Taking “under God” out of the PoA (which it was originally never part of in the first place), does not affect anybody’s ability to believe or worship as they choose. It is only the government that is prohibited from endorsing monotheism (and that is the current ruling of the Federal Courts, like it or not), not individual citizens. No one is trying to argue that students can’t say it voluntarily.
IMHO, this is fraught with problems. The test, I think is, to ask an Atheist. “How do you think we got here?” If that can be answered without referring to what the Atheist does not believe, (Creator) then it is an actual belief. (And i’m fairly certain I’ve heard Atheists present their bel…uh…theory in that way on these boards.
But let’s assume for a moment that you are right and Atheism is merely the lack of a positive theory explaining “How did we get here?”. Then Atheists have no actual belief, and the First Amendment wouldn’t come near applying to them. The First Amendment is designed to allow people to practice the religion (belief set) of their choosing. But if you do not have a belief set, your lack of one can’t be infringed on.
Now I do no think this is to be the case. I think most Atheists have a strong belief that we are here purely by natural forces. For instance, Big Bang, primordial goop, single-cell organisms, reproduction, natural selection, a little mutation now and then, the thumb, ape, man.
Step 1) Is there is there not a Higher Order that started this whole perpetual motion machine we call the universe in motion?
No=Atheist
Yes=Theist
If someone is a Theist all you can know for sure about his beliefs is that he believes in the existence of a Higher Order. You can’t know whether he believes in one God or many. Further, you cannot know if he thinks that God (or gods) should be honored—or even acknowledged—in any way by man.
Would you still be of this opinion IF it could be shown that the Founders thought that monotheism was a necessary pillar on which to build the United States of America?
Why does that have to be answered? It is not necessary to have to answer the question of how the universe came to exist in order to lack a belief that it was created by a god.
That’s not what atheism is at all. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. “How did we get here?” is an unrelated question and is one that atheists actually do have positive theories about which do not necessitate the existence of gods. They are not religious beliefs but scientific theories and hypotheses based on observable evidence.
Atheists have no belief in GODS. Scientific theories are not religious beliefs and have no reference to theistic or atheistic belief one way or the other.
First, none of those things are “beliefs” but are known facts, second the atheist position is more accurately presented as the simple assertion that, as yet, we have have never discovered any evidence or necessity to believe that gods had anything to do with it.
Step 1) Is there is there not a Higher Order that started this whole perpetual motion machine we call the universe in motion?
No=Atheist
Yes=Theist
If someone is a Theist all you can know for sure about his beliefs is that he believes in the existence of a Higher Order. You can’t know whether he believes in one God or many. Further, you cannot know if he thinks that God (or gods) should be honored—or even acknowledged—in any way by man.
Would you still be of this opinion IF it could be shown that the Founders thought that monotheism was a necessary pillar on which to build the United States of America?
[/QUOTE]
Oops. I Submitted when I mean to preview.
This is an overly simplistic characterization of the atheist position. Atheists have no positoive beliefs that gods did it, but they don’t necessarily have a positive belief that they didn’t. It’s a logical default assumption in the lack of a shred of a evidence, just like it’s a logical default to assume that goblins don’t exist. That doesn’y mean that a lack of belief in goblins is a “religious” belief.
When the government says that our country is “under God,” then the government is saying that one god exists and that all otrher paradigms are false. The government has no right to say that.
IT wouldn’t change the actual Constitution one bit, so it wouldn’t change my mind whatsoever.
So what about the dictionary definitions of atheism that definately refer to it as a belief or doctrine? Of course you’re free to decide that your definition of atheism is the only correct one. Given the discussion I would find that to be a hilarious bit of irony. 
I entered late in the thread and decided to go back and read it all. I can’t resist commenting on this
Lekatt if you can’t see the blatent intolerance, prejudice, and bigotry reflected by these numbers then IMO you are in some serious denial.
Such definitions would be incomplete or imprecise.
To be really technical about it, there are two different kinds of atheism. “Weak atheism” and “strong atheism.” Weak atheism is simply a lack of theistic belief of any ort. It is not a positive belief in itself. Strong atheism is a positive belief that gods do not exist. While strong atheism would constitute a belief, it cannot be said that all atheists share this belief and calling it a “doctrine” is just silly. A “doctrine,” by definition, is something which issues from a larger system of beliefs or organized group. Atheism is not an organized system of belief and it contains no authoritative teachings or precepts. A lack of belief in gods does not a doctrine make.
Those are some twisted folk who care nothing about democracy or the rights of others. They completely fail to see that the DOI and the bill of rights better reflect the teachings of Jesus than they do. Just a note that there are other Christians out there who strongly oppose them. The Goldwater quote is a real gem and hilarious.
Dam those dictionaries. When are they going to realize you’re right?
I stated this very thing earlier. Good ole Wikipedia. I acknowledge that not all atheist are strong atheist. Earlier you said that atheism was not a belief. Given your stance on the mere mention of God in the POA denies all other beliefs I can assume that your statement indicated that atheism was never a belief. It was certainly presented as such. I think we’ve established that in some cases it is.
Don’t blame the use of “doctrine” on me. It’s those pesky dictionaries. Stupid bastards.
Typing “define: atheism” into Google is not necessarily going to net you the most comprehensive definitions. The way the term is used in serious philosophical and religious discussions is not as simplistic as your google definitions. One of the most frustrating memes that atheists face is that theists are constantly trying to accuse them of holding a “faith” that gods don’t exist. If you do any serious reading on the issue at all, you’ll see that the word is far more general than that.
Then you also have to admit that not all atheists have a “belief” in something.
The only characteristic necessary to define atheism is a lack of belief in gods. Strong atheism is a subcategory, so it is not correct to say that “atheism” is a belief any more than it is correct to say that “theism” is Christianity."
What dictionaries would those be? Cite? Why don’t you look up the definition of “doctrine” while you’re at it. I don’t think you know what it means.
So, let me see. Tom made an excelent summery of my position. However, it hasn’t convinced cosmos. Nor has the efforts of others to get him to see how blind he is to this.
Let me state it in a diffrent fashion.
Now, anyone can say that and feel he is part of the group. However, if the words “under God” is added, then atheist schoolkids feel like it is stating that they are not part of the group. Same for non-christians who read the pledge as fereing to the Christian god, judging from context.
So, just to review, one version makes people feel like outsiders (no mater how it might feel to a Christian), while the other version doesn’t. This is the crux of the latest case.
BTW Those same dictionaries don’t always agree with your take on doctrine either. While a doctrine is indeed a part of a larger system of beliefs it is not only that. Strong Atheism does indeed contain an authoratative teaching and precept. Weak atheism would not be accurately described as doctrine but strong atheism qualifies. You only need one authortative belief to qualify.
That nitpicking aside, I’ve appreciated your input in this thread. From all the info and opinions I can say my thoughts are shifting. While I still don’t see “under God” or general ceremonial theistic references as unconstitutional in a strict sense I can see the purpose of the government being as neutral as possible.
To serve the best interest of all the public it seems best for the government to serve as defenders of religous freedom. In that sense the government would defend the right of people to say under God if they chose to but wouldn’t officially sanction it being said.
Questions, If “under God” was not officially sanctioned but according to stats more Americans prefer it, that might mean it would be said by let’s say half to 2/3 of the kids voluntarily. Would there really be any substantial difference to what’s already happening? You said earlier “Leave my kids out of it” Would they be out of it if the majority was still saying it? Would you defend the majorities right to insert it unsanctioned by the government?
That raises some other questions about where the boundaries are for local communities vs. federal property and the rights of teachers and other public officials to express their beliefs but that is probably a different thread.
Yeah, I really don’t know where you are getting this from. Of course I and others suppost the existance of free speech. People can talk about Christmas as much as they want to in public. Just not on the public dole.
Gosh that’s cute. I don’t agree so I must be blind.
Puh leez. What if believers complain that by removing “Under God” they feel like outsiders? They feel coerced and pressured into supressing their beliefs. How do you propose defending their feelings? I don’t think that’s the crux of this arguement at all.
The believers are the ones with all the numbers and the power; by definition, they are never the outsiders on this subject. When they claim otherwise, they are either lying or deluded.
No, it isn’t the fact that you don’t agree so you must be blind, it is that you seem to agree on every point save one, that it really feels bad to be constanly reminded of your outsider statis, and that this is avoidable.
Now, personally, I felt iritated everytme I saw an overwhelming amount of Christmas related TV, and nothing Jewish, when I was a child. However, despite what you may think, I am not proposing that a stop be put to this, or to all claims of being offended. Instead, I am repeting Newdow’s claims that children are being made to feel like outsiders due to something easily avoidable.
I don’t think it can be called “authoritative” because it’s never anything more than an individual, personal belief. It does not stem from any sort of organized group or school. It is “authoritative” only in the most tautological way. i.e. it is necessary to be a strong atheist in order to be a strong atheist. It’s the beginning and the end all by itself. A “doctrine” really refers to something which it is necessary to believe in order to belong to a larger category. For instance, it is necessary to be a monotheist in order to be a Muslim. Generally speaking, a single, unaffiliated belief is not a “doctrine.” The word actually means “teaching.” Atheism- even strong atheism- is not a teaching but just an individual conclusion. I don’t want to bog down in semantics but this kind of terminology does happen to figure into my academic background, such as it is, and people who study religion do not call atheism a “doctrine.” That’s just not how they use the word.
Well, thank you, and putting aside the head-butting we’ve had in a few recent threads, I still think that overall on this board I probably agree with you more than I disagree.
My issue isn’t really that I think “under god” is an especially egregious establishment violation, I just don’t like setting a precedent and creating a category for “ceremonial deism” which has no real definition (or constitutional basis) because fear that it may become a haven for more serious violations later on.
That’s exactly my position.
Yes. The difference would be that there would not be a governmental authority endorsing it.
I should say that I was speaking rhetorically about “leaving my own kids out of it.” In actuality, my oldest daughter attends a Catholic school, so obviously I don’t personally have a problem with my kids being led in prayer. All I want is for that choice to be made by my wife and I, not by the government, and I want to protect the rights of those kids who are at the mercy of public schools.
Absolutely. My objection extends only to what the government can do, not private citizens.
Believers are not being asked to remove those words. Only the government is being asked to remove them.
[QUOTE]
Granted, but you used the same weak abd strong explanation I did from Wikipedia.
I thought I already admitted it. My objection was that you hadn’t acknowledged that some atheist do have a belief.
Are you going for “correct on a tecnicality” Still no good. It would be incorrect to say all atheism is a belief just as it was incorrect for you to infer that all atheism is not a belief.
Already did that. What I’m saying is that while your definitions are legit they are not the only legitimate ones. I think that should be acknowledged
I agree that “lack of belief” is the more widely accepted definition. But just to show I didn’t make it all up. There’s this and this and this and this and good ole webster
As for doctrine, from webster 2 a : something that is taught b : **a principle or position ** or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief.
If you acknowledge that strong atheists have a belief rather than simply a lack of a belief, then that single primary belief asserted as the absolute truth for everyone can legitimately be called their doctrine.
As I said, I was nit picking only because you seemed to be presenting your definitions as the only valid ones.
Let’s try to stick with the specifics of what we’re talking about. Scott was asserting that by leaving in “under God” some felt like outsiders and by taking it out nobody did. I was merely noting that wasn’t true or the crux of this arguement.