Okay so this says God doesn’t exist because God: A> Cannot be proven and B> Isnt necessary. This still requires two leaps of faith.
[QUOTE=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.
[QUOTE]
As I said before, not mentioning God is not atheistic. It’s a-theistic. Stripping established values away based on current atheistic principles leans towards an establishment whereas leaving a nutrion label blank does not. I hope the difference is plain. Whether one is a hard or soft atheist, one seeks to degrade the foundation of values in this country on the pretense of replacing it with what I see as an altered set of values.
To reply to lots of folks:
Mentioning God can easily be non-denominational. George Washington was sworn in as our first President wearing his Masonic apron. He was given such an apron in the ritual where he was made a Mason. At a particular point, he was asked in whom he places his trust. Regardless of denomination, he and all brethren and fellows who have gone that way before him said “In god.” Hence, “In God We Trust.” Though it was not immediately put on the money, he did not stand alone in putting his faith in God. And you can take that oath on any holy book you like, but you swear by God.
That is the basis of our civil religion and what I see is folks who want to tear it down because the mere mention of the word “God” upsets their own established beliefs.
Very good. Then neither theism nor atheism is an establishment. That being the case, why is it an “error” as I believe tomndebb that needs to be corrected?
Thats where the philosophy comes from. We’ve already gone over the fact that the Constitution doesn’t establish this. And it needn’t because it’s a legally positivist document. Its the law because it’s the law.
Ah I dont care who believes in what, frankly. But I do take issue with atheists radically misinterpreting the intentions of the framers, erasing the heritage of the values in this country and claiming there is some kind of rational basis for it.
It’s just heritage and should be honored as such. Like that tree some folks borrowed from the Norse, or the letters some other folks borrowed from the Phoenicians.
This nation was formed under god, even if it was added to the pledge or money later.
Nobody’s talked about tax exempt status for religious institutions. Everybody’s taking the easy ones [as I have written elsewhere, the pledge is a mistake, regardless of a mention of God].
Interesting you should say so. I’m trying to find information on a case where a teacher was forbidden form leaving his Bible on his desk and reading it to himself during study period. In another reported case a teacher was asked not to display the symbols of her Christianity on her clothes and jewelry. That should be protected as well.
It a tricky area. Wasn’t there a judge who had the ten commandments on his robe. That’s pretty goofy. I don’t think lawyers or judges should be from mentioning God if that is their belief, but I can see where they could easily go too far and it could become witnessing. There’s also a question of how far the 1st amendment as a federal guide can control what small towns choose to do. If no federal monies are involved then why can’t a community put up the nativity scene if they choose. Of course that also means other religious communities can do the same for their religious holidays. I thought this
was interesting. Does freedom of religion give you the right to disturb the peace for others? I think not.
I think forbidding people to say under God would be favoring atheism over deism but merely making it completely voluntary without any official government sanction is not. In fact the right to use religious language in public forums should be protected by the 1st amendment.
Excellent argument. It took several minutes to respond. Intuitively, however, I can’t accept it.
Consider that most issues are relative to the status quo. Incumbancy has unique value which is generally accepted when most modern democracies require more than a 1% majority to establish a clause in the constitution. To establish a change in the US Constitution/pledge clearly would be based on the belief that God does not exist. Otherwise why would anyone consent to give up an opportunity to pledge their allegience to God. I can’t see how the US founding fathers would acknowledge God on the one hand and require future generations to excise Him on the other.
My argument is based solely on what I perceive in the role of the Supreme court/constitution in American public life and discourse regarding the big issues.
Incorrect. Soft atheism says because God cannot be proven, and isn’t necessary, we can presume he doesn’t exist. Gravity could possibly work because invisible blue demons push objects toward each other proportional to their mass. However, absent evidence invisible blue demons exist, arguments depending on their existence are just empty.
“Soft atheism” = “pure agnosticism”. We make no leaps of faith whatsoever. We just say to theists: “Please provide evidence of the existence of God”.
Oh yeah. The “civil religion.” That would be the one that let us tax Baptists to pay for Congregationalist churches in New England, prohibit Catholics from worshipping in public in New York or using their own bibles in public schools in Philadelphia and Baltimore, or sought to drive the Mormons out of New York, Ohio, and Illinois, right?
There is no “civil religion.” There are a number of beliefs and philosophical positions often, but not exclusively, transmitted through widely varying religious traditions that are held by individuals.
It is the mistaken belief that if some ill-defined majority can agree on social principles that are shared among a number of religions (as well as any number of non-religious beliefs), that majority gets to declare that they have a super religion that allows them to impose their vague beliefs on the rest of the population.
You have not yet sold me on the idea. The civil religion of the Klan excluded Catholics and Jews. In the recent thread on God and the Constitution, it was noted that the opponents of the “godless” Constitution expressed fears that Catholics, Jews and “Mohamettans” might participate in government.
Where do all these civil religionists worship together? What are the tenets of this civil religion (that can be distinguished from any other moral code)?
“Civil religion” is simply a fiction created to allow the majority to trample minorities, laying in the background as long as there is no conflict, then coming to the fore as a discriminatory and hateful practice when differences of religious opinion arise among the populace.
It is in the sense that atheists can claim that certain actions violate the establishment clause.
I agree. Going just by the 1st amendment I would say that what was prohibited was only specific religion and not general belief. Yet we must also look at the history of legal prescedent from then till now.
Having no under God in the pledge or In God we trust on the money is a minor thing, but I see it as a minor thing to remove it as well. In a modern society that is much more diverse than it was in the 1700s it might be best for the government to refrain from officially sanctioned language that reflects religious belief, while defending the rights of it’s citizens to worship freely.
I wasn’t clear. Personnaly I think teaching about different religions is a pretty smart thing to do. They are a huge part of history. It seems that in grade school at least this is not considered PC. That’s an unfortunate and immature attitude in my book. What I’m talking about is a federal employees right to freedom of worship while at work. Not reading the Bible to a class but merely being seen reading the bible by the class and other teachers, or the Koran, or anything else.
If a student asks a trusted teacher for advice is it okay for the teacher to say “Pray” because that his or her belief. You can see how something like that might bring some fallout.
I suppose they might say, it wasn’t necessary to begin with so why should it be now. I can understand how a parent might not like a teacher asking his five year old to say “under God” everyday. I wouldn’t sue over it but I understand. If my child told the teacher that she wasn’t going to say under God and got some flack because of it then there would be a serious problem.
Certainly we will see the influence of the most vocal majority but it is a living changing thing. I disagree with those who say that leaving references to God out of government lingo is somehow rejecting God and founding values. It’s merely redefining where the lines are drawn. I think the right of individuals to express there religion in there language is protected by the first amendment. Removing religious references from the POA and religious displays from our courthouses is a minor thing. Judge Roy Moore can display the 10 commandments in his chambers but not force everyone coming into the courthouse to pass them. It seems to me that rather than trying to remove God what is being asked is that we look at our beliefs more closely and personnaly instead of a mere superficial acceptance through tradition. I see that as a positive.
Belief in what God, whose God? I think there’s been ample evidence here on the SDMB that it was largely the Enlightenment and basic values that had nothing to do specifically with religion, that are the founding principles of our nation. The fact that many of the founding fathers were Christian is merely a statistic. The fact that neither the DOI or COUS make clear references to the Judeo Christian God that was later inserted into our money and the pledge is what some of the founders fought successfully against.
A number of the founders as individuals recognized God and I will fiercely oppose any effort to deny an individual from recogizing (a) God or worshipping that deity.
The founders did not place God into the laws or the establishment of the country and I see no reason why any law or legally mandated action should inappropriately insert God into governmental actions. (Mandating the Pledge of Allegiance should be dropped because mandating loyalty oaths in a purportedly free nation causes the god Iron to weep.) Teddy Roosevelt wrote a blistering attack on the movement to place “In God We Trust” on money. I agree with him. (One version of the origin of “In God We Trust” was that it was a backdoor attempt to salvage the pride of a number of religionists who had attempted to amend the Constitution with a declaration that the U.S. was Chreistian nation. I think the fact that they failed (provided, of course, the story is true), indicates that even with backdoor appeals to God, the nation has resisted introducing God into the government.)
I can’t agree. Atheists merely decide for themselves that they want proof of a diety and haven’t seen any that satisfies them. They do not require that others prove God’s existance in order to believe. They simply won’t accept that belief being forced on them. A reasonable postion as far as I can see. If someone believes garden gnomes are helping them grow great vegatables it’s okay by me and I don’t require any evidence one way or the other until they try to force that belief on me in some way. “One nation, with garden gnomes, with liberty and broccoli for all”
It’s not a leap of faith to discount gnomes, it’s apathy and irrelevance until it somehow affects me directly. Agnosticism is not a leap of faith and that is what soft atheism amounts to. Strong atheism is a belief that there is no God. I would call that faith that there is no deity to have faith in.
To me, its not a way of trampling people now. Nor is anyone trampled now if atheism is not an establishment which can be trampled. I say nothing of the record, in practise of how people [individuals or aggregates] of various groups treat each other, there is far from a stellar example.
But what I have been saying is that there is a character to the legal philosophy that underpins this country which folks are trying to erase because they think it is offensive.
Sure, we said in the beginning everybody is created equal and some of those same folks had slaves and whatnot. Bad move. Absolutely. The same is true in religious areas. And folks have gotten bogged down in details like the money and pledge which I offered as examples.
What I am trying to get at is whether atheism attempting to gloss over this heritage is or is not in and of itself an establishment. I feel it is. I do not feel that most peoples’ motivations for this are a-theistic,… not when you use words like “trample” to describe the shame of having to live in a country that enshrines so many fabulous rights because the framers thought these were theirs from God.
Belief in God. Nowhere does anyone say it has to be a particular god. Scroll up for my quotes on the Enlightenment. I was not talking about Christianity ever, anywhere and all you folks are going right into that pothole on your own. The constituion makes no reference to God but treats religion as pretty damn important.
I also do not believe God has to be ensconced in law. That simply isn’t necessary and is some kind of straw man most of you folks seem to be knocking without any help from my camp.
I suggest you re-read the Declaration of Independence before you suggest it does not refer to God. God is referenced and so is “divine providence,” the protection therewith is invoked by the singers, as I have also already pointed out. Here it is.
Using the word “God” does not enact an establishment. Insisting that God be removed from our national character, in my view, attempts to overthrow an establishment that actually doesn’t exist. And it becomes one.
You act as if belief in God is something that ought to be outgrown. Quite the contrary, it’s something one may, if he or she so chooses, might grow into. It is a lazy assumption that belief in God requires some kind of doctrinary establishment or evoking God as the wellspring of our Natural rights requires some kind of doctrinary establishment.
I certainly wouldn’t want my government telling me I get my natural rights from them. Natural rights is an issue of philosophy, not religion, and it saddens me how many people get ornery around God talk.
Let me clue you in, I was not raised Christian. So I had to come to grips with how a lot of Christian people talk about this. There were many experiences of resentment growing up. I have noted with amusement how many folks on this board assume I am coming from a Christian point of view because I talk about God in America. That is entirely not the case. I celebrate the fact that I can talk as I do in America and am free to believe as I do. I live in a country founded by deists and theists who wanted to make sure the panoply of viewpoints and establishments available to its citizenry, absent government entanglement, is as varied as our citizenship from the world.
I do not feel that alluding to God enforces belief in God, as is clear by the fact that it is astutely not done in any real document of legal import. However, most folks misinterpret this in the extreme and get their panties in a twist at the merest philosophical allusion to God.
I happen to think the federal government should not be involved to the extent that it is in education, which ought to be a state and local rights issue. I think a teacher should be able to be seen reading any book, whether it’s The Da Vinci Code or The Bible or Volume 16: T-U of the Encyclopedia. It should not matter. People should not be so touchy. I for one, as a personal matter, would hope teachers don’t encourage reading The Da Vinci Code when there are better sources for the study of history or art. I don’t like the letter T. And there isn’t a bible translation that works perfectly for me. But I don’t treat it as my business.
If a student asks a trusted teacher for advice, there might be a certain sensitivity a teacher should apply in giving advice to a student. That teacher is a role model and a professional but may not be skilled in the field of consultation the student requires. A wise teacher would contact parents, administration or other professionals who work with children. Take the example of a bereaved student. A teacher also might say “When my mommy died, I prayed for her.” This would be a true answer of how the teacher coped and might not necessarily advocate anything for the student. Teachers ought to know who and what they are dealing with, but it’s not really the issue I raised in the OP.
The problem here is that most parents view school as daycare. They usually side with the administration rather than hearing or interacting with their child about what’s important. I was a rare kid who knew I didn’t have to take any flak /at/ school because I knew my parents would back me up, and not them. In the Us&Them scenario, schools divide most kids from their family. So lots of kids are made to take and utter an oath they do not understand. We had another thread where we discussed the oathtaking aspect of it and I’m sure you and I would largely agree as we’ve already found major areas where this is the case.
Listen, again, I dont care what’s in the pledge or what’s printed on money. That wasn’t really my issue. My issue is with atheists feeling they are trampled by any references to a general concept they’ve decided not to believe in. The same is true, in converse with evangelists refusing to believe in evolution and thinking it’s a scandal that it’s presented as it is. I’m not getting bogged down in the details, nor do I think “God” should be physically added to any document or rite.
What I am saying is: evangelicals : evolution :: atheists : god. They are scandalized by something they refuse to believe in. And I think that while they claim to be trampled, they run the danger of trampling others who take pride in the tradition that created such a robust legal framework for protecting otherwise Natural rights.
You know I agree with you about the necessity of people actually forming personal beliefs rather than being spoonfed canned rote. To refer again to education, as above, teachers should be able to discuss spirituality. It should be part of our education and part of our diet, whether it leads to god, prayer, prayer beads, cards, churches, candles, knives, or whatever else may fall into use in “religious” practise or not.
But the real discussion is being stiffled, in my view, by the folks who are scandalized. They are scandalized by details you and I both find relatively unimportant like where “God” is printed.
I am scandalized by people trying to deny, rewrite or change the origins of our political philosophy based on what I consider to be an incorrect interpretation of our established law. And I think the way it is done resembles an establishment in and of itself, an establishment that assumes God isn’t necessary, God isn’t proven, and therefore there cannot be God. I cannot make these assumptions and wouldn’t want those assumptions to trample on the intentions of those who declared our independence from King George, Protector of the Faith.
A rat in a sewer may never see the moon. It’s by force of will he’d ignore the advice of his fellow rats who manage to dwell on the surface that there is light above. Those other rats don’t force it on him or drag him to the street. He can still be wrong.
From a book I was reading:
“A man says that all women are alike, and a woman that men are all alike. One who fancies himself wise says that one can know only what one sees, or that no one can know anything at all, and thus saves himself much labor of thought, at the cost of being wrong.”
I do not have a belief that was forced on me and I certainly don’t need you to pay lip service to a belief that isn’t meaningful to you. In religious school I learned prayers by rote, myths and tales and I was incredibly turned off to the whole process. I am grateful to have been immersed in my heritage but I certainly did not take a doctrinary faith out of it. I lost heaps of respect for the leaders of the congregation and wasn’t indoctrinated by my parents either who I recently chided for being too liberal. [My brother married and I will soon marry folks of other cultures]
Wrong on all 3. Assumptions and presumptions are just part of a model to work with, and require no faith. I presume if I stand up and let go of a ball, it will fall to the floor. Maybe gravity works such that 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times the ball won’t fall to floor. However, based on past observations, I’d say presuming it will fall to the floor is the way to bet.
