When I though I had seen it all.......
Call me naïve, but I didn't see this coming: Despite Rwingett's protestations to the contrary, there
is a growing movement to label Atheism/Secularism as a 'religion.' Consequently, the separation
of Church and State represents a violation of First Amendment's guarantee to a freedom of
religion; that is, when the State is not permitted to, say, hang the Ten Commandments in a
public building, this endorses the 'religion' of Secularism and violates the rights of theists.
This seems insidious to me, however, I fully expect to hear justification for it here. So, hit me
with it: I'm now prepared.
Nemesio
The state not hanging the ten commandments in a courthouse isn't preferring atheism. The ten commandments are symbols of two of the major religions so putting them up is preferential to those religions as opposed to Hinduism or budhism - to whom the ten commandments aren't "holy" at all.
No one is saying that the government should come out and say "there is no god!" no matter how true that statement may be - just that the government shouldn't show a preference.
Having the law and the government being secular is not equivalent to the government and the law enforcing atheism or preferring atheism.
Atheism isn't a dogma as some would paint it. Many theists like to portray atheism as some sort of amoral dogma - it isn't. It's just "I don't believe god exists" - that's it.
Originally posted by PsychoPawnExcuse me, but in the former USSR, the country of Albania had Atheism as the official state religion.
The state not hanging the ten commandments in a courthouse isn't preferring atheism. The ten commandments are symbols of two of the major religions so putting them up is preferential to those religions as opposed to Hinduism or budhism - to whom the ten commandments aren't "holy" at all.
No one is saying that the government should come out and say "th ...[text shortened]... rt of amoral dogma - it isn't. It's just "I don't believe god exists" - that's it.
Due to the fact that I often find myself judged as 'one of them' if I say I am an atheist, I now prefer to call myself not-a-theist. There is something different between a label and a not-label. Although 'athiest' is a not-label, it has been so well used that people no-longer hear the a- bit and hear it as a label.
Originally posted by PsychoPawn
No one is saying that the government should come out and say "there is no god!" no matter how true that statement may be - just that the government shouldn't show a preference.
But one should ask: "What should the government come out and say"?
For example the government should come out and say:
1. Global warming is a fact. It is largely caused by man.
2. The Theory of Evolution is a standard scientific theory
3. There is no scientific evidence for the existence of God.
Clearly all three of the above are contrary to some peoples religion, but why should 1 and 2 be acceptable and not 3?
Originally posted by twhitehead3 is perfectly acceptable for a government to say - it is a mere statement of fact. I doubt any would however; two words - political suicide. However, banning religion or hitting any specific religion with unfair sanctions would be bad, I'd say.
Due to the fact that I often find myself judged as 'one of them' if I say I am an atheist, I now prefer to call myself not-a-theist. There is something different between a label and a not-label. Although 'athiest' is a not-label, it has been so well used that people no-longer hear the a- bit and hear it as a label.
[i]Originally posted by PsychoPawn[/i ...[text shortened]... are contrary to some peoples religion, but why should 1 and 2 be acceptable and not 3?
Originally posted by NemesioThis is nothing new. It has long been one of the principle tactics of theists for many years. They constantly assert that atheism is a belief, and therefore is a religion, and therefore should be shackled with all the restrictions that are placed upon religion. Or conversely, theism should be granted all the privileges of the so-called secular religion. At a more fundamental level, it represents an attempt to escape from having to shoulder the entire burden of proof while attempting to demonstrate the existence of their god. If they can successfully depict atheism as a belief then the burden of proof becomes equally distributed between both camps.
When I though I had seen it all.......
Call me naïve, but I didn't see this coming: Despite Rwingett's protestations to the contrary, there
is a growing movement to label Atheism/Secularism as a 'religion.' Consequently, the separation
of Church and State represents a violation of First Amendment's guarantee to a freedom of
religion; that is, when th ...[text shortened]... t to hear justification for it here. So, hit me
with it: I'm now prepared.
Nemesio
Originally posted by jaywillYou're excused.
Excuse me, but in the former USSR, the country of Albania had Atheism as the official state religion.
And you're using Albania as an authority?
What would you say the dogma of atheism is? What is its "holy book"?
There really is one belief in atheism - that god doesn't exist, and many atheists don't believe that is as sure as many theists stick to the 6000 year old earth crap despite all the actual evidence.
Originally posted by twhiteheadAll three should be acceptable I think. #3 is not saying that god doesn't exist, just that there isn't any scientific evidence.
Due to the fact that I often find myself judged as 'one of them' if I say I am an atheist, I now prefer to call myself not-a-theist. There is something different between a label and a not-label. Although 'athiest' is a not-label, it has been so well used that people no-longer hear the a- bit and hear it as a label.
[i]Originally posted by PsychoPawn[/i ...[text shortened]... are contrary to some peoples religion, but why should 1 and 2 be acceptable and not 3?
My problem has usually been that people have a lot of prejudicial views of athiests and that's why it becomes that label. The idiotic idea that atheists have no moral code is probably the most irritating of them.
Originally posted by NemesioWhat makes one belief system a religion and the other not, just
When I though I had seen it all.......
Call me naïve, but I didn't see this coming: Despite Rwingett's protestations to the contrary, there
is a growing movement to label Atheism/Secularism as a 'religion.' Consequently, the separation
of Church and State represents a violation of First Amendment's guarantee to a freedom of
religion; that is, when th ...[text shortened]... t to hear justification for it here. So, hit me
with it: I'm now prepared.
Nemesio
a deity?
Kelly