| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
02 Oct 2005 03:38:03 PM |
| Object: |
Atheist Religion |
http://www.phxnews.com/fullstory.php?article=26321
Atheist Religion
Posted by Jack Salley on Saturday October 1, 2005 at 12:43 pm MST
7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals: Atheism as a Religion
In a correctional facilities case, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
ruled Aug. 19, 2005 that atheism should be considered a religion under the
law and the facilities may not prevent groups of prisoners from forming
groups to study atheism.
In its decision, the court reasoned that preventing these meetings would
infringe upon the inmates’ First Amendment right to freely exercise their
religion. The court said, "Atheism is [the inmate’s] religion, and the
group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it
expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being."
Claiming atheism to be a religion
Some atheist have established and started a number of atheistic churches,
such as the Naturalistic Pantheists, Brianism, the church of Reality, and
the Fellowship of Reason. There is also a significant atheist presence in
Unitarian Universalism religion, and Michael Newdow’s Church of the First
Amendment, to name a few.
An article, published in an atheist organizations mag, mentioned that
Michael Newdow of the Pledge suit fame gave a speech saying that Atheists
should claim themselves as being a religion. His motivation; basically that
atheists receive the same protection, favor, and money that religious
denominations are now (or will be) receiving from the government.
In the PHXnews, salty sailor posted: (the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
ruled August 19, 2005, that atheism should be considered a religion under
the law) “Would I be correct in assuming that ruling Atheism a religion
would give Atheists more validity in a court of law, giving them equal
footing with other religions and taking them out of the category of 'fringe
group vs religious group?” In Newdow’s case, atheism should be called a
"religion" in order to achieve some political and legal parity with belief
systems like religions in America. Even though Newdow has stated many times
that he is against any public acknowledgement of God’s providence in
America.
But concerning “atheist religion” other atheist are quick to point to the
use of the term atheist by major non-theist advocacy groups and may even
quip, “If atheism is a religion, than not collecting stamps is a hobby.
They disavow such movements (claiming atheism to be a religion), like the
statement in the American Atheists website, “There cannot be an Atheist
"Church", or an Atheist "priest" anymore than there could be an Atheist
"god." Their answer is that atheism isn’t a religion, but it can be part of
a religion.
Separation of Church and State is Unconstitutional
The American Atheists Inc. (an atheists group founded by the late Madalyn
Murray O'Hair) have stated that “it is a nationwide movement which defends
the civil rights of nonbelievers, works for the separation of church and
state, and addresses issues of First Amendment public policy." In other
words, their goal is the removal of all Christianity, starting with law
suits over any and all theology taught in schools, colleges and
universities.
"Separation of Church and State is unconstitutional," it is no way a
bedrock American constitutional principle. To believe that the Constitution
requires a total separation of church and state is to believe a lie.
The truth speaks for itself, because nowhere in the Constitution, the
Declaration of Independence, or any other founding documents of this nation
will one find the phrase so often used today, separation of church and
state.
The first words of the First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof" (emphasis added). These words are frequently misinterpreted as a
constitutional mandate for the separation of church and state, but that is
not what they are. It says nothing about what the Church can or cannot do
and nothing about what a Christian citizen should or should not do.
Reference to Separation of Church and State does not appear in any of our
country’s official documents.
But it does, however, appear in another prominent document, the
constitution of the former Soviet Union: "The church in the U.S.S.R. is
separated from the state and the school from the church" (Article 52). This
country (USA) was founded on a belief of separation of church and state??
Those nations that adherent or advocate a "Communist" government, or party,
believed in separation of church and state.
Many vulnerable youths who became brainwashed with lies, half-truths and
Marxist ideas in the 1960s are today’s campus intellectuals. In recent
decades the concept of “the separation of Church and State” has been
increasingly used by the anti-religious (anti-Christian) crowds to
undermine the Christian underpinnings of our traditional holidays and to
remove all Christian references from public schools and curricula,
government facilities and documents, and all religious symbols from public
property.
Keep “atheistic religion” out of schools
The only groups attempting to “circumvent the separation of church and
state” are those groups attempting to pull religious freedom from public
places, such as schools where student-led prayer is now illegal. Claiming
that creationism is cramming the Bible down our kids’ throats.
While, in the exact same manner, Darwinian evolution is cramming atheism
down the students throats, that there is no God, big or small, powerful or
weak, close or far, this is clearly establishment of religion. In the
correctional facilities case, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled
August 19, 2005, that atheism should be considered a religion under the law
and the facilities may not prevent groups of prisoners from forming groups
to study atheism.
So now, since atheism is religion, it’s time to keep "atheistic religion"
out of schools.
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist Religion |
10 Oct 2005 02:13:54 AM |
|
|
wrote:
While, in the exact same manner, Darwinian evolution is cramming atheism
down the students throats, that there is no God, big or small, powerful or
weak, close or far, this is clearly establishment of religion.
While I can hardly disagree with you more, this snip is perhaps the
most factually inaccurate thing you've said. Simply because something
disagrees with a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible, doesn't
make it atheistic. To quote author Keith Doyle, "Evolution does not
require the nonexistence of God, it merely allows for it. That alone is
enough to evoke condemnation from those who fear the nonexistence of
God more than they fear God Himself."
Do you really disbelieve in the wall of separation because you don't
see it in the Constitution (although Jefferson used the phrase
frequently), or because you fear what our nation might become without a
state mandated enforcement of religion?
You use Communism as a boogy-man to scare people of atheism, but the
Soviet's problem was economic, not spiritual. What you should be
considering are those actions undertaken explicitly due to theistic
beliefs. Don't be so quick to forget the deeds, both good *and* evil,
done under the name of religion.
Chris
.
|
|
|
| User: "Clyde Frog" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist Religion |
10 Oct 2005 03:05:57 AM |
|
|
wrote..., On 10/10/2005 00:13:
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
While, in the exact same manner, Darwinian evolution is cramming atheism
down the students throats, that there is no God, big or small, powerful or
weak, close or far, this is clearly establishment of religion.
While I can hardly disagree with you more, this snip is perhaps the
most factually inaccurate thing you've said. Simply because something
disagrees with a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible, doesn't
make it atheistic. To quote author Keith Doyle, "Evolution does not
require the nonexistence of God, it merely allows for it. That alone is
enough to evoke condemnation from those who fear the nonexistence of
God more than they fear God Himself."
And I was about to say something similar, because Darwin proposed a
theory of evolution does not translate as a disbelief in God. The
xians often use this trick, that their precious bible is the literal,
unerring word of God, therefore finding any flaw in it means you
are an atheist. And to any xians, the brainwashed moozlum cult
believes its precious koran is the literal, unerring word of God.
Because you don't believe it, does that make you atheists as well?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Unfortunately, for all of their inspiring morality, nowhere in the
Gospels is intelligence praised as a virtue."
-- Marilyn Manson; "Columbine: Whose Fault Is It?"
-------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jure jprusac_MAKNI" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist Religion |
10 Oct 2005 04:03:21 AM |
|
|
"Clyde Frog" <clyde@frog.net> wrote in message
news:Fhp2f.14747$6e1.11098@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
And I was about to say something similar, because Darwin proposed a
theory of evolution does not translate as a disbelief in God.
Yeah, and uncle 'Adolf' loved Darwin... see how it all adds up?
God->Darwin->Adolf->Darwin->Clyde
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist Religion |
10 Oct 2005 05:27:32 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 08:05:57 GMT, Clyde Frog <clyde@frog.net> wrote:
chrisspen@gmail.com wrote..., On 10/10/2005 00:13:
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
While, in the exact same manner, Darwinian evolution is cramming atheism
down the students throats, that there is no God, big or small, powerful or
weak, close or far, this is clearly establishment of religion.
While I can hardly disagree with you more, this snip is perhaps the
most factually inaccurate thing you've said. Simply because something
disagrees with a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible, doesn't
make it atheistic. To quote author Keith Doyle, "Evolution does not
require the nonexistence of God, it merely allows for it. That alone is
enough to evoke condemnation from those who fear the nonexistence of
God more than they fear God Himself."
And I was about to say something similar, because Darwin proposed a
theory of evolution does not translate as a disbelief in God.
You should read Darwin! He did not propose a 'theory of evolution'.
Like others before him he observed the results of evolution and then
proposed several theories to explain HOW it occurred, not that
it did. He argued that we cannot conclude that it did until we could
explain the how. As we have not yet proved the how, according to
Darwin himself, we should not conclude that evolution occurs.
He was rather cautious!
Darwin's theories could be completely wrong, evolution may not happen
as he suggests, but that it does is beyond doubt.
Actually I think we do understand sufficient of the how to make the
conclusion Darwin was close. I guess that rather like the first man to
attempt to calculate the earths circumference he would be inaccurate
to some extent the danger that all pioneers face. He certainly laid
firm foundations though which makes him one of the greatest men ever.
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Day Brown" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist Religion |
11 Oct 2005 04:32:45 PM |
|
|
Well, Freud noted that neurotics cannot tolerate ambiguity. And clear as
Darwin is, there is a large element of chance in evolution. Fundies of
all kinds, Xian or Muslim prefer the claims of literal truth in
scripture, which they say is perfectly understandable. Except, they keep
on killing people who dont understand scripture the way they do.
David Hume noted that if what you claim to have is the veritable 'word
of God', how then can you compromise with someone who has a different
text making the same claim? Or those who see the many claims of the many
different sacred texts, and dont support any of them. Hume went on to
say that the zealots inevitably resort to the use of force, and advised
staying out of the crossfire. Which was reasonable advice in the days of
muskets. But now, with automatic firearms and WMD, trying to find a safe
place to sit it out while the zealots have at each other is dicey.
But perhaps you fellows have noticed that the neurotics also engage in
posting venomous rants and ad hominum. The number of rational minds that
post is distressingly small and enormously worrisome. Zealotry, on both
the left and right, have shrunk the common ground on which sound policy
is formulated to the point that the stability of the republic is clearly
at risk. Saturday, I watched the Congressional Budget office director
present the numbers to a house hearing; last week, I saw a presentation
by David M. Walker, the Comptroller of the USA, and the week before that
listened to Robt Reich, the former secretary of labor... all making some
similar points...
The increasing maldistribution of wealth is destabilizing. They dont say
why, but let me note that when the mass of sheeple no longer feel like
they have any investment in the system to protect, they have nothing to
loose by destroying it, and avenging themselves against the rich. I have
no opinion on whether the rich deserve it.
The investment that sheeple think they do have, is in their homes. When
the housing bubble bursts, which all 3 of the above see as likely, that
investment will no longer deter radical action, demagoguery, revolution.
Wallace, in his Anthro Classic, "Culture and Personality", notes how as
a system is coming apart, people's coping strategies no longer work, and
they engage in "magical thinking". thus we see zealous fundamentalism,
astrology, wicca, etc, and Christians speaking of "The Rapture". People
know the proverbial schitt will hit the fan. They dont see anything they
can do to prevent this, and their neurosis results in irrationality. The
denial I see going on here, is in the fact that reasoned discourse is
going to get you anywhere. It wont. I'm simply laying this out for those
few who are still rational to shift their attention from the national
and global scene to their local communities.
Some communities will come apart like Yugoslavia, with people killing
others who have the wrong ethnicity or religion. Some will be freed of
the federal taxes and like the Baltic Nations, see their economies take
off. Its not a case any more of trying to educate religious zealots,
but time to consider David Hume's advice, and not be in the way when
they start running amok. They clearly are not rational. I could go into
why the electorate has lost so much reasoning power, but that's another
lengthy rant.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist Religion |
10 Oct 2005 05:08:24 AM |
|
|
On 10 Oct 2005 00:13:54 -0700, wrote:
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
While, in the exact same manner, Darwinian evolution is cramming atheism
down the students throats, that there is no God, big or small, powerful or
weak, close or far, this is clearly establishment of religion.
While I can hardly disagree with you more, this snip is perhaps the
most factually inaccurate thing you've said. Simply because something
disagrees with a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible, doesn't
make it atheistic. To quote author Keith Doyle, "Evolution does not
require the nonexistence of God, it merely allows for it. That alone is
enough to evoke condemnation from those who fear the nonexistence of
God more than they fear God Himself."
Many Christian believe that our discovery of evolution has revealed
one of the wonderous works of god and shows how great he is.
What is needed to partially destroy the last remants of our invention
of a god is discovering how life came into being in the first place.
After all evolution could not have even begun without that event.
Even then Christians would claim that god created the necessary
conditions but then gods realm - ignorance - will never be banished.
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist Religion |
10 Oct 2005 05:36:18 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 11:08:24 +0100 in alt.atheism, Les Hellawell (Les
Hellawell <myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com>) said, directing the reply
to alt.atheism
On 10 Oct 2005 00:13:54 -0700, wrote:
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
While, in the exact same manner, Darwinian evolution is cramming atheism
down the students throats, that there is no God, big or small, powerful or
weak, close or far, this is clearly establishment of religion.
While I can hardly disagree with you more, this snip is perhaps the
most factually inaccurate thing you've said. Simply because something
disagrees with a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible, doesn't
make it atheistic. To quote author Keith Doyle, "Evolution does not
require the nonexistence of God, it merely allows for it. That alone is
enough to evoke condemnation from those who fear the nonexistence of
God more than they fear God Himself."
Many Christian believe that our discovery of evolution has revealed
one of the wonderous works of god and shows how great he is.
What is needed to partially destroy the last remants of our invention
of a god is discovering how life came into being in the first place.
After all evolution could not have even begun without that event.
Even then Christians would claim that god created the necessary
conditions but then gods realm - ignorance - will never be banished.
Bit of a side issue:
If I were religiously inclined, I'd be inclined to think that an
omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent God might be interested in a
universe that is *in principle* unpredictable in detail.
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
#442. Want food NOW? Then try http://www.rtios.co.uk/
- Yep, currently under test... Your opinion welcome.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist Religion |
10 Oct 2005 07:26:56 AM |
|
|
Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in alt.atheism
in alt.atheism, Les Hellawell said
chrisspen@gmail.com wrote:
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
While, in the exact same manner, Darwinian evolution is cramming atheism
down the students throats, that there is no God, big or small, powerful or
weak, close or far, this is clearly establishment of religion.
While I can hardly disagree with you more, this snip is perhaps the
most factually inaccurate thing you've said. Simply because something
disagrees with a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible, doesn't
make it atheistic. To quote author Keith Doyle, "Evolution does not
require the nonexistence of God, it merely allows for it. That alone is
enough to evoke condemnation from those who fear the nonexistence of
God more than they fear God Himself."
Personally, once I accepted evolution, I realized that people die
because we're just another type of animal in the food chain. The
garbage about death entering humanity because of a forbidden fruit and
a talking snake is obviously rubbish, so the following cure, the blood
of a sinless human sacrifice is also rubbish. If the disease is fake,
then so is the cure, there's no denying that.
Many Christian believe that our discovery of evolution has revealed
one of the wonderous works of god and shows how great he is.
What is needed to partially destroy the last remants of our invention
of a god is discovering how life came into being in the first place.
After all evolution could not have even begun without that event.
Even then Christians would claim that god created the necessary
conditions but then gods realm - ignorance - will never be banished.
Bit of a side issue:
If I were religiously inclined, I'd be inclined to think that an
omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent God might be interested in a
universe that is *in principle* unpredictable in detail.
Because that's the way the current universe seems to be?
And what does "interested" mean? Interested in peeping in on it from
time to time, doing nothing but observing?
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
