Is Atheism protected by the Establishment Clause?

[cosmosdan]

@Noctolator

Ahh, but is belief in God a religion in and of itself or is it postulated like evolution or gravity or a spherical Earth or the calculus?

I am talking about whether abjectly removing God from existence just because we live in a pluralist, free and open society is not in and of itself an establishment.

Additionally, it’s unfair of you to suggest I am Christian. I am not Christian by choice and I was not born Christian either. The word “God” refers to divinity. I’d like to see a religion that does not embrace this concept in one way or another or at the very least, a religion which outright conflicts with the existence of God in the way atheism does.

Look into Buddism and Scientology. Also check on the Enlightenment here.
It had a lot to to with our founding principles rather than simply Christianity.

[Contrapuntal]

@mswas

Are attempts at removing God from the lexicon attempts at establishment?

Erek

Is anyone trying to remove God fron the lexicon? The lexicon? How would that work, exactly?

[mswas]

@John Mace

How would this work in practice? “God”, or the word “God”, is not intrinsic to anything governmental. To be there, someone had to put God there. Even if we follow your logic that atheism is a religion*, taking God out is no different that putting God in (wrt establishment). Take the current debate over “under God” in the pledge. If it represents an athieistic establishment to take God out, why would it not have been a **theistic **establishment to put God in in the first place?

*which I disagree with, but let’s just accept it for the sake of argument.

Well the question at hand is whether or not atheism is an establishment. If they are attempting to take it out of, then is it attempting to establish atheism. I am not necessarily arguing that atheism IS a religion, but that in this particular case atheistic attempts to remove the “god talk” from the government are attempting to affect establishment of a particular doctrine over another.

By and large I would say that the average American is a passive agnostic. Some don’t attempt to tackle religion at all, and some just kind of fall into a role of social norms without giving the subject a whole lot of thought. The thing is these passive agnostics will probably come about on both sides of the debate, with some not really caring.

Erek

[Noctolator]

@John Mace

How would this work in practice? “God”, or the word “God”, is not intrinsic to anything governmental. To be there, someone had to put God there. Even if we follow your logic that atheism is a religion*, taking God out is no different that putting God in (wrt establishment). Take the current debate over “under God” in the pledge. If it represents an athieistic establishment to take God out, why would it not have been a **theistic **establishment to put God in in the first place?

*which I disagree with, but let’s just accept it for the sake of argument.

I disagree that God is not intrinsic to anything governmental. John Locke is among many U.S.-inspirational philosophers who says that’s where our rights come from and so do the framers. They enshrine government as non-denomenational because they had fled England and Europe torn over sectarian differences they did not wish to import. Theism is not in and of itself an establishment, because theism is not a “religion.” Belief in God is very broad. Der Trihs reminds us of animists, voodoo, and other theistic practises that bear little or no resemblance to Judeo-Christian values.

Atheism on the other hand has a consistent core belief you will hear extolled and insisted by atheists worldwide. They say there is not and cannot be a God. They demand proof that their is one, as if their decision to close their mind to a way of seeing, feeling and thinking about things is based on rational fact, when, in fact, it’s a stylized belief system like any other.

[hildea]

• scrathces my head *

I have problems seeing what the problem is. If a country’s currency and pledge of allegiance to the government refrains from mentioning any gods, how is that a promotion of atheism? There’s a huge lot of stuff that the currency of my country doesn’t mention – it doesn’t mention gods, lack of gods, human rights, science, ethics, gravity, music or lutefisk. It’s never crossed my interpret that as a claim from the government that any of those things don’t exist.
(On preview I see that the exact same point has been made by several other posters, but I’ll keep it anyway.)

As for what the authors of your constitution and/or Declaration of Independence believed: How is that relevant? I’m sure that they were excellent persons, and there’s a lot to admire in those documents, but they were still human beings, prone to human fallibility, and coloured by the predudices and norms of their time. Surely it can’t be heretical to acknowledge that some of their ideas can be improved on?

[rfgdxm]

@Noctolator

Taking only the italicized portion of the First Amendment, known as the establishment clause, 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.

“In God we trust” wasn’t originally on US money:

http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml

And “under God” not part of the original pledge of allegience.

Now if the changed these to “God is dead” on money and the pledge…

[Noctolator]

@tomndebb

Clearly not. An establishment of atheism would include statements to the effect that there is no divinty. A statement that makes no mention of (a) god in any way is neither religious nor atheistic (as the word atheism is recognized). (If one wishes to cavil that it is a-theistic, lacking god, that still does not make it an establishment of a belief system.)

The food group and nutrition labels on the sides of packaged food are a-theistic, but only a very odd dabbler in twisted semantics would argue that they were atheistic.

And you don’t feel that removing previously held statements of divinity from our national character wouldn’t do this? I understand the atheistic/a-theistic argument you make as it is very sensible. But I thinkyou assume that these qualities exist in a vacuum which bears no relationship to the theistic origins of the texts in question.

Nutritional information is not really a fair example because it is not a codification of national identity through moral, legal or ethical speculum. It’s mostly a chemical analysis of a product.

[rfgdxm]

@Noctolator

Atheism on the other hand has a consistent core belief you will hear extolled and insisted by atheists worldwide. They say there is not and cannot be a God. They demand proof that their is one, as if their decision to close their mind to a way of seeing, feeling and thinking about things is based on rational fact, when, in fact, it’s a stylized belief system like any other.

WRONG. Google “soft atheism”. I’m a soft atheist myself. BTW, many Buddhists are atheists.

[tomndebb]

@Noctolator

God was added to the pledge to distinguish us from our ideological rival of the day, the U.S.S.R. It is clearly a central value to this country and I wonder if folks who wish to hijack this value by their firm belief and faith that the absence of evidence is an evidence of absense are not themselves setting up an establishment at the expense of non-denomenational theism. When it’s non-denomenational, it does not equal an establishment. It’s like believing in “Freedom” or “justice” for “All”.

The effort to remove “god” from the Pledge is an effort to correct an error. The wishes of some vaguely defined majority to thumb their noses at a rival culture should not be the basis for introducing an established acknowledgement in the divine. And removing that error does not “establish” atheism; it merely returns the Pledge to it former state of establishing neither theism (or desim) or atheism.

Similarly, getting “in God we trust” off the money would not establish atheism: no one looking at a coin or bill that lacked “in God we trust” would be prompted to claim that “we believe in no god.”

[Noctolator]

@cosmosdan

Look into Buddism and Scientology. Also check on the Enlightenment here.
It had a lot to to with our founding principles rather than simply Christianity.

In the 14th and 15th century there emerged in Italy and France a group of thinkers known as the “humanists.” The term did not then have the anti-religious associations it has in contemporary political debate

Many of the most distinguished leaders of the American revolution–Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Paine–were powerfully influenced by English and–to a lesser extent–French Enlightenment thought. The God who underwrites the concept of equality in the Declaration of Independence is the same deist God Rousseau worshipped, not that venerated in the traditional churches which still supported and defended monarchies all over Europe. Jefferson and Franklin both spent time in France–a natural ally because it was a traditional enemy of England–absorbing the influence of the French Enlightenment. The language of natural law, of inherent freedoms, of self-determination which seeped so deeply into the American grain was the language of the Enlightenment, though often coated with a light glaze of traditional religion, what has been called our “civil religion.”

That’s the enlightenment I knew. I don’t happen to think Buddhists would object to divinity as it is of a kind with spirituality. Scientologists, regardless of how much you would credit them a religion, believe in an immortal soul.

[Rysto]

I agree that the establishment clause should apply to atheism – the government should not be able to impose atheism on its citizens. However, I don’t see how removing explicit references to “God” can be considered establishment of atheism. By saying, “In God We Trust”, the government is making an explicit statement in favour of religion. By not saying it, the government is making no statement whatsoever on religion.

[Menocchio]

@Noctolator

Taking only the italicized portion of the First Amendment, known as the establishment clause, 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.

Here’s the flaw in your argument.

Atheism is the belief that there is no God.

A purely secular government, one in which all mentions of God was scrubbed from all civic documents, buildings, ceremonies, etc., does not endorse the belief in God, but neither does it imply that there is *no *God. Secularism is very different than atheism (despite the fact that the term “secular humanism” sometimes used as a synonym).

It doesn’t even establish Agnosticism, in that it doesn’t even state that it doesn’t know whether or not God exists. It is completely silent on the matter of the existance and nature of God. This leaves the citizens completely unencumbered to make their own decisions regarding the existance or lack thereof of God and how one should follow Him.

I’d also argue that mentioning God can never be truly non-denominational. You can never completely remove bias towards one sect (or perhaps a closely related group of sects) when you mention the divine.

[Contrapuntal]

@mswas

Well the question at hand is whether or not atheism is an establishment. If they are attempting to take it out of, then is it attempting to establish atheism.
Erek

No it isn’t, as tomndebb succintly pointed out above.

[DanBlather]

I am convinced. The D of I refers to a creator but the Constitution does not. Clearly therefore, the Constitution promotes atheism, which is a religion, so we can not display it in classrooms.

Further, referring to god in documents is not against the establishment clause, because belief in god is not religious. Not referring to god in documents is atheistic and therefore religious. This means that in order to respect the establishment clause we must include god in every goverment document.

Sounds like good reasoning to me.

[drewbert]

@Noctolator

Atheism on the other hand has a consistent core belief you will hear extolled and insisted by atheists worldwide. They say there is not and cannot be a God. They demand proof that their is one, as if their decision to close their mind to a way of seeing, feeling and thinking about things is based on rational fact, when, in fact, it’s a stylized belief system like any other.

No, some of us just don’t believe in a supreme being, simple as that. I don’t demand proof because I personally don’t care what you believe, as long as you don’t try to make me or my family believe the same thing.

[tomndebb]

@Noctolator

And you don’t feel that removing previously held statements of divinity from our national character wouldn’t do this? I understand the atheistic/a-theistic argument you make as it is very sensible. But I thinkyou assume that these qualities exist in a vacuum which bears no relationship to the theistic origins of the texts in question.

Nutritional information is not really a fair example because it is not a codification of national identity through moral, legal or ethical speculum. It’s mostly a chemical analysis of a product.

I don’t see why removing errors that imposed an unconstitutional belief on the entire country does anytihing but rectify a bad judgement. There is no “theistic origin” for the Constitution or for that silly Pledge. There is no “theisitc origin” for ourt money.

Placing vague religious generalities into the puiblic sphere is an establishment while removing them is not an establishment. Removal of something offensive does not establish its opposite; it simply removes the offensive phenomenon.

The technical nature of food labels does not remove them from the discussion. Clearly we are establishing atheism by way of food distribution. If you do not like the food labels, consider the laws. There are no legal prohibitions against murder, rape, robbery, or other forms of violence that invoke god. Clearly, we are establishing an atheistic society by imposing prohibitions that do not recognize god. If those laws are not promoting or establishing atheism, it is hard to see why removing an imposition of one establishment–making something neutral–can be interpreted as the establishment of some other belief.

[cosmosdan]

@mswas

As you well know, I have been less than convinced by clever atheistic semantic wrangling that I see as attempts to circumvent the establishment clause.

Erek

I think the turning point for me occured in another thread. It was pointed out that what some object to is not the mention of God but that that mentioning being officially sanctioned by the government. I can agree with that as part of the 1st amendment. The balancing of people’s rights {especially federal employees} to express their religion while not violating the 1st amendment I find interesting and challenging. For example I read about a case involving the ACLU where a teacher was forbidden from having his Bible on his desk and reading it to himslef during study periods but in clear view of the class. I think that right is protected by the 1st amendment. On the other hand another teacher was fired becuase after repeated warnings and complaints he insisted on witnessing about Jesus in every class including math. In that case I think firing him was completely justified. Our beliefs are reflected by how we live our lives so in most cases your life, attitudes and actions will be your greatest testimony to your religion,whatever it is or isn’t regardless of lip service.

[mswas]

@tomndebb

The effort to remove “god” from the Pledge is an effort to correct an error. The wishes of some vaguely defined majority to thumb their noses at a rival culture should not be the basis for introducing an established acknowledgement in the divine. And removing that error does not “establish” atheism; it merely returns the Pledge to it former state of establishing neither theism (or desim) or atheism.

A compulsory pledge is the real problem. Whether or not it says “under God” is irrelevant. Compelled speech is irrelevant and meaningless, and a violation of the first amendment before the “under God” question even becomes relevant. I would see an attempt to specifically remove “under God” as an attempt to establish, as a pledge is a personal thing and should be stated by the person taking the pledge in any manner which they choose. If one wanted to remove the “under God” without attempting to establish anything, they’d be striking against the compelled speech rather than focusing on those two words.

Similarly, getting “in God we trust” off the money would not establish atheism: no one looking at a coin or bill that lacked “in God we trust” would be prompted to claim that “we believe in no god.”

I could care less about the money personally. However, the “Under God” is not the only religious iconography on the back of our money. Both the Eagle and the All-Seeing Eye Pyramid are symbols of attaining the highest heights of enlightenment, or union with the divine.

The argument I would make for keeping it is purely on artistic and cultural grounds. It’s cool. I like that our money is so trippy. Other countries money I have seen is rarely as interesting as ours even if they use multiple shapes and color schemes.

I personally believe that it is NOT POSSIBLE to establish something. America is a religion unto itself and is the religion of the nation. I feel much more oppressed by the attempts to strip America of culture in an attempt to achieve some sense of anti-septic pluralism than I do by the odd nod to a particular faith.

Erek

[mswas]

That should be “It is impossible to avoid establishment”

Erek

[John_Mace]

@Noctolator

I disagree that God is not intrinsic to anything governmental. John Locke is among many U.S.-inspirational philosophers who says that’s where our rights come from and so do the framers. They enshrine government as non-denomenational because they had fled England and Europe torn over sectarian differences they did not wish to import. Theism is not in and of itself an establishment, because theism is not a “religion.” Belief in God is very broad. Der Trihs reminds us of animists, voodoo, and other theistic practises that bear little or no resemblance to Judeo-Christian values.

No, the framers do not say where our rights come from. There is nothing in the Constitution which refers to the source of rights. And you don’t get to manipulate definitions. If you want to call atheism a religion because all atheists have a:

consistent core belief you will hear extolled and insisted by atheists worldwide. They say there is not and cannot be a God. They demand proof that their is one, as if their decision to close their mind to a way of seeing, feeling and thinking about things is based on rational fact, when, in fact, it’s a stylized belief system like any other.

Then the same can be said about theists: They have a consistent core belief you will hear extolled and insisted by theists worldwide. They say there is a God and demand no proof… Sure, theists vary in many of their beliefs, but so do atheists.