Mr Blue Sky found this, in response to my asking the question in General Questions. The source appears to be The Secular Something For Something (not really, but I can’t remember their name) web site, so let’s keep an eye toward their probable bias. It appears to have been part of an interview, almost 20 years ago.
RS: “What will you do to win the votes of Americans who are atheists?”
GB: “I guess I’m pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.”
RS: “Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?”
GB: “No, I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.”
RS: “Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?”
GB: “Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I’m just not very high on atheists.”
Sorry about the slow reply. It seems to have been just his personal opinion, and he seems to have been saying that he would not let it affect his policy. More important, he says he recognizes nonestablishment or “separation of”. So all in all, it looks pretty harmless to me.
That’s your point. As far as I’m concerned the term harrassment and humiliation are just as inappropriate as the term coersion. It’s an exaggeration of the actual situation. To be clear, I have no problem with “under God” being taken out or a school choosing to not observe Christamas. if that’s what the community decides.
I do think it’s totally incorrect to think that the best way to deal with those inevitable unpleasent conflicts is by avoiding them to protect the feelings of the few. There are certain rights that we should defend for every individual. The right ti be free from uncomfortable and awkward situations is not one of them. Is it making it better to disappoint the majority? Do you think the minority will be free of harassment when the majority has to give up something they value for the sake of the minority?
First, it’s easy to say “Deal with it” when it’s not your problem. It’s a lot harder for some kid being beaten up because he doesn’t want to lie about his religion.
Second, the majority does not have the right to bully people just because they outnumber them. I don’t care what you do with your friends and family; I just want you to stop trying to ram your beliefs down everyone else’s throat.
Is “Leave me alone !” just too complex a thought for the Christians ?
If the then-Vice President of the United States actually said such a thing, I would disagree that it’s just a pretty harmless expression of personal opinion. Granted, such statements are well short of signing an Executive Order ordering that all the atheists be rounded up and sent to Biblical Education Camps; still, they go well beyond saying “Atheists? Hey, you know, I’m no athest–I definitely believe in God!” Substitute “Jews” or “Catholics” for “atheists” in the sentence “No, I don’t know that ________ should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots” to see what effect you get.
I think you’re contorting reality to present a worst case scenario as normative. This tactic does not help meaningful debate move forward.
I will offer advice that I remember my Mom offereing me: “It’s very easy to see offense when you’re looking for it. Even if it’s not there.”
Again you’re skewing the arguement, stating what no one on this board would disagree with, i.e., bullying. Tell me, what rights does a majority have over those they outnumber? Any?
“…school sponsored ritual of harrassment/humilation…some kid being beaten up…bullying…ramming…”
Explosion at the Hyperbole Factory, news at 11:00.
I rask oyu again, what rights does a majority have over those they outnumber? Any?
This discussion on the PofA has expanded or shifted to Christmas. (It’s hard to tell which.) Der Thris, just so I understand you’re positions: You want “underGod” out of the PLedge, right? And what do you advocate about Christmas? Complete ban?
Or more inclusion of other religions, as well?
No, the “worst case scenario” would be teachers burning atheist students at the stake.
Seriously, I didn’t say it was the normal state of affairs; given the nature of religion and the bigotry of children ( and quite a few teachers ), I think it’s a perfectly reasonable fear.
Why would they have any rights over the minority ? Part of the point of the Bill of Rights is to prevent the tyranny of the majority.
As long as it isn’t state funded/supported, and as long as no coercion is involved, do what you want. I myself celebrate the non-religious parts of Christmas.
I might say it’s possible, but reasonable. I went to a grammar, middle, and highschool that were predominantly Christian. And the ONLY religious kerfuffle that I can recall was between two teachers: one kept referring to Xmas and another teacher asked him to refer to it by it’s rightful name.
Because as a general proposition, democratic means are the best/fairest way to resolve disagreements. If the majority can’t have it’s way the minority gets their way. And that just makes no sense.
Yes, the Bill of Rights, does, in part, do what you say. But it carves out specific rights to be protected from the will of the majority. If a particular right is not covered in the Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) it enjoys no such protection.
Can a town hall have Nativity Scene? How about colored lights? Can a public school have the school play be A Christmas Carol? Can kids sing carols? Can they wear red and green outfits to school? Where do you think the line shold be drawn?
Repeat after me, “Seperation of church and state”. If the government promotes religion, it violates this.
Nativity scene : No, that’s purely religious. Lights : Not religious; OK. Red and green outfits aren’t religious either. I’d give A Christmas Carol a pass; it’s only marginally religious IIRC. They can sing non religious carols.
As long as nothing overtly religious is involved, I’m ok with it. It’s perfectly fine if you want to do religious stuff on your own time with your own ( or no ) money; if a bunch of Christian kids want to sing Christian carols by themselves during recess that’s fine, as long as other kids aren’t required to sing along.
It’s like prayer in school; if you want to pray by yourself before a test, that’s OK. If you want to pray over the PA system or require all the kids in a class to pray, that’s not OK.
Point taken. I guess if it had said anything about me (fill in with whatever blank would apply to me), I’d take it very personal. Just remember, the jury is still out, as to whether he really said it or not. The whole quote may well be fake.
First, I’m saying it is my problem. I’m not saying “deal with it” in the “if you don’t like it tough shit” sense, but rather the WE as a community a culture and a nation, have to “deal with it”
If my son gets beat up because he sings in the glee club should I insist they abolish singing in school? Of course not.
I definatly think bigotry of all kinds , including religious bigotry, should be confronted. That means if somone else’s kid get’s beat up because of their beliefs, be they Muslim, Christian, Atheist, or whatever, I should be down at the school with that parent raising hell and working with the school to promote understanding. Any teacher or school official who turns a blind eye, or in any way supports bigotry should be handed their walking papers.
My daughter and stepdaughter went to high school in a rural predominatly Christian area. Dry town. We We had to drive 20 miles to get beer to go with our pizza. The principle decided that any “evil” looking wear from the local mall Hot Topic {goth}store was not allowed on school property. My daugter and stepdaughter immediatly got Hot Topic stickers and gear and wore it to school to challenge this ruling and I completely supported them.
The thing I revere about our Constitution and DofI is that it extablishes a responsibility of the goverment and more impotantly each citizen, to defend the rights of others that we want to claim as our own. If I want free speech I have to defend that right for those who I disagree with. If I want freedom of religion then I must defend that right for those who practice a religion I object to. {such as Christian or Muslim extremists}
Right, and that’s a much bigger IF than you acknowledge. It seems obvious to me that the purpose of 1st amendment was to keep Congress from ever declaring any specific religion to be the official national religion. It promises that Congress shall pass no law preventing any citizen from practising their religion.
No mind police. We can’t make any beliefs illegal. What it doesn’t promise is that no taxpayers money will ever be spent on anything that smacks of religious beliefs. We have 225 years of prescedent establishing that. It’s okay by me if we as a country decide to change it. Claiming it to be a constitutional right has **not ** been established.
I understand the objection to your tax dollars being spent on things you object to. I feel the same way. That is a right you deal with at the voting booth.
Nobody is ramming beliefs down your throat to simply mention God in a public forum unless there is some officially sanctioned repercussions to your objection or choice to not participate.
Thanks for the explanation. I mentioned I grew up in the rural northeast and I can’t even remember any minority students when I was in school. Christmas was just a fun thing to do and not really a religious observance except for the familar story of the birth of Jesus. I can imagine in some areas {bible belt} religious bigotry is much worse. Still, I tend to think the process of dealing with this is part of a society growing up and changing.
I don’t see it as a heavy burdon for parents to explain to their kids why they can’t participate. Certain Christians won’t let their kids go to school sponsered dances. Should we ban dances to spare the feelings of those kids? I know that’s not a religious event. I don’t think religious events are inherently more socially painful and oneroous because they smack of religion.It is just one of the many social and human factors we deal with. If I live in a predominantly Christian neighborhood I expect to be exposed to Christianity in social settings. Insert any religion or atheism.
What I’m saying is that I don’t think a movement toward neutraity is practical or even possible. There are areas in the US now where the majority is other than Christian. What do they do? Our culture is more diverse than ever and still changing. For that reason perhaps the time has come to rethink religious celebrations in public schools. Perhaps the best way to handle it an educational approach where the the students share information about their diverse religions and traditions. We promote understanding, respect and a revernce for our diversity by education and a sharing of cultures and beliefs,not by trying to neutralize them.
Seperate but equal didn’t work because seperate doesn’t work. I support seperation of church and state and freedom of worship but I don’t think trying to make all things associated with our goverment neutral to anything that remotely smacks of religion is a practical answer. Religious beliefs are to deep within our society. We must learn to coexist with each other with respect and tolerance. As our culture evolves we cannot avoid this difficult task by moving toward a false neutrality.
I can’t agree with you on this. Atheism is a belief but not a religion.
I think that’s part of the problem. IMO the 1st amendment speaks specifically to an organized religion and it’s variations, not to general beliefs. What I see is an attempt to expand the 1st amendment to include even general beliefs that smack of anything religious. I object. I think it’s totally appropriate to rethink and redraw boundaries as our communities change.
Singing is not inherently intolerant; monotheisistic religions are, and those are the ones that dominate here. Pretending that religion isn’t a special case won’t change the fact that it is.
If the government spends money to support religion, it is establishing a state relgion; that’s unconstitutional. Despite what many like to claim, freedom of religion does include freedom from religion, or it isn’t freedom at all. Having to choose between a menu of belief systems I consider to be stupid and vile hardly qualifies as freedom; being left alone by them is.
Never happen. What you fail to realize is that the nice, tolerant people don’t need to be restrained by law in the first place. If you relax the wall ( such as it is ) between church and state, you won’t get a mixing of cultures; the wall is what allows the mixing in the first place. “Good fences make good neighbors”.
Lowering the wall further will simply allow a further takeover by fanatic Christian fundementalists, and a greater harassment or even suppression of other religions.
The arguement that some have presented is that the term “under God” puts an undue burdon on students with different beliefs or their parents who don’t wish them to be exposed to that minute degree to the beliefs of others. I don’t agree.
Aside form the particular question of the POA, there is a question of what role religious beliefs can play in public and taxfunded settings and where the lines are drawn. Christian students and teachers as well as others suffer ridicule for their beliefs.
You surprise me. I don’t see that in the first amendment. Since Congress has done exactly that over and over again I assume your interpretation of the 1st amendment has not been conclusivly established. That’s why the debate goes on. Do you agree?
Once again. How the public dime is used is determined at the voting booth. I wouldn’t want my own children or grandchildren to be told they are expected to believe a certain way. I don’t want them to be socially pressured by others to do drugs or to accept Jesus or Allah. I want them to be aware of the diversity of life and humanity and to be strong enough to make their own decisions.
What my grandchildren will believe will hardly be determined by a generic and ceremonial mention of God in the POA.
BTW. I do think the Christian headlock on the US is weakening and I’m all for that.
I agree with you, cosmodan, in that Atheism is a belief but not a religion. But I think lekatt gets it right by putting either answer to the initial decision someone makes, i.e., Aethism versus Theism, on equal footing.
IMO, they both start out as decisions of philosophy. After that decision is made, the Theist can then choose—or not—to recognize some Cretor or higher order through a religion.
If interested, this I’ve discussed this point in more detail earlier in this thread.
While I don’t think that is 100% true I think there is a lot of truth in it. That makes it more challenging. I still think intolerance and bigotry springs from the same place within us regardless of subject matter.
Which is worse.
I hate black people
I hate Atheists
I hate Hindus
I hate fat ugly people.
IMHO it is a special case only because we allow it to be. I think we can difuse it by not allowing it to be a special case. I don’t think a religious belief should have special status over any other belief. If a Christian zealot bombs a clinic a kills a doctor he should be prosecuted for murder. Let’s extend that to other more subtle expressions of religious beliefs. What matters are the boundaries we set morally and ethically toward each other as a culture. Our responsibility as citizens sharing a society. If the foundation of my moral and ethical behavior are my spiritual beliefs and yours are a more secular philosophy it doesn’t matter. What matters is our interaction with each other and where those choices take us.
In the book “The End of Faith” the author proposes that religous beliefs that effect us all should not have a special status that exempts them from examination and critcism. I agree. Intolerance and bigotry cannot be justified with religious beliefs.
It’s the same as any other intolerance and bigotry. The tricky part is that makes intolerance* of * Christians just as bad as intolerance *by * Christians. That means we come to a more level playing field where nobody justifies their intolerance and bigotry with their beliefs, religious or otherwise.
Thats also completely incorrect. General beliefs are not and cannot be a state religion. There a big difference beween supporting a specific religion and including a more general religious concept.
Hardly realistic. Even if we voted to remove religious language from anything taxfunded you would still see religion at almost every turn. Seems to me you could only achieve your freedom by curbing theirs. The fact is you are already free to choose none of the beliefs you consider stupid and vile. You are free to call them stupid and vile in a public forum without being sanctioned by the government. You’re free to start a private school that teaches God doesn’t exist if you like. What you* can’t * do is impose your personnal interpretation of the 1st amendment upon everybody else.
I’m not sure what you’re refering to. I never proposed lowering any wall. I completely support the sepration of church and state. I just disagree with you on what that means. If you’re saying we won’t come to Utopia where there is perfect tolerance and understanding, then I agree. Striving to move in that direction helps maintain balance. What I support is teaching understanding and respect for peoples beliefs, and to put religious beliefs on the same ethical and moral plane as everybody else. If your belief tells you to live in a cave away from temptation then have at it. If your belief tells you Allah wants you to kill the infidel then you’ll be treated like any other dangerous criminal. If your belief makes you a bigot toward homosexuals because of a couple of lines in a 2000 year old book then you’ll be called a bigot and your “religious” beliefs are no defense. If you’re a bigot toward those with spiritual beliefs then you’ll be called a bigot and a feeling of righteous indignation and presumed superior intelligence is no defense.
Thanks I’ll check it out. I agree that beliefs, be it atheist or theist should be treated equally. That’s my objection to many 1st amendment arguements. Theism is incorrectly labeled as a religion rather than belief, and IMO atheism as a belief is given preference under the guise of false neutrality.
Atheism is not a belief but a LACK of belief and it’s hardly given “preference” in this country.
I also think that trying to draw a distinction between theism and religion is specious. Even if monotheism does not delimit itself to one specific religion, it does necessarily amount to a statement that all other possibilities are false and the government has no business saying that pantheism or animism are false.
You are correct that it is not given preference to. I made no such assertion. I am very skeptical of the concept that removing theistic references makes things neutral and equal to all beliefs. I maintain that removing all general theistic references is giveing preference to the belief of atheism and is not nessecarily neutral and equitable to all.
As far as atheism not being a belief, you might want to check some dictionaries. They do describe it as both a lack of belief and “the doctrine that there is no deity” or the **belief ** that God does not exist. Wikipedia does a good job by seperating weak atheism {a lack of belief} and strong atheism {a doctrine or belief}
You make a valid point. This discussion is what is the 1st amendment speaking of? Specific religion, or any theistic reference at all? You may want it to be the latter and firmly believe that’s what it *should * be, but I don’t think you have enough evidence to firmly establish that’s what it is and was intended to be.
I think the sum of the DOI and the COUS are saying is we are a people who in general believe in God {that term having various meanings to people} but we acknowledge and defend the rights of the individual to believe and worship as they choose.
I think it’s normal for the our public institutions to reflect that. I don’t consider it a horrible burden to acknowledge those facts in ceremonial language. As our society changes I would expect it to reflect those changes.
