Atheist, RP and his "notion of a rigid separation" statement.

[rpf2008]

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.


I'm an atheist* also and this statement is mildly concerning to me.


Tangent : For some stupid reason Wikipedia claimed this paper was called " The War on Religion". That's because this guy decided to make up his own title (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html) for Ron Pauls piece. The official government document, stored at house.gov is titled "Christmas in Secular America (http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2003/tst122903.htm)". I've updated this part of the Wikipedia page to reflect the truth and have added this comment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#.22War_on_Rel igion.22_--_Obviously_incorrect_information_removed.)to talk page detailing the use of the personal web site Lew Rockwell as a "source".

Lewrockwell.com is the "reference" for many items (over 15 items) on the Political positions of Ron Paul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul) Wikipedia page. This Wikipedia page needs to be fact checked and updated.

What Ron refers to in this paper is real, it is happening. However I think he misunderstands the reasons behind these "attacks" on religion.

I don't think tax dollars should go to promoting any religion in any way. How would Christians feel if the Courts had signs on the walls that support my point of view? How would you feel as a Christian walking into a court room and seeing a sign that says "Your god is fake" behind the judge. Does that seem extreme to you ? Please consider that the Christian Bible accounts for only one God , all the rest are just gods (false gods). So when any non-Christian sees “in God we trust” and other variations the sign might as well say, “ hi, nice to meet you – I think your god is made up “. Or to the non-religious, “ hi, one day you'll wise up and come around :) “ ... "oh and by the way, if yall don't change your views our God, the real God, is going to send you to hell for eternity"

I'm offended at the idea that my taxes dollars are paying for this. Thank you very much, that's exactly what I want my money spent on; spreading the Christian word.

I was in a government building the other day and there was a "in God we trust"/American flag poster on the wall and a one page "essay" on the counter detailing God, Angels and how they're watching out for me. This is completely unacceptable. I don't need the court house telling me about Jesus while I wait in line. It's not their job, they have no business doing this.

These posters and stuff aren't for the employees either. This stuff is facing away from the employees and towards the customers. It's one thing to have a picture of an Angel or a religious saying at work facing you. I have no problem with that. But as a government employee you have no right to use your government job to promote your religious beliefs. You have no right

Religious jewelry ? I could care less. If someone wants to wear a cross or other religious jewelry to work that's fine by me. You can't tell Christians (or anyone else) they can't wear certain types of jewelry to work unless you plan on banning jewelry in that workplace altogether. Otherwise you're discriminating and that's not acceptable.

I'm not against public expression of Christian (or any other religions) views. You can hold parades in front of where I live and throw rallies at the public park - you get the same rights we all get. But what you don't get is "extra" rights to promote your religion via government offices using tax payers resources. Even if it's an item you brought to work that building is US Tax Payer property. Those are US Tax Payer walls you're hanging those items on. That a US Tax Payer owned desk you're using to spread your religion.


Chick-fil-A (a fast food chain) is a Christian establishment (they aren't even open on Sundays).



The company's official statement of corporate purpose says that the business exists "to glorify God by being a faithful steward of all that is entrusted to us and to have a positive influence on all who come in contact with Chick-fil-A."


This is totally fine with me, I love Chick-fil-a. I know they have different views than me but I don't care, I don't even mind that they express them publicly and promote the Christian religion in other ways. Chick-fil-a is a private company, they can do whatever they want with their private property. If I don't like it I can go somewhere else for fast food.

However :

I can not go somewhere else for court.
I can not go somewhere else to get my drivers license.
I can not go to a different (insert government office here).


The US Government does not have the right to force any religion on its population.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

Well there are laws that say I have to go to all these government buildings, and then once I get inside there is Jesus propaganda - what do you call that ? It's like a back door law. It's not actually on paper but sure enough, almost every time I go into a government building as required by law there is something about God or Jesus pasted up on the wall.

Do you think the founding fathers were Christians ?
Do you think America is suppose to be a "Christian Nation" ?


Consider these links and quotes

Debunking the Christian Democracy Myth (http://monotheism.us/)

The Founding Fathers on Religion : Quotes from the founding fathers (http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6177)



Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.
link (http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm)



The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God.


“Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling with religion.”


“The United States have adventured upon a great and noble experiment, which is believed to have been hazarded in the absence of all previous precedent -- that of total separation of Church and State. No religious establishment by law exists among us.
...skip ...
Such is the great experiment which we have tried, and such are the happy fruits which have resulted from it; our system of free government would be imperfect without it.





Our Godless Constitution (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/04/opinion/main671823.shtml)

In 1797 our government concluded a "Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, or Barbary," now known simply as the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 of the treaty contains these words:

"As the Government of the United States... is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion -- as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity of Musselmen -- and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

...skip...

This document was endorsed by Secretary of State Timothy Pickering and President John Adams. It was then sent to the Senate for ratification; the vote was unanimous. It is worth pointing out that although this was the 339th time a recorded vote had been required by the Senate, it was only the third unanimous vote in the Senate's history. There is no record of debate or dissent. The text of the treaty was printed in full in the Philadelphia Gazette and in two New York papers, but there were no screams of outrage, as one might expect today.



* If you don't know much about what atheism is (and isn't) consult this wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism) and this page (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/about.html). A lot of people don't understand atheism or have been misinformed about atheism.

Here a bit from wikipedia that sums the whole thing up :


When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities, alternatively called nontheism.

Many self-described atheists are skeptical of all supernatural beings and cite a lack of empirical evidence for the existence of deities. Others argue for atheism on philosophical, social or historical grounds. Although many self-described atheists tend toward secular philosophies such as humanism and naturalism, there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere.

link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism)


Several very important things are made clear here :

Atheism is the lack of a belief. Atheism is not the belief that there are no gods. It is the lack of belief in gods. I can not stress this point enough.

There are many different types of atheist. The part that's underlined is the type of atheist I am (formerly a Christian).

[Jared]

I hold the same opinion (as an atheist) and this is probably the only area where I disagree with Dr. Paul.

[rpf2008]

Ditto, this is the only thing I disagree with him on so far. Christianity is so dominant in America I just accept most of it as part on politics, however there are some things I will never accept.

[SeanEdwards]

Great post rpf2008. I think that summed up very well my attitudes towards religion in government and the public sphere as well.

I think the pressure to force private businesses and individuals to not celebrate christmas is stupid. But I also think placing a ten ton monument to jesus in a courthouse is asinine and offensive. Everyone should expect justice in the nation's courts, not just one particular religious sect. That's why religion needs to stay out of government. But I don't mind if you set up a 400' tall lighted jesus on your front lawn as long as nobody's property rights are infringed.

[MBA2008]

Certainly, one cannot argue with another on how he wishes to be viewed, and if you claim that the definition of atheism presented on Wikipedia is the one that applies to you, then I am loathe to disagree with you.

However, be aware that language is a very precise thing, and it is useless if we don't all agree on what particular words mean.

Webster has a different view about atheism:
http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

So does Dictionary.com:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism

And:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheism

I suspect that pretty much all of the online dictionaries I find will have the same thing, so I think it is fair to say that the definition you presented may not be the commonly understood definition of atheism.

Definitions aside, I understand your point, and I will now treat point in fairness. You are saying that you do not possess a belief. You do this in an effort to distinguish yourself from someone who does believe (specifically, in some sort of supernatural being), the implication of course being that someone who "believes" is not justified in doing so due to lack of evidence, and someone who has "an absence of belief" is justified in having it due to lack of evidence.

I see two problems with that. First, lack of evidence does not "prove" that something does not exist. How many things for which man previously had an absence of belief have subsequently been discovered? And how many things do we presently have an absence of belief for, but which we will believe in when it is discovered? You are certainly well within the bounds of reason to say, "hey I have no evidence for this, so I have no belief in its existence." Nevertheless, it still may exist despite your absence of belief.

Second, what you are really doing is not having an absence of belief in a supernatural being, what you are doing is rejecting what evidence has been presented for a "god's" existence. Perhaps you are justified in rejecting this evidence. But, what you are really saying is that, "I've looked at this evidence that has been presented to support the existence of god/s, and it doesn't stand up." Others have looked at this evidence and said that it does. The problem is that the evidence presented is not conclusive. It is hearsay, and circumstance. So, choosing one side or the other is belief.

Some other definitions that I operate on:

Belief:
http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief

Evidence:
http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evidence

I suspect you'll try to tell me that evidence presented for the existence of god/s is not evidence, so I provided the definition above.

[rpf2008]

This isn't a thread debating atheism or the merits of Christianity. This is a thread about the separation of church and state, that's exactly how my post read. You chose to focus only on my addendum, my personal explanation of atheism instead of the other stuff I said - which actually made up the majority of my post.

Since you chose this tact instead of talking about all the other stuff I said I'll address you on that level. Just remember, I was talking about separation of church and state. You're the one who decided to begin this aspect of the discussion.

You call it "evidence" I call it "a really old book". Not only that, but there are a great many different versions and types of this really old book. None of which have substantial or scientific evidence to backup their God claims.

If "because the bible told me so" is "evidence" for you that's fine. But let's not pretend it should be accepted as "evidence" by everyone else.

To do so is insulting.


When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities, alternatively called nontheism.



I think it is fair to say that the definition you presented may not be the commonly understood definition of atheism




dictionary.com
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

M&W
a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity

the free dictionary
1.
a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
2. Godlessness; immorality.




What they consistently say is in line with what I quoted from Wikipedia.



First, lack of evidence does not "prove" that something does not exist.


You're absolutely correct. However a total lack of evidence supporting the idea of God, the afterlife, angels, etc speaks volumes.



Second, what you are really doing is not having an absence of belief in a supernatural being, what you are doing is rejecting what evidence has been presented for a "god's" existence.


Please show me your scientific evidence. A bible does not count as evidence. Just because something is written down in a book from thousands of years ago does not make it real no matter how much you want it to be.

The stories of religion are so ludicrous that I'd need some serious evidence to believe them.

Moses organized the collection of all the animals on the face of the earth, including the all the sea life that couldn't possibly survive an influx of fresh water ? Spare me.

The main problem with anything mystic is that belief is the suspension of logic. When you suspend logic and reason for your belief of the Christian God why should you not also accept the Muslim God, or Witchcraft, or Buddhism. All religion rest on equally shaky ground so how can you chose one and then deny all the others ?

Maybe you've seen this quote before :


“I contend that we are both atheists, I just believe in one less god than you do,”

Many Christians disbelieve in a great many gods out of hand, without having ever investigated them. But somehow, someway, even as a former Christian when I reject your god because I've studied it and found it to be "false" you claim special exception.

That don't impress me much.

By the way, if you had any views on the actual topic of my post I'd love to hear them.

Please remember you're talking to some one who was a Christian most of their life. I was raised by Christians, I attended three private Christian schools, several different types of Churches and spent a good amount of time reading the Christian Bible. At one point I was even carrying it to work and school and reading it there to. I stopped believing in god about 5 years ago or so, maybe less.

Perhaps that will save us the trouble of you or anyone else telling me that I don't understand religion, I don't understand belief, I don't understand Christianity.

[MBA2008]

Well first off, I can concede that you do have a point about me not addressing the main point of your post. For that I apologize.

It just seemed to me that you were quick to advance a defnition about atheism that is not what the common understanding is.

I suppose that it is my own fault for starting semantics on what "absence of belief is" I don't equate disbelief with absence of belief, but I am hard pressed to see why someone cannot.

You seem to be hung up on Christianity. I actually wasn't referring specifically to Christianity. Islam has its own holy book, and so do many other religions. All the adherents of these religions accept these documents (and other things), however strong or weak, as evidence of a god or gods.

You may choose to reject these items as evidence, and you have to be correct in at least most of the cases if not all. Nevertheless, these items have been presented as evidence, and you choose not to believe them. But people presenting these items as evidence of their points of view is no different than a prosecutor presenting evidence at a trial. Some evidence is conclusive. Other is circumstantial. Yet more is hearsay. Some evidence is more convincing than other evidence. Jurors look at the evidence and make a decision about what really happened, just like you and I, and everyone else look at the evidence for God, or Allah, or Ra and either accept it or reject it. You have chosen to reject it. I'm sure that you have good reason for doing so. The New Testament is written testamony of contemporaries of Jesus of Nazareth who believe that he was God, and many confirmed that belief with their lives.

You claim to have a background in Christianity, yet you confuse two of the most well known figures, Moses & Noah. Moses did not organize the animals, Noah did. Based on this, I would be inclined to question your invlovement in and study of Christianty, but I will take you at your word, and believe what you say.

You seem to imply that because the Bible is so old, that it cannot be true, "no matter now much I want it to be." I agree that age does not make the Bible true. In fact, age generally makes something less believable. Yet, if we simply use age as a metric for authenticity, we would have to discount essentially everything that we know about ancient civilizations outside of archaeological evidence because the documentation we have of these events is so old. The truth is, that of all the Bible's contemporaneous writings, none come even close to the number of extant sources for the Bible. Forget about most of what you know about Roman civilization. The books we have about it are too old.

Look I'm not going to try and convince you on Christianity or any other religion. You've made it clear that your mind is made up. But I would ask you, what evidence would you require to believe in a god or gods?

As far as Church and state are concerned, I agree that taxpayer dollars should not be used to advance or promote a religion. I also believe that the government has no authority to regulate or grant different types of "tax" status to legitimate churches and other religious institutions. Separation of C & S goes both ways.

People spend a lot of time talking about whether the Founding Fathers were Christians or atheists. This is silly because some were Christians, some were atheists. Some were Deists. What difference does it make what religion (or not religion) a tiny fraction of the country subscribed to? They all agreed that religion (not religious people) should stay out of government and that government should stay out of religion.

[bvboys]

I looked around on the web and found this link.

http://www.acton.org/publicat/randl/print_article.php?id=422

I think the author makes several good points and I have cut and pasted some excerpts here. Please read and consider this point of view.


Jefferson penned a letter to a Baptist association in Danbury, Connecticut, in which he said that the First Amendment built “a wall of separation between church and state.” In a carefully crafted missive, the president wrote:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

No phrase in American letters has had a more profound influence on church-state discourse and policy than Jefferson’s “wall of separation.” Although nowhere to be found in the U.S. Constitution, this trope is accepted by many Americans, including influential jurists, as a virtual rule of constitutional law and the organizing theme of church-state jurisprudence. “In the words of Jefferson,” the Supreme Court famously declared in 1947, the First Amendment “erect[ed] ‘a wall of separation’ … [that] must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.” The metaphor, in our time, has become the locus classicus of the notion that the First Amendment separated religion and the civil state, thereby mandating a strictly secular polity.

The very nature of a wall reconceptualizes First Amendment principles. A wall is a bilateral barrier that inhibits the activities of both the civil state and religion; this is in contrast to the First Amendment, which imposes restrictions on the civil state only. In short, a wall not only prevents the civil state from intruding on the religious domain but also prohibits religion from influencing the conduct of civil government. The various First Amendment guarantees, however, were entirely a check or restraint on civil government, specifically Congress. The free press guarantee, for example, was not written to protect the civil state from the press; rather, it was designed to protect a free and independent press from control by the federal government. Similarly, the religion provisions were added to the Constitution to protect religion and religious institutions from interference by the federal government—not to protect the civil state from the influence of religion. Any construction of Jefferson’s wall that imposes restraints on entities other than civil government exceeds the limitations imposed by the First Amendment.

A “high and impregnable” wall inhibits religion’s ability to inform the public ethic and policy, deprives religious citizens of the civil liberty to participate in politics armed with ideas informed by their spiritual values, and infringes on the right of religious communities and institutions to define and extend their prophetic ministries into the public square. This wall, critics say, has been used to silence the religious voice in the marketplace of ideas and, in a form of religious apartheid, to segregate faith communities behind a restrictive barrier.

The “wall of separation,” represents an idea that was quietly introduced into American discourse and that, in the last two centuries, has become firmly rooted in political and legal thought. The wall stands as a defining image of the prudential and constitutional role of religion in the public arena. Serious consideration should be given to whether that wall accurately represents constitutional principles and usefully contributes to American democracy and civil society.

[Mom4Ron]

As an atheist, this was a concern for me too until I remembered that Dr. Paul actually respects the limits that The Constitution places on the government.

I can respect that he's a man of faith, I respect even more that he doesn't use it as a campaign tool, or wear it on his sleeve, or think that I need to be governed into behaving in a fashion that is acceptable to HIS faith as opposed to my own beliefs.

[Man from La Mancha]

Why this is simple, god can be anything you want. If money is your aspiration and that could be what you strive for then make money your god and in god we trust would be accurate, if it was based on the gold standard. Get my drift god can be anything you believe in. You decide. If there is no ultimate force you believe in then the law of the constitution could be what you believe hence your ultimate belief or what others call their god. Does it bother you that much ? Just interprete it any way you want.

[rpf2008]

Thank you for your reply. I chose to focus on Christianity because it's the only religion I have detailed knowledge of and was the only religion I was really exposed to until I was an adult. Since I only have limited knowledge of other religions I think it'd be inappropriate for me to make specific comments about them.



1) You may choose to reject these items as evidence, and you have to be correct in at least most of the cases if not all.

[skip]

2) You claim to have a background in Christianity, yet you confuse two of the most well known figures, Moses & Noah.

[skip]

3) Yet, if we simply use age as a metric for authenticity, we would have to discount essentially everything that we know about ancient civilizations outside of archaeological evidence because the documentation we have of these events is so old.

[skip]

4) But I would ask you, what evidence would you require to believe in a god or gods?

[skip]

5) People spend a lot of time talking about whether the Founding Fathers were Christians or atheists. This is silly because some were Christians, some were atheists. Some were Deists. What difference does it make what religion (or not religion) a tiny fraction of the country subscribed to?

1) We have different definitions for evidence, mine is very high and based on certain parameters.

2) Simple mistake, :)

3) I'm not suggesting we cast out knowledge and history based on its age. I'm suggesting we don't recognize events that don't stand up to science or claim "super natural" events occurred when there no evidence supporting this claim.

Men can't preform miracles now a days so why should I believe they were able to in the bible days. I'd believe it If someone says "Rome Invaded XYZ but we only have these old books to prove it". So long as their is no evidence to the contrary I see no reason to doubt this statement; it's not inconsistent with the type of thing Rome would do.

However to claim "a God showed up, preached the word, did some miracles and then left" is a very extraordinary claim and as such requires a much higher degree of evidence.

4) Some type of scientifically provable evidence, not just the words of a book. And proving someone existed does not prove that they walked on water or raised the dead.

5) It's a very important issue. Some people claim they were all Christians therefor this gives Christians some kind of supreme right in choosing the direction of this country or that this country should follow some kind of Christian agenda.

My main concern with Christianity in politics is fake Christianity.

Jesus doesn't want us to bomb people. Maybe God in the old Testament, but not Jesus. Somewhere between the old Testament and the new Testament God got a lot nicer.

But I don't believe many of the Christians who followed some in Church down this path are bad people, I think they have been mislead.

Jesus wouldn't approve of how the old, sick, imprisoned and other incapacitated people are treated in this nation. Jesus wouldn't want us to go to war against Afganistan, Iraq and possibly Iran (North Korea?) - maybe even if nuclear weapons with we have to. We haven't been making new nuclear weapons for nothing. Jesus wouldn't want America to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems treaty, but we did.

Jesus wouldn't approve of George Bush, the ultimate "fake Jesus" candidate putting all of those people to death when he was governor of Texas. I remember clearly in an debate before W was selected president they were asking everyone who their favorite philosopher was. George Bush answered Jesus Christ. Despite his death row record people actually believed him and the Church embraced him.

For a long time some Christians have felt that their voice isn't represented in government The period from the 80s to modern day have been particularly successful for them. They've organized efficiently and are able to exert considerable political influence.

In a nut shell it's become a hijack of Christianity and the history of the founding fathers to forward a specific agenda. While the Christian base thought they were doing the right thing they ended up supporting terrible acts.


The fact that good meaning people can have their faith and religious tenets hijacked in support of crimes against humanity is another excellent reason to leave religion out of politics and out of government business.

Please excuse any obvious mistakes :)

[cjhowe]

This is an interesting issue. I'll spare you the details and distinctions, but I would classify myself as an atheist as well.

There is often a disconnect between atheists and libertarians. Even though there is a huge overlap in these cohorts. An atheist thinks, "religion doesn't belong in the public schools". A libertarian thinks "religion is fine in public schools, government doesn't belong in public schools"

If you put forth your libertarian leaning viewpoint first, you avoid almost all of the personally held belief issues that exist.

[rpf2008]

Similarly, the religion provisions were added to the Constitution to protect religion and religious institutions from interference by the federal government—not to protect the civil state from the influence of religion. Any construction of Jefferson’s wall that imposes restraints on entities other than civil government exceeds the limitations imposed by the First Amendment.


It was also designed to keep religious influence out of the government.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

As I said before, there are many laws in place that require me to visit government buildings and 9 times out of 10 inside these government buildings are religious text, icons, posters and so on. In my faithful execution of the law the government is exposing me to religious propaganda material. This is not their job and is prohibited by the constitution.

The government (a) requiring by law that you report to their officers and (b) allowing the exhibit of religious propaganda is (c) a `law by proxy of effect`.

If I pass a law that says you must walk across the beach everyday (this beach is covered in hot coals) it doesn't matter if my law is called "the law to make you walk across hot coals" or not, that's the end result.

Call it court, call it the DPS, call it the name of any government office you want; it still feels a little like Sunday school. I doubt this is the effect the founding fathers were going for.

[rpf2008]

A libertarian thinks "religion is fine in public schools, government doesn't belong in public schools"

Religion is not fine in a school funded by money from taxes in any way shape or form in my opinion. I don't think our government was intended to some how (even if partially) "prop up" religion.

[cjhowe]

Religion is not fine in a school funded by money from taxes in any way shape or form in my opinion. I don't think our government was intended to some how (even if partially) "prop up" religion.

That's the point. Libertarians advocate getting the government out of the school. When government is gone, there is no church/state conflict.

[Man from La Mancha]

Religion is not fine in a school funded by money from taxes in any way shape or form in my opinion. I don't think our government was intended to some how (even if partially) "prop up" religion.
Who decides religion? I don't believe in creationism but I also don't believe in the religion of evolution, so who decides?

.

[damijin]

Hi, I didn't read the entire thread because it's long and boring, but I'd just like to say that the OP should be identifying himself as 'agnostic' in public rather than atheist.

I also identify myself in agnostic in that I do not believe that man will ever know whether or not a God or gods exist, and therefor I do not make it a part of my daily life to ponder on the subject. I simply ignore it all together. I think this is the case for many self described 'atheists' but I strongly urge them to change the term used to describe themselves so as not to get lumped in with the angst-ridden teenage 'hard atheists' who believe that the word God should be removed from the pledge of allegiance because there is no God.


With all of that said, as an atheist or agnostic, do you really care if the government actively supports religion so long as there is no state church? The government is a representation of the people within it, and I see no problem with that government representing the Christian nation that America is. The government does *NOT* need to be secular in a Christian nation. If enough agnostics exist to vote out the Christians who have put Biblical images in our court houses, THEN we can have a secular nation with no hint of Christianity. But shockingly enough, theres not enough of us who really care about that issue, nor should we. Christian values are on the whole, good values. With the exception of the whole rapture bit and the kooks who want to bring about the end of the world, it's a fine upstanding religion.

We are a Christian nation and Christians make up the majority of our government and people. Deal with it, and be glad that you are not persecuted for your heathen beliefs ;)

[ARealConservative]

I'm an atheist or agnostic - depending on which definition is being used.

The constitution has been trashed for all kinds of reasons. I hate to say it, but athiests have been just as guilty.

Here's how I see it:

In 1776 the 1st amendment was ratified. It stated that "congress shall make no such law".

In the 1860s the 14th amendment was ratified. This was designed to open up constitutional rights to the freed slaves.

For about 150 years there was no such thing as a seperation between church and state/county/city government.

In the 1940s unlelected men in robes decided that the 14th amendment vastly increased the power of the federal government and the 1st amendment. They "incorporated" many of the amendments - including the 1st.

80 years after the 14th was ratified, and after most that approved the amendment died, seperation of church and state as we know it today was born. The same administration that expanded the commerce clause, enumerated general welfare, and begin taking taxes out of pre-earnings, did this as well.

So I guess since I'm an atheist and this bad ruling helps me I should just pretend it was cool to alter the social contract in such an illegal fashion. I'll simply focus on the other government abuses of the constitution? Nope.

[PennCustom4RP]

Freedom of Religion also means Freedom from Religion

[BravoSix]

I'm an atheist or agnostic - depending on which definition is being used.

The constitution has been trashed for all kinds of reasons. I hate to say it, but athiests have been just as guilty.

Here's how I see it:

In 1776 the 1st amendment was ratified. It stated that "congress shall make no such law".

In the 1860s the 14th amendment was ratified. This was designed to open up constitutional rights to the freed slaves.

For about 150 years there was no such thing as a seperation between church and state/county/city government.

In the 1940s unlelected men in robes decided that the 14th amendment vastly increased the power of the federal government and the 1st amendment. They "incorporated" many of the amendments - including the 1st.

80 years after the 14th was ratified, and after most that approved the amendment died, seperation of church and state as we know it today was born. The same administration that expanded the commerce clause, enumerated general welfare, and begin taking taxes out of pre-earnings, did this as well.

So I guess since I'm an atheist and this bad ruling helps me I should just pretend it was cool to alter the social contract in such an illegal fashion. I'll simply focus on the other government abuses of the constitution? Nope.


I couldn't have written it better myself.

I think a great many "Constitutionalists" support a strict interpretation of the Constitution until such time as it is no longer convenient for them. Oh, they'll claim otherwise, but it's a transparent argument and their hypocrisy shines through rather easily.

[cjhowe]

Freedom of Religion also means Freedom from Religion

That's not entirely true. In order to be Free from religion you would need to restrict someone else's freedom to exercise their religion.

[ZackM]

Firstly, this is the best part about supporting a strong constitutional candidate. A person like this has no desire for his religion to be forced on anyone, yet he also has no desire to limit freedom of religous expression.

Now, I agree with many and sympathize with all of your arguments. But there is a fine line here that you have to be careful about crossing.


But as a government employee you have no right to use your government job to promote your religious beliefs. You have no right
You have to be careful here, because you're essentially granting that "right" to a private citizen working at a private company, but demanding this right be sacrificed for federal employment.

Here's a completely opposite way to view this. In private business this is easy. The owner sets the rules. If the owner says "absolutely zero religious displays" then fine. You are part of a private agreement negotiated between employee and employer. But once you're a government employee, who should decide where the line is drawn? Now it's a public-private relationship and I think that makes it even harder to place the line appropriately. This is where common decency and mutual respect for others has to come into play.

Unfortunately, we always want things to be black and white but sometimes they aren't. Just about everything will offend somebody. Would the display of a philosophical quote by a religious leader be inherintly offensive because of it's author? Would a quote on faith be inappopriate if it were written by one of the founding fathers? Can a US congressman display an article of faith on the wall in his private office?

How do you figure out where to draw the line? Just because something offends somebody somewhere, doesn't mean it's offensive. What you consider a "promotion" may simply be considered an act of expression from the displayer. Do we really want to always side with the offended?

So while I sympathize with your argument, I woud draw the line somewhere else. For example, I think the 10 commandments are signficant in the historical evolution of modern legal systems. I think a respectful athiest can recognize this without feeling his "rights" (habeus corpus, fair and speedy trial, etc) are being violated simply by their presence. If court employees, the judge, or jury provide ANY evidence through their words or actions that one's religion is effecting their decisions, then we have stepped well over this line.

In my opinion, the 10 commandments are only a "promotion" of judeo-christian religion if you choose to view them as such while ignoring historical consequence. Much the same way as if some chose to demand a Thomas Jefferson portrait be removed from public space because he was a slave owner, therefore his very picture on display on govt property was a "promotion" of something which violates the constitution.

[cjhowe]

In my opinion, the 10 commandments are only a "promotion" of judeo-christian religion if you choose to view them as such while ignoring historical consequence. Much the same way as if some chose to demand a Thomas Jefferson portrait be removed from public space because he was a slave owner, therefore his very picture on display on govt property was a "promotion" of something which violates the constitution.

I agree very much with your post, however it's not the content of the religion, but the context. If in court, the ten commandments are among the personal effects of the clerk, that's an expression. However, if it's nailed to the jury box, that's promotion.
If in a government school the teacher is praying, that's expression. If that teacher is leading a prayer, that's promotion. This line is a difficult one, but the question is always whether an individual is expressing or if the government is promoting. There is rarely enough for a litmus test on this subject and thus has to fall under the "I'll know it when I see it" standard.

[rpf2008]

I'm an atheist or agnostic - depending on which definition is being used.

The constitution has been trashed for all kinds of reasons. I hate to say it, but athiests have been just as guilty.

Here's how I see it:
...

Just wondering, which atheist judge are you referring to ? Only judges can trash the constitution. I was under the impression that most of these people were religious.

Approved by President John Adams and ratified unanimously by the Senate



link (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html)
"As the Government of the United States... is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion -- "


link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli#Article_11)
Official records show that after President John Adams sent the treaty to the Senate for ratification in May of 1797, the entire treaty was read aloud on the Senate floor, including the famous words in Article 11, and copies were printed for every Senator. A committee considered the treaty and recommended ratification, and the treaty was ratified by a unanimous vote of all 23 Senators. The treaty was reprinted in full in three newspapers, two in Philadelphia and one in New York City. There is no record of any public outcry or complaint in subsequent editions of the papers.



link (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/04/opinion/main671823.shtml)
In the eighty-five essays that make up The Federalist, God is mentioned only twice (both times by Madison, who uses the word, as Gore Vidal has remarked, in the "only Heaven knows" sense).



link (http://usinfo.state.gov/dd/eng_democracy_dialogues/religion/religion_speech_excerpts.html)
Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and the private school, supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the church and state forever separate.





Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Backus) : " Isaac Backus (1724–1806) was a Baptist preacher and a delegate to the First Continental Congress." ... "

"church and state are separate, the effects are happy, and they do not at all interfere with each other: but where they have been confounded together, no tongue nor pen can fully describe the mischiefs that have ensued."

"Now who can hear Christ declare, that his kingdom is, not of this world, and yet believe that this blending of church and state together can be pleasing to him?"




"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, & I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrits; to support roguery and error all over the earth."




"I could not do otherwise without transcending the limits prescribed by the Constitution for the President and without feeling that I might in some degree disturb the security which religion nowadays enjoys in this country in its complete separation from the political concerns of the General Government." - Andrew Jackson, 1832, statement refusing to proclaim a national day of fasting and prayer, Correspondence 4:447.




"The founders of our nation were nearly all Infidels, and that of the presidents who had thus far been elected [Washington; Adams; Jefferson; Madison; Monroe; Adams; Jackson] not a one had professed a belief in Christianity.... "Among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism." - The Reverend Doctor Bird Wilson, an Episcopal minister in Albany, New York, in a sermon preached in October, 1831, first sentence quoted in John E. Remsberg, "Six Historic Americans," second sentence quoted in Paul F. Boller, George Washington & Religion, pp. 14-15




link (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ed_buckner/quotations.html)
Preachers like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell should not forget that, in the colony of Virginia, Baptist ministers were beaten and imprisoned and run out of town for preaching their dissenting faith, while Anglican ministers were paid with tax funds from the state treasury.

--John Buchanan, Southern Baptist minister and former eight-term Republican Congressman from Alabama, who heads People for the American Way, as quoted by Samuel Rabinove, "Religious Liberty and Church-State Separation: Why Should We Care?," speech on April 10, 1986, Vital Speeches of the Day, June 15, 1986, p. 527.)

[rpf2008]

(1) Now, I agree with many and sympathize with all of your arguments. But there is a fine line here that you have to be careful about crossing.


But as a government employee you have no right to use your government job to promote your religious beliefs. You have no right
You have to be careful here, because you're essentially granting that "right" to a private citizen working at a private company, but demanding this right be sacrificed for federal employment.


(2) So while I sympathize with your argument, I woud draw the line somewhere else. For example, I think the 10 commandments are signficant in the historical evolution of modern legal systems. (A) I think a respectful athiest can recognize this without feeling his "rights" (habeus corpus, fair and speedy trial, etc) are being violated simply by their presence. If court employees, the judge, or jury provide ANY evidence through their words or actions that one's religion is effecting their decisions, then we have stepped well over this line.


1) The characterization I made of the situation was as follows :


1) I don't care if you bring religious stuff to work for your own person viewing please (ie; facing you)
2) I don't care if you wear religious jewelry work.
3) I do care if you think that you're going to use a government office I'm paying for, government walls I'm paying for, government desk I'm paying for to push your religious propaganda on me. When it's facing me it's obviously not for the benefit of the person who brought it.. This is religious propaganda.

Most companies do not allow people to act as religious activist during the course of their job. I've never worked for a corporation (and I've worked for several) that allowed employees to post their religious propaganda on the walls.

2) You're allowed to think anything you want about the ten commandments. But people aren't allowed force the tenets or their religious views on other people simply because they think it's "significant". I think my conclusion that there is no god is significant (!) but I'm not allowed to go post huge banners in the courts. It's not proper, this isn't a theocracy.


Or is it...
(Wikipedia) : In modern, typical usage, theocracy means either government by divine guidance or, more commonly, government by or subject to religious institutions and leaders.

(Dictionary.reference.com) ; a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.

(merriam-webster) : government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided


a) Respectful atheist ? We're the ones getting Christian views shoved down our throat by the government we send our taxes to. It would be respectful if the government didn't promote any one religion over another. I've yet to see a `in Allah we trust sign`. Surely we can recognize the great advancements people from the Middle East have brought us. So many very important things came from the Middle East yet we can only manage to slap up the 10 commandments or a picture of a white Jesus in respect for history ? I don't think respect for history has anything to do with the ten commandments or promoting Jesus.

Christians really don't understand what they are signing up for here. If you don't reject the myth that it's ok to post this kind of stuff in government buildings one day it's not going to be your message. Then how will you feel ?

If the government rules it's "ok" to show "religious opinions" in plain view then that means you can't discriminate against which views are shown. And when that day comes I'm going to petition my local government for the placement of a plaque reading :


Your god is a fairly tale

I bet very quickly people will decide that maybe the government has no business promotion ANY type of religious opinion.

[PennCustom4RP]

That's not entirely true. In order to be Free from religion you would need to restrict someone else's freedom to exercise their religion.

Not if you keep your religion , or lack thereof, at home, where it belongs.

[aravoth]

Freedom of Religion also means Freedom from Religion

Nahh, I guess freedom of speech also means freedom from speech, or freedom of expression also means freedom from expression. Or the freedom to own a gun, is also the freedom from guns.

The idea is to not allow government in religion, anywhere, government regulates, restricts and controls freedoms. There should no law, period. Aethiests impose thier will just as much a religious zealot does. I just wish everyone would shut up about it. And get so dammed offended when people say "god bless you", or some other form of that. Take it as a freindly gesture. And move on.

[rpf2008]

The idea is to not allow government in religion, anywhere, government regulates, restricts and controls freedoms. There should no law, period. Aethiests impose thier will just as much a religious zealot does. I just wish everyone would shut up about it. And get so dammed offended when people say "god bless you", or some other form of that. Take it as a freindly gesture. And move on.

Show me the atheist activist Judge who has declared law from the bench.

Show me the court room with atheist propaganda on the walls.

Show me the atheist plays taking place in elementary schools.

Show me the atheist slogans on our money.

The government is not allowed to sponsor religion in any capacity.

For a while I stopped saying `god bless you` because it's based on a silly notion. I went back to doing it cause people get their feelings hurt if you don't. I assume you are aware they say that because people use to think a sneeze was you expelling a demon from your body.

And people say the dark ages are over.

[ARealConservative]

Just wondering, which atheist judge are you referring to ? Only judges can trash the constitution. I was under the impression that most of these people were religious.

It is we the people that must stay vigilent in protecting the constitution.

[Duckman]

Nahh, I guess freedom of speech also means freedom from speech, or freedom of expression also means freedom from expression. Or the freedom to own a gun, is also the freedom from guns.

As another RP-supporter who is an atheist, I just want to say that "freedom from religion" does not mean freedom to suppress your religious beliefs, but rather it means freedom to not follow any religion. This is not the same as a "freedom from speech" which implies a right to quell speech. "Freedom from religion" should not imply a right to quell religion, it simply implies a right to not need to follow one.

As an atheist, I do not support efforts to quell religious speech by others. I admit that some atheists are touchy about this, because many of us feel the religious public does not respect our right to be atheists. I think atheists harm themselves when they complain about religous jewelry, Christmas displays, and the like.

However, I do oppose government funding of religious groups (such as faith-based initiatives) not just because of the unconstitutionality of such funding but also because that results in some government money being used to assist religious groups to convert new followers. I also oppose concepts like "national days of prayer" because I feel they exclude atheists, however my opposition to these things does not get me very worked up.

But I do want to say this, since it has been on my chest since I first read the article that started this thread last week... This article is the only thing I have read that Ron Paul has written that has caused me to in any way question RP's character. The main reason for this is because the article makes the false statement that the Constitution is full of references to God, which is simply not true (there is not even one reference, and that was intentional). Ron knows the Constitution too well to not know the facts here. The Declaration of Independence has one reference to "Nature's God" and one reference to a "Creator," but I would not call this "replete" with references. (And these references to god are compatible with Jefferson's deism, see below). Also, the article implies the founding fathers were all religious, which I will let Ron slide on because this is a common misconception, but as has been pointed out here, many of the founding fathers, including some big names like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Ethan Allen, and Thomas Paine, were deists. Deism is the belief that some sort of god created the universe and set it to run itself according to natural laws. To be a Deist is to reject all other known religions but to stop just short of atheism in that the Deist believes that some sort of god must have created the universe. Deism lost favor as science began to show that the concept of a god was not necessary to produce the world we see around us. So I will go out on a limb and suggest that those who followed Deism in the founder's day might well follow atheism today.

I can understand that embracing atheism is probably a radioactive thing for a politican to do, since fewer than 10% of Americans are atheists. But I will fight very strongly for my freedom to be an atheist, and I believe Ron Paul supports that. However, I wish this article had been as well crafted around the ideas of freedom as Ron Paul's other writings.

[rpf2008]

As another RP-supporter who is an atheist, I just want to say that "freedom from religion" does not mean freedom to suppress your religious beliefs, but rather it means freedom to not follow any religion. This is not the same as a "freedom from speech" which implies a right to quell speech. "Freedom from religion" should not imply a right to quell religion, it simply implies a right to not need to follow one.

As an atheist, I do not support efforts to quell religious speech by others.

I don't support efforts to quell religious speech either when people are doing it on their own time, with their private property, the private property of a consenting party or in accordance with the laws about peaceful assembles and protest.

It's very important to understand these are the peoples employees, the peoples buildings, this is the peoples money. These things belong to the people - not to the employee that sets in the chair. The people are not paying to government to propagandize them with religious views ! That's what church is for !

The people are made up of many religions and many philosophies. This makes it illogical, presumptuous and disrespectful for government employees to take it upon themselves to put up religious propaganda on our dime without our consent.

I don't care if a government employee wants to take their bible to work, or wants to have a religious icon or image on their desk. I don't care if they wear religious jewelry to work. But I do care when they put big posters on the walls pointed at the public, not them. They have freedom of expression at work, but not freedom to propagandize. I've never worked for a company that allowed people to do religious propaganda activities at work, why should government employees be any different.

[Duckman]

It's very important to understand these are the peoples employees, the peoples buildings, this is the peoples money. These things belong to the people - not to the employee that sets in the chair. The people are not paying to government to propagandize them with religious views ! That's what church is for !

I feel your pain, so to speak, but I still think that this sort of thing brings ill-repute upon atheism in general. I think to say, for example, that a government worker can't wear a cross around their neck goes too far. Sure, I don't think someone at work (any job, public or private) should be trying to talk to you about Jesus, for instance, but relatively innocous personal displays I think should be tolerated in a free society.

[rpf2008]

Sorry, I added an addendum that covers what your mentioned - please see my post again.

I realize my post have been long but this has been what I've said all along. I have no problem with personal display but save me the banners , signs in the courts and other propaganda material.

[aravoth]

I had no idea that a sentence on the one dollar bill was so damaging to people's devolopment. I don't think most people give a damn who is an aethiest. I don't, just like I don't give a damn about what god a person worships that puts them on thier knees. I think you're all full of crap. :D

[SeanEdwards]

I had no idea that a sentence on the one dollar bill was so damaging to people's devolopment. I don't think most people give a damn who is an aethiest. I don't, just like I don't give a damn about what god a person worships that puts them on thier knees. I think you're all full of crap. :D

I'm more concerened about what's behind the dollar, rather than what's printed on it. :D

Given that the money is so much worthless paper, perhaps appeals to a supernatural entity are not uncalled for.

[rpf2008]

I had no idea that a sentence on the one dollar bill was so damaging to people's devolopment. I don't think most people give a damn who is an aethiest.

I don't think mocking the issue solves any problems. The government is and has been propagandizing it's population in the name of Christianity and a lot of people are like "oh gosh, what's the big deal - it's just Jesus".

I've talked to a lot of atheist who care about this issue. In fact less than 10% or so of the atheist I've met don't care about these types of issues, most of them do.

It's a very big deal, propaganda is a very real threat to anyones mind, especially younger peoples minds. It's extremely significant that the government does these types of things and it's effects are very far reaching.

It's not suppose to matter if "the atheist give a damn or not" the government has no right to propagandize is population with the message of Christianity or any other religious views.

[cjhowe]

I had no idea that a sentence on the one dollar bill was so damaging to people's devolopment. I don't think most people give a damn who is an aethiest. I don't, just like I don't give a damn about what god a person worships that puts them on thier knees. I think you're all full of crap. :D

The issue isn't whether someone cares or whether someone is offended. The issue is a social contract. Expression is allowed, promotion is not. Are the words "In God We Trust" an expression or a promotion? If it's an expression...who's?

[JaylieWoW]

As an atheist, this was a concern for me too until I remembered that Dr. Paul actually respects the limits that The Constitution places on the government.

I can respect that he's a man of faith, I respect even more that he doesn't use it as a campaign tool, or wear it on his sleeve, or think that I need to be governed into behaving in a fashion that is acceptable to HIS faith as opposed to my own beliefs.

I've noticed this too and this is probably something I really respect about him. We're electing a President, not a Bishop (or other church leader).

[aravoth]

Come on guys. With all the bullshit going on in our world right now this is pressing issue? Some meaningless tripe on the back of a worthless peice of paper? Whats next? Tear down all the Crosses on the top of churches in plain public view? How about we rip those funny hats off the heads of Jews during Yon Kippur, or however the hell you spell it. No one is forcing you to belive in anything. It's not like anyone has a clue as to what the hell they are talking about, aetheist or otherwise. No-one has ever proven the existence of a creator, and no-one has ever proven the absence of a creator either. Your free to be an aethiest, just as your free to take communion.

I don't get the all out assualt of religion. My neighbor was told by the city to take down his "baby in the manger display" last year becuase the city didn't like the fact that it was in plain view. Of course he didn't, he sued, and he won. I just don't get the rabid hate by alot of aethiests I know. It's like they take offense to everything. If I was a christian that gets grilled by aethieists, and had to put up with shit like "your god is a fairy tale" I imagine I'd bitch slap a couple myself. Love thy neighbor be damned. Anyway.....

Take it off the dollar bill, I don't care. I don't feel sorry for you either. I don't care that you feel "left out". I'll mock this issue forever. It's stupid. Pointless, and all it does is piss everyone off. The next thing you know Someone is going to start posting wiki articles to prove some kind of a point. "hey god exists!" "hey, god is fake!", "don't push your beliefs on me man!" "I have a right to worship!" Like a third grade shouting match at a school for the deaf.

[DaninPA]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Paul
"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life."

I think Dr. Paul, like most of us in the US, is simply a victim of indoctrination from childhood that "god" means the christian god, and may be unaware that terms like "nature's god" and "creator" refer to the Deist's view of god.

For example, why should an organization like the Boy Scouts (which as far as I'm aware is private and doesn't receive federal funds) be forced to remove their god from their program?

Also, I think he would be constitutionally correct to allow individual states to proclaim their belief or nonbelief in a god or gods. Damn, I'd hate to have to move to another state, but I guess that's what I'd do! :eek:

[rpf2008]

Come on guys. With all the bullshit going on in our world right now this is pressing issue? Some meaningless tripe on the back of a worthless peice of paper? (a) Whats next? Tear down all the Crosses on the top of churches in plain public view? How about we rip those funny hats off the heads of Jews during Yon Kippur, or however the hell you spell it. No one is forcing you to belive in anything. It's not like anyone has a clue as to what the hell they are talking about, aetheist or otherwise. No-one has ever proven the existence of a creator, and no-one has ever proven the absence of a creator either. Your free to be an aethiest, just as your free to take communion.

I don't get the all out assualt of religion. (b) My neighbor was told by the city to take down his "baby in the manger display" last year becuase the city didn't like the fact that it was in plain view. Of course he didn't, he sued, and he won. (c) I just don't get the rabid hate by alot of aethiests I know. It's like they take offense to everything. If I was a christian that gets grilled by aethieists, and had to put up with shit like "your god is a fairy tale" I imagine I'd bitch slap a couple myself. Love thy neighbor be damned. Anyway.....

Take it off the dollar bill, I don't care. I don't feel sorry for you either. I don't care that you feel "left out". (d) I'll mock this issue forever. It's stupid. Pointless, and all it does is piss everyone off. The next thing you know Someone is going to start posting wiki articles to prove some kind of a point. "hey god exists!" "hey, god is fake!", "don't push your beliefs on me man!" "I have a right to worship!" Like a third grade shouting match at a school for the deaf.

This isn't about the people attacking the church, it's about the government using tax dollars and government buildings to push religion.

(a) Your misunderstanding of the issue is enormous. Have you read _any_ of my post ? People like you really get my goat. I've spent hours composing well thought out post clearly stating what I believe and you come in here having not read a single word of that apparently and say, "Whats next? Tear down all the Crosses on the top of churches in plain public view?" No one in this entire thread has said _anything_ which would lead you to believe that's what we want. Me and other atheist have clearly said we don't care what you do with your private property !

(b) good for them, I support their right to do what they want with private property

(c) my passion comes the fact that it's not the governments jobs to push Christianity. Some Christians push their beliefs on the rest of us using taxpayers resources then when we say STOP they go "oh god why are you attack religion, why are you attacking god, why do you hate jesus" and that's a total distortion of the issue.


If you don't respect this issue then you don't respect the constitution. And if you don't respect the constitution and peoples right in America to not have religion forced down their throat then I don't respect you. Furthermore if you were in a room with the founding fathers you would stand alone in the idea that this issue is "stupid" and "pointless".

(d) Keep on doing this, it reinforces the idea that you have no understanding of the situation what so ever.

You are being lied to ! You are being told religion is being assaulted , this is not true ! No one is closing churches ! No one is tearing down crosses off of churches ! FOR GODS SAKE our government gives churches a tax break !

It's only through heavy propaganda that people come to believe that religion is under "heavy attack" in America. If by "heavy attack" you mean "People don't want to pay the government to spread the word of Jesus" then yes, you are under heavy attack.

[rpf2008]

For example, why should an organization like the Boy Scouts (which as far as I'm aware is private and doesn't receive federal funds) be forced to remove their god from their program?


Who has force the BSA to remove god from their program ? People were mad because of their discrimination against certain types of people but the BSA hasn't been forced to remove god from anything.

Search for "god" at the BSA web site = 141 results (http://www.scouting.org/nav/enter.jsp?s=xx&c=ds&terms=god).

Here is a snip from the results :

" Ask him how he is serving his religious institution, if he has one, or, if not, ask him how he satisfies his duty to God "

" Cub Scouting's 12 Core Values : Having inner strength and confidence based on our trust in God"

"Cub Scout Promise changed to add the line " to do my duty to God and my country. "

"As a Venturer, I promise to do my duty to God and help strengthen America, to help others, and to seek truth, fairness, "

The BSA doesn't seem to be having a god problem.

[aravoth]

This isn't about the people attacking the church, it's about the government using tax dollars and government buildings to push religion.

(a) Your misunderstanding of the issue is enormous. Have you read _any_ of my post ? People like you really get my goat. I've spent hours composing well thought out post clearly stating what I believe and you come in here having not read a single word of that apparently and say, "Whats next? Tear down all the Crosses on the top of churches in plain public view?" No one in this entire thread has said _anything_ which would lead you to believe that's what we want. Me and other atheist have clearly said we don't care what you do with your private property !

(b) good for them, I support their right to do what they want with private property

(c) my passion comes the fact that it's not the governments jobs to push Christianity. Some Christians push their beliefs on the rest of us using taxpayers resources then when we say STOP they go "oh god why are you attack religion, why are you attacking god, why do you hate jesus" and that's a total distortion of the issue.


If you don't respect this issue then you don't respect the constitution. And if you don't respect the constitution and peoples right in America to not have religion forced down their throat then I don't respect you. Furthermore if you were in a room with the founding fathers you would stand alone in the idea that this issue is "stupid" and "pointless".

(d) Keep on doing this, it reinforces the idea that you have no understanding of the situation what so ever.

You are being lied to ! You are being told religion is being assaulted , this is not true ! No one is closing churches ! No one is tearing down crosses off of churches ! FOR GODS SAKE our government gives churches a tax break !

It's only through heavy propaganda that people come to believe that religion is under "heavy attack" in America. If by "heavy attack" you mean "People don't want to pay the government to spread the word of Jesus" then yes, you are under heavy attack.

Ya know, one of these days I'd like to sit down and chat with some of you guys. There are so many critical thinkers here.

[Atheist73]

Despite RP's personal views on christianity, RP is the best candidate for atheists and non-believers.