WTF???

[Entropist]

WND reported...

Yeah, World Nut Daily, why am I not surprised?

Well, for what little its worth, I've been to Oz and lived in NZ for a a bit and I can tell you I felt much safer there than I ever have anywhere in the US. Friends of mine there and elsewhere I know do not seem to worry about it much. There's a reason why the cops in some of these countries don't even carry firearms on their person. And besides, most other developed nations do not have the same bizarre fetish for guns that we US Americans seem to have-- the difference is not merely political, but cultural.

I need a little intellectual stimulation. Indulge me.

Here

you

GO.

[AngryBiker]

Atheists, and the un-American Criminal Liberties Union in particular, seem to spend a great deal of time and energy fighting things like recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance and public prayer.
Will somebody please tell me where in the Constitution it states that there shall be freedom FROM religion? I don't get it. The Constitution simply states that Congress shall establish no State religion.

Justice David Souter concluded that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion." in the 1994 Supreme Court Case Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet.

Source: Board_of_Education_of_Kiryas_Joel_Village_School_District_v._Grumet

The Pledge of Allegiance mentioning God is a violation since it contains a religious concept over a non-religious one (and by the way, the original pledge wasn't a violation...Congress added "under God" in the 50s). Public prayer (as in prayer at official public meetings) is a violation since it promotes one religion over another (as well as over irreligion).

The constitution has to be interpreted, and the Supreme Court has interpreted it to mean that not only can Congress establish a state religion, but that the government cannot hold one religion over another, or religion in general over irreligion.

If atheists and the ACLU were actually trying to impose their beliefs on others, we wouldn't be getting rid of religious prayers; we'd be forcing people to use our own. We aren't asking people to pledge allegiance to "science, reason, & skepticism", and we aren't asking schools to teach that God doesn't exist. All we are asking is for public offices to keep out of the "God" debate; and that applies to atheists just as much as it does to the religious.

THANK YOU, Adrian. At last, a civil reply. I concur that no religion should be held over any other. My personal belief is that the 'revealed' religions are all bull$hlt and I strongly resent the efforts of the leaders of these cults to control the political arena in this country. I do not, however, fell threatened by the Pledge (yes, I acknowledge that the phrase "under God' was added in 1954) or public prayer by those who choose to indulge. Why do atheists choose so vehemently to impinge upon the 1st Amendment rights of the religious people in this country?

The Founding Fathers believed in a Creator. America was founded on the desire for freedom of religion, not from it. I disagree with you that the Constitution needs to be interpreted. It says what it says. On this point, you and I will have to agree to disagree. I don't give a phuc what David Souter or anyone else said. In My Not So Humble Opinion, he's wrong. And opinion is all we're really talking about here. If you read the Federalist Papers and other precedent documents, the intent of the Founding Fathers is quite clear.

If atheists are not trying to impose their beliefs upon others, why can't you just leave it alone? I guess that was the point of my original question.

BTW, it has been said that the only difference between a deist and an atheist is 3 letters.

[chasm]

Why do atheists choose so vehemently to impinge upon the 1st Amendment rights of the religious people in this country?

We don't. They are impinging on our rights of freedom of religion. The pledge, our currency, public prayer, etc. is all promoting Christianity over all other religions, which is NOT what the Founding Fathers wanted.

If atheists are not trying to impose their beliefs upon others, why can't you just leave it alone? I guess that was the point of my original question.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnbXlkNavwo

The Founding Fathers believed in a Creator. America was founded on the desire for freedom of religion, not from it.

Proof? Because I'm pretty sure that the Declaration of Independence (y'know, just the founding document of our country), doesn't mention any "Creator", and the mention of religion (in article 7, I believe) is to SEPARATE the church from the state... P.S. Our Founding Father's were deists, and some of them were atheists.

BTW, it has been said that the only difference between a deist and an atheist is 3 letters.

That's true to an extent, I suppose. You can change three letters and turn deist into atheist, but they mean different things. One involves a supreme being creating the universe and one doesn't.

[Entropist]

Atheists, and the un-American Criminal Liberties Union in particular, seem to spend a great deal of time and energy fighting things like recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance and public prayer.

"The ACLU vigorously defends the rights of all Americans to practice their religion. But because the ACLU is often better known for its work preventing the government from promoting and funding selected religious activities, it is sometimes wrongly assumed that the ACLU does not zealously defend the rights of all religious believers to practice their faith. The actions described below – over half of which were brought on behalf of self-identified Christians, with the remaining cases defending the rights of a wide range of minority faiths – reveal just how mistaken such assumptions are. (The list below includes examples from the past decade only.)"

A list of cases the ACLU has brought to court on behalf of religious believers.

[AngryBiker]

WND reported...

Yeah, World Nut Daily, why am I not surprised?

Well, for what little its worth, I've been to Oz and lived in NZ for a a bit and I can tell you I felt much safer there than I ever have anywhere in the US. Friends of mine there and elsewhere I know do not seem to worry about it much. There's a reason why the cops in some of these countries don't even carry firearms on their person. And besides, most other developed nations do not have the same bizarre fetish for guns that we US Americans seem to have-- the difference is not merely political, but cultural.

I need a little intellectual stimulation. Indulge me.

Here

you

GO.

Pardon me, I didn't mean to confuse you with the facts. You are correct, the difference is indeed cultural. Would you care to answer my original question?

[Paul the Human]

The reason 'we atheists' take a stand against certain things like 'prayer in public schools', the mention of 'god' in the Pledge, the '10 Commandments' in the courtroom, and so on... is in defense of secularism. I don't want to force others to believe what I believe, but I also do not want others to force their beliefs on me. Striving to keep any and all religion out of government is not the same thing as forcing my lack of belief on people. People have the right to believe whatever they want... 'we atheists' included. 'We' fight against religion's tendency to (intentionally) permeate the government, because allowing it to happen threatens the religious freedoms of everyone.

[AngryBiker]

Atheists, and the un-American Criminal Liberties Union in particular, seem to spend a great deal of time and energy fighting things like recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance and public prayer.

"The ACLU vigorously defends the rights of all Americans to practice their religion. But because the ACLU is often better known for its work preventing the government from promoting and funding selected religious activities, it is sometimes wrongly assumed that the ACLU does not zealously defend the rights of all religious believers to practice their faith. The actions described below – over half of which were brought on behalf of self-identified Christians, with the remaining cases defending the rights of a wide range of minority faiths – reveal just how mistaken such assumptions are. (The list below includes examples from the past decade only.)"

A list of cases the ACLU has brought to court on behalf of religious believers.

I stand corrected. Thank you.

---

The reason 'we atheists' take a stand against certain things like 'prayer in public schools', the mention of 'god' in the Pledge, the '10 Commandments' in the courtroom, and so on... is in defense of secularism. I don't want to force others to believe what I believe, but I also do not want others to force their beliefs on me. Striving to keep any and all religion out of government is not the same thing as forcing my lack of belief on people. People have the right to believe whatever they want... 'we atheists' included. 'We' fight against religion's tendency to (intentionally) permeate the government, because allowing it to happen threatens the religious freedoms of everyone.

Humanity may be overrated but it beats the alternative, IMNSHO.

I'm all for secularism. I don't see our govt. 'forcing' religion anywhere. With all due respect, it seems to me that you guys are swattin' butterflies.

---

Why do atheists choose so vehemently to impinge upon the 1st Amendment rights of the religious people in this country?

We don't. They are impinging on our rights of freedom of religion. The pledge, our currency, public prayer, etc. is all promoting Christianity over all other religions, which is NOT what the Founding Fathers wanted.

If atheists are not trying to impose their beliefs upon others, why can't you just leave it alone? I guess that was the point of my original question.

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnbXlkNavwo

---

The Founding Fathers believed in a Creator. America was founded on the desire for freedom of religion, not from it.

Proof? Because I'm pretty sure that the Declaration of Independence (y'know, just the founding document of our country), doesn't mention any "Creator", and the mention of religion (in article 7, I believe) is to SEPARATE the church from the state... P.S. Our Founding Father's were deists, and some of them were atheists.

BTW, it has been said that the only difference between a deist and an atheist is 3 letters.

That's true to an extent, I suppose. You can change three letters and turn deist into atheist, but they mean different things. One involves a supreme being creating the universe and one doesn't.

And we both have equal proof, only mine is more equal than yours.

[chasm]

And we both have equal proof, only mine is more equal than yours.

Is that was it looks like when you are trying to avoid answering? o.O

[Tiberius]

I'm all for secularism. I don't see our govt. 'forcing' religion anywhere. With all due respect, it seems to me that you guys are swattin' butterflies.

The idea of "God" is a very religious one. Thus, having the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance (a pledge meant to bring all Americans together) is discriminating against atheists, and is breaking the 1st Amendment by impeding on the atheist's free exercise of religion (and yes, atheism is a religion when it is considered politically, as is deism). It means that atheists can't say the Pledge of Allegiance truthfully, thus either atheists cannot be true Americans, or the Pledge is exclusive to a specific religious group. Either way, it goes against the 1st amendment.

Another example? The National Day of Prayer. Prayer, like God, is a religious idea. Having a national day of prayer is an establishment of a religious idea by the government.

I suppose to a deist, these things probably don't matter, and it does look like we are swatting at butterflies, but to us, they do matter. There are numerous "butterflies" out there, and they all represent some form of government meddling with religion, whether it be prayer in public schools, displaying the 10 commandments in courts, or saying prayers before official state meetings.

I also agree with what others have said here...if you are going to use what World Net Daily says to back up your argument, you should really have a good long look at what they say, and where it comes from. WND is not a "source"; neither is any newspaper or online news organisation (even the reputable ones). Sources come from studies.

[AngryBiker]

Welcome.

I don't know the organisations you provided, but I do need to point out a correction to your definition of atheists: We do not have beliefs, as atheists, the only thing in common between us is that we lack the believe in god(or gods). However, when religion tries to dip the foot into government, atheists will be there to defend one of the most important achievements of any civilized country: Separation of church and state. How would you feel if you are a hindu, and had to pledge your alliegance to the god of the bible? Was that fair?

Wow, trying to follow the threads in this forum is like herding cats.

I'm guessing from your spelling that you are a Subject of The Crown. Separated by a common language, we are.

If you don't have beliefs, what the phuc do you believe in? There is no mention anywhere in the US Constitution of the separation of church and state. It states simply that Congress shall establish no religion, nor prohibit the free exercise thereof.

And for the record, the Hindu is just as ignorant as the Christian. I don't feel threatened by either one of them as long as they don't try to force their dogma upon me personally.