specific religious view but more significantly, such an endorsement automatically constitutes a statement that _all other paradigms are **false** _. The government is not allowed to say that atheism or polytheism or Taoism are false any more than it’s allowed to say that they’re true. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2005, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/158 "2005-11-22T03:18:56Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > The answer to the OP is really very simple. The Establishment Clause says that the state is not allowed to endorse a particular religious view. That means the government is not allowed to take a stance on whether gods do or _do not_ exist. It would be simple if everyone made the same assumptions you do. As I pointed out in another thread, one could argue (me, for example) that taking a position that there is a Creator is NOT taking a religious position. It is taking a _philosophical_ one, which answers the philosophical question: “How did we get here?”. And I can prove I am right. How? Here I am. I practice no religion, take the word of no book. I simply believe that at some point someone or some “thing” set the whole thing in motion. Therefore, one CAN answer “yes” to “Is there a Creator?” and not follow ANY religion or be religious in any way (except being sure to Tivo Curb Your Enthusiasm.). So it is very possible, and correct, to say that the U.S. can acknowledge a Creator and NOT be endorsing any religion in particular OR religion in general. ---
**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 22, 2005, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/159 "2005-11-22T03:21:24Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > It would be simple if everyone made the same assumptions you do. As I pointed out in another thread, one could argue (me, for example) that taking a position that there is a Creator is NOT taking a religious position. It is taking a _philosophical_ one, which answers the philosophical question: “How did we get here?”. And I can prove I am right. How? Here I am. I practice no religion, take the word of no book. I simply believe that at some point someone or some “thing” set the whole thing in motion. > > Therefore, one CAN answer “yes” to “Is there a Creator?” and not follow ANY religion or be religious in any way (except being sure to Tivo Curb Your Enthusiasm.). So it is very possible, and correct, to say that the U.S. can acknowledge a Creator and NOT be endorsing any religion in particular OR religion in general. Belief in a creator is a religious statment; one of the more common ones. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2005, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868/160 "2005-11-22T03:29:53Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > Belief in a creator is a religious statment; one of the more common ones. Thanks so much for clearing things up. I’m truly impressed with the amount of intellectual rigor you put into your reply, attacking my position by showing the flaws in the logical steps I provided. YOU are a Genius!!! And since you haven’t yet: retracted your statement, apologized, or complied with my polite request to keep away from where you are not wanted, you will heretofore be Ignored. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-protected-by-the-establishment-clause/330868.md?page=9)