(January 19, 2013 at 2:37 am)Stimbo Wrote: I think what Min meant by a mistake - at least judging from the context and what I already know of his attitudes towards such belief systems - is that a freedom of religion opens the floodgates, if only potentially, for any nutball with an ego complex, a glib tongue and a taste for power. I've not heard of anyone seriously advocating forcing people into atheism, even if such things were possible, and certainly not "the government". What we do tend to get a lot of, however, is the elitist mantra of "if you're not with us, you're against us", most notably expressed by Bush Sr; all of which ignores the fact that in order to have freedom of religion in the first place, there has to be a counter-balancing freedom from religion.
Hi by the way.
I hear what you are saying, and I am not sure we have any disagreement between us. But just to be clear, the point I made was that the First Amendment's very existence means the authors rejected the idea of any single religion having a monopoly on the truth. Otherwise, blasphemy would be a concern. Not only that, any religious claim that could be used to justify persecution was also rejected by the establishment of the First Amendment. It is truly a law based on a rejection of religious certainty, and so does reflect an atheistic mindset. I think atheists should brag about this anytime a religious person states something like, "The US is a Christian nation." Freedom of speech is held "sacred" for many Americans, and if atheists can point out that this right came from a rejection of religious fundamentalism, then that is a plus for the atheist side.
And thanks for the welcome.
