The Constitution as written and as amended was never meant to forbid the government from favoring and supporting the role of religion in American life.

The First Amendment does not say that Congress shall not establish a national church. It says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (and yada yada yada). A law that favours one religion over another can be and has been, by SCOTUS, as respecting an establishment of religion. The difference is that some Christians try to imply that as long as Congress doesn’t completely up and set up a national church (presumably, in one go), it’s constitutional. No. Incremental buildup of such support is also illegal, which is why I parse the wording of the first clause.

Furthermore, let’s not forget that second clause. When the government forces citizens to take part in the rituals of a specific religion, it is more than arguable that it prohibits the free exercise of religion.

This sounds as if being an agnostic is acceptable to them, as long as you’re not an atheist. Is that correct?

This is an incorrect definition of atheism. Atheism is the lack of belief in any gods. Agnosticism is the lack of knowledge in any gods. Agnosticism is not a middle ground between theism and atheism - there cannot logically be a middle ground between theism and atheism. Either the belief in a god is there or it isn’t. (There’s a middle ground when it comes to individual people - you could vacillate, believing one day and then not believing the next. But there is no middle ground when it comes atheism and theism as logical propositions.)

I think I understand what Sailorman is trying to get at, though the impression I got too was that non-believers should go around insulting Jesus. We can all agree that that’s a jerkass thing to do.

But why is it a jerkass thing to do? If atheism is denial of god(s), then all I’d be doing is professing my faith - no different than saying Jesus was the true messiah, or that we should kill lizard men for Xenu. But this is not so, and this gets to heart of what separates atheism from the various theistic beliefs, why atheism is not “just another religion in its own way”.

Atheism is not denial of god. Atheism is the lack of theism. Going around the park badmouthing Christianity is not practicing atheism. Not going around the park promoting Christianity is practicing atheism. (I realize many Christians don’t go around parks; I’m trying to illustrate a point.) Atheism is defined by what you don’t do, what you don’t believe. Certainly, there are atheists who take it beyond this (”strong” or “positive” atheists, and frankly I find a high correlation between being a vocal positive atheist and being a smug asshole), but it is not a requirement. By definition, all animals and all inanimate objects are atheists, insofar as it makes sense to apply such terms to entities incapable of abstract thought.

So, either atheism is *denial of god* - untrue, but it would entail allowing me to go around denying Jesus in public because then I’d just be evangelizing my beliefs, just like anyone else has a right to - or it’s not a belief at all but the lack of a belief, in which case why doing so is wrong comes into sharp relief. The opposite of prayer in schools is not not having prayers in schools - it’s mandated recitals of denial of god in classrooms. The latter, by the definition religious people want to use, would actually qualify as promoting atheism, not simply the absence of prayer. But they want to have it both ways. They want to define atheism narrowly when it comes to philosophical debates, broadly when it comes to how atheism is corrupting children and pornifying society.

By the way, it’s not true that by promoting atheism you are promoting rationalism. You could disbelieve for reasons that have nothing to do with reason.

On a further point, I don’t like someone because they are atheist nor do I dislike someone because they are believers in the supernatural.

Both these people need educating out of their respective ignorance.

Zee - Black Woman Thinks

Amp; well, it is your thread, and I can answer your question briefly. “I’m not sure” is generally accepted. And from my private conversation with Scouters and Scouts, I can tell you it’s not unheard of.

Maybe we ought to just establish a state religion. And start collecting tithes from anyone who belongs to it. It turned out to be the short route to secularism in much of Europe. On the other hand, it doesn’t seem to be working quite the same way in the Middle East. (And yes, I’m thinking of Israel too.)

In Europe the governing power was always secular (absent the Papal States). They obtained legitimization from the religious powers and worked with them to maintain their position, but they were always jealous of their perogatives and always ruled in a secular fashion. Even in those times where there was an established religion, the ultimate power was secular. In that regard, there was separation of church and state; the state ruled, not the church, and the state had perogatives over the church, including the right to choose many of it’s leaders.

In the Middle East, the singular event of Mohammed and his immediate successors conquering much of it created a theocracy. Even when his empire broke up, the rulers were religious heads as well as secular ones. There is no separation of church and state at all, and Islam doesn’t seem to recognize the desirability of such a thing - at least, not as it is interpreted by a great many of it’s adherents. When a prophet is also a conqueror and when the followers of a religion hold supreme verses in it’s scripture that tell people to eliminate other religions and their believers by force you get this kind of thing.

Christianity tells people that they should be in the world but not of it. Jesus never owned anything but the clothes on his back and never used anything but love and persuasion to convert hearts and minds. Would that his followers had done the same throughout the millenia! But His teachings and His example in this are clear, as are the differences with Islam. This leads to the difference in the present state of Europe and of the Middle East in this regard.

And why should your belief or non-belief in a diety Allah to Zeus or something amorphous, have to do with whether or not you would be a good person to supervise a mass of preteen boys when they go out into the woods and play campout? Or whatever else boy scouts do? Sounds like a clear case of discrimination to me, unless there are badges that I’m unaware of like “complete dreamquest” or “mysticism” or “divine revelation.” (Actually, an atheist could still participate in those…he or she would simply consider the revelation to come from within rather than being imposed from the outside.)

Your assumed premise is incorrect. All the BSA basically does is require that one believe in some higher power. Monotheists (e.g., Christianity, Judaism, Islam), polytheists (Hinduism), nontheists (Buddhists), all are welcome. In fact, you need not belong to any established religion or profess faith in any known God. As long as you don’t actively deny that there is any higher power past the material plane, you’re fine.

This sounds as if being an agnostic is acceptable to them, as long as you’re not an atheist. Is that correct?

Your assumed premise is incorrect. All the BSA basically does is require that one believe in some higher power. Monotheists (e.g., Christianity, Judaism, Islam), polytheists (Hinduism), nontheists (Buddhists), all are welcome. In fact, you need not belong to any established religion or profess faith in any known God. As long as you don’t actively deny that there is any higher power past the material plane, you’re fine.

Again; “separation of Church and State” appears nowhere in the Constitution. The Constitution as written and as amended was never meant to forbid the government from favoring and supporting the role of religion in American life. What the First Amendment does is to prohibit the Congress from creating an established church. It cannot favor one particular denomination over another by granting it a favored place in the country. This was in direct reaction to what happened during the Reformation, where most European countries each had one church that was the established church, being funded by the State and having some formal role in it’s governance (as the Church of England still does), and where other churches were at best ignored and at worst actively suppressed and where wars were fought to accomplish that suppression. Granting all religious organizations equal access to public buildings, etc., does not establish any one of them, which is why it is fortunate that the law was made to recognize that.

Robert Writes:
April 15th, 2008 at 7:43 am

Why is it important to spread the word of rationalism?

But that isn’t what you’re doing. “You non-rationalists are morons!” isn’t evangelization for rationalism, it’s just a tear-down of what people believe.

I think that if you reexamine what you’re saying, that you will have a bit of trouble distinguishing between that evangelization and ‘teardown of what people believe.’ Can you explain, for example, how evangelizing to someone who isn’t of your religion is not attacking their beliefs?

“Have you heard about my new group, Rationalists for Rationality? We believe that the universe was created six billion years ago through mechanistic processes…” is evangelizing for rationalism.

It is ONE way of getting people to adhere to rationalism. Let me know if you think that I should get to define how religious folks are “allowed” to evangelize, and I’ll start considering whether your suggestion makes sense.

I have no problem with any public or private exhortation to believe certain things, though of course I will disagree with many of the things being exhorted. But I disagree (politely) that positive proclamations and negative denouncement are the same thing. Both are protected, but they aren’t the same type of speech.

In all seriousness, that’s because you are probably affected by centuries of the bias I discussed above, in which the views of the religious majority are defined as “positive pronouncements” and the views of their opponents are defined as “negative denoucement.” It is a difficult trend to see around.

I suppose it would be theoretically possible for religion to be promoted in a purely positive way, i.e. “come join us” without a single mention of what happens if you fail to do so. But as you are surely aware, most religious arguments–like almost all other arguments–present BOTH the positives of their own position, AND the negatives of their opponents’ position.

If it is going to be used in that way, then it is the tradition that will eventually go away.

I’m reasonably sure you meant this in a “the voters won’t tolerate it” sort of way, but given that there have been anti-atheist/agnostic bashing incidents, this comes out reading in a rather sinister manner.

WHAT line?

If Jefferson’s private correspondence is going to be used to run the country, I’ve got a lot of reading up to do, as do we all.

We don’t have a formal policy of separation of church and state. We have a Constitutional guarantee that the government will not make laws establishing a religion. We do have a broad tradition of avoiding excessive state-faith commingling, and that’s generally speaking been very beneficial to our nation.

But until fairly recently, it’s never been held to bar the Methodists from using the town square for their picnic, or the Scouts from using the school building. If it is going to be used in that way, then it is the tradition that will eventually go away. Not the religions.

I’m not sure what the religious declaration in the Scout’s application is, having never applied myself, but if it limits membership to belivers in a god/s (or restricts further, such as must be monotheistic or must be Christian), how is it “fortunate” that a federal law was changed to allow this religious organization to use public buildings for free for their own purposes? Because that line about “separation of church and state” was only meant to apply to religions you don’t like or what?

This is just another example of how Christianity is constantly in your face in the US. I don’t mind the public holidays so much–it’s pretty clear at this point that there are secular holidays that are called “Christmas” and “Easter” that derive from but are separate from their Christian counterparts. But even in NYC people get beat up for not responding to “Merry Christmas” in the desired way. Then there are the “Believer” license plates in Florida. Or the tax breaks given to churches that are clearly involved in political work. I don’t go around saying “Jesus was a false messiah” mostly because there are enough people running around the streets of NYC ranting about their pet peeves already (did you know the phone company was responsible for 9/11? That’s what someone told me just this morning…he wasn’t real clear on which phone company though.) But the US does have a theocratic bent and it’s annoying.

BTW: Yes, Sherman is an asshat. No one ever said that being an atheist stops someone from being an asshat as well. Or if they did, they were wrong.

But that isn’t what you’re doing. “You non-rationalists are morons!” isn’t evangelization for rationalism, it’s just a tear-down of what people believe. “Have you heard about my new group, Rationalists for Rationality? We believe that the universe was created six billion years ago through mechanistic processes…” is evangelizing for rationalism.

Are you in the majority of people who have little problem with that? Door to door and/or public proclamations of religion, and door to door and/or public denouncements of religion, are two sides of the same coin.

I have no problem with any public or private exhortation to believe certain things, though of course I will disagree with many of the things being exhorted. But I disagree (politely) that positive proclamations and negative denouncement are the same thing. Both are protected, but they aren’t the same type of speech. “Vote for Pat Buchanan” is different from “the Jews are subhuman filth who must be removed from society” - even if PB believes the latter sentiment.

Why is it important to spread the word of rationalism? I don’t know: why is it important for (apparently) most of the population of the world to spread the word about their choice of religion? Since you both seem to be at least vaguely cognizant of efficiency, if your goal is to get religious discussions out of the town square, seems atheists would be a bad place to start.

But in any case, I am getting a git feeling that you’re missing the parallel between atheism and religion, which is an equivalent level of discussion.

I see “christ is lord” billboards; I see “what would jesus do” shirts; I have people walking up to my door asking me to join their religion.

Are you in the majority of people who have little problem with that?

Door to door and/or public proclamations of religion, and door to door and/or public denouncements of religion, are two sides of the same coin. That the religious folks have managed to get their actions defined as “normal” or “acceptable,” and the actions of atheists defined as “rude” or “impolite,” is a pity. In either case, I encourage you not to buy into that artificial distinction between two essentially equivalent actions.

The opposite of “talking about religion” is NOT, as some religious folks suggest, merely “not talking about religion.” Rather, it is “talking about atheism” or, if you prefer, “talking about (not religion)”