Governments Using Atheism by Force

[Grim]

I don't actually expect you to read this but keep in mind it is there and there is lots more like it out there. On second thought give the introduction a bit of a work over.

Thanks for the comments!

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swi ... ation.html

[richards1000]

Grim:

You've pointed me to a law review article that argues that the Internal Revenue Code violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, a view that has not, to my knowledge, prevailed in the courts; and to a blog post alleging that the executive branch office of faith-based initiatives violates the Establishment Clause, an argument not supported by the text of the First Amendment, which applies only to Congress, and which, to my knowledge, has not been upheld by any court. Do you have any arguments in support of your contention respecting separation of church and state that have prevailed in the courts and are consistent with the text of the Constitution?

And what is your response to my questions respecting your assertions respecting the supposed threat posed by "religion"?

Robert

[Penelope]

Richard - this me - muddled thinker (be warned) bringing you up to date.

The threat that is seen from religion is:

The USA is the world superpower at this point in history.

There are a lot of fundamental Christians in places of power in the USA

They stand in the way of scientific progress because they are against things like stem-cell research, abortion, homosexuality, womens' rights and etc......

The main problem is that in some cases it is insisted that Creationism is taught in schools.

The main problem really is that wars are being fought over ways of thinking that are not based on scientific evidence, but on tradition, superstition......and beliefs that have been passed down through families over generation. This affects Christian families, Muslim families, Jewish families and all families with any kind of religious tradition......

How am I doing so far folks?????

[Penelope]

We were discussing the possibility of Governments forcing Atheism.

No one seems to think it is a good idea so far in the poles. Although we have been having some on and off glitches on this site......so the pole might have swung since I last looked.

The Gremlins seem to be in favour of not forcing Atheism....

[Grim]

You've pointed me to a law review article that argues that the Internal Revenue Code violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, a view that has not, to my knowledge, prevailed in the courts; and to a blog post alleging that the executive branch office of faith-based initiatives violates the Establishment Clause, an argument not supported by the text of the First Amendment, which applies only to Congress, and which, to my knowledge, has not been upheld by any court. Do you have any arguments in support of your contention respecting separation of church and state that have prevailed in the courts and are consistent with the text of the Constitution?

No do you? I'm not sure what exactly your question means, an example on you part would have been nice/helpful. I have provided numerous examples. I'll assume that my "contention" - to your understanding - is that the best form of government is an atheist one, that the government has a social and political responsibility to limit the influence of religious institutions of all denominations. In doing this the freedoms of the citizens must be maintained at all costs else the formation of an authoritarian state. I am talking in the widest sense possible here, example does not need to come from America. Please expand on "prevailed in the courts" and "consistent with the...Constitution." Please define the limits the argument are you talking executive, legislative, judicial, or social and political in the broadest sense here? The question is without any specific subject, where should I suppose to begin?

The articles and your confusion highlight my point exactly. The balance between religion and the state is an important issue and yet there remains a significant gray area somewhere between the Establishment Clause and the First Amendment. It is obvious that there are currently in place restrictions on the role of church, unfortunately these seem ambiguous or outright ignored. The articles I posted are relevant in and of their questioning of the status quo. Where once religion could be countered by the common sense of an integrated majority I believe that we must now rely on legislative restrictions as the majority of people have become seduced by theistic agendas or atheist apathy.

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/fea ... cnum=41403

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... ge=421#422

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman

etc, etc, ad infinitum.

[richards1000]

Penelope:

Thanks for your message. Here are my responses.

Respecting the statement: “There are a lot of fundamental Christians in places of power in the USA”. I assume you mean “fundamentalist Christians.” I’m not aware of any fundamentalist Christians in cabinet posts in the Obama or Bush administrations, on the U.S. Supreme Court, or heading committees in the current or the previous Congress. If I’m mistaken, who are they? If I’m correct, what do you mean by “places of power in the USA”?

Respecting the statement: “They stand in the way of scientific progress because they are against things like stem-cell research, abortion, homosexuality, womens' rights and etc.....”: I recognize that some (not all) fundamentalist Christians oppose fetal stem cell research on moral grounds, but so do many persons who are not fundamentalist Christians, including persons who adhere to no religious faith but who believe that using fetal tissue in scientific research is an improperly instrumental use of a human being. I don’t agree with that view, but I respect it because it’s based on substantial grounds. Since the policy basis for opposing fetal stem cell research includes credible nonreligious arguments, and since opponents of fetal stem cell research include nonreligious persons, I think that political opposition to fetal stem cell research is not a sufficient justification for banning all religious groups or prohibiting the practice of all forms of religion.

Respecting “abortion,” “homosexuality,” and “women’s rights,” how are these issues related to scientific progress? I see no relationship between those issues and scientific investigation. I note also that opponents of abortion and homosexuality include persons other than fundamentalist Christians, and persons who adhere to no religious faith but who oppose abortion or homosexuality on moral, health, cultural, or other grounds. I don’t agree with those views, but I respect them because they are based on substantial grounds. Opponents of women’s rights also include persons other than fundamentalist Christians and persons who adhere to no religious faith, who are likely to base their views on tradition or cultural norms. I disagree with those views, but I respect them, because they are based on credible grounds. Since the policy bases for opposing abortion, homosexuality, and women’s rights include credible nonreligious arguments, and since opponents of abortion, homosexuality, and women’s rights include many nonreligious persons, I think that political opposition to abortion, homosexuality, and women’s rights is not a sufficient justification for banning all religious groups or prohibiting the practice of all forms of religion.

Respecting the statement that “[t]he main problem is that in some cases it is insisted that Creationism is taught in schools”: First, I believe that most of the tens of millions of people in the U.S. who practice some form of religion do not support the teaching of Creationism in high school biology classes. (Consider that most Jews and Christians in the U.S. today do not believe that the Bible is literally true, and consider the millions of adherents of religions in the U.S. whose doctrines do not include the Book of Genesis.) My second point concerns the appropriate level of government for a policy response respecting this issue. In the U.S., education is primarily regulated by state and local government. I agree that in some U.S. states and localities, school boards require the teaching of Creationism with evolution in high school biology classes, but I believe most U.S. states and localities do not have this requirement. Since this policy choice does not affect most people in the U.S., a national-level policy response seems unnecessary. I believe that the appropriate governmental level for a policy response respecting this issue is state and local government. Therefore, I encourage those opposed to requirements that Creationism be taught alongside evolution in high school biology classes express their views to their state and local government representatives. Because most religious people in the U.S. do not support the teaching of Creationism in high school biology classes and because the requirement that Creationism be taught alongside evolution in high school biology classes appears not to affect the majority of persons in the U.S. and can be addressed at the state or local governmental level, I think that the enforcement of such requirements in certain states and localities is not a sufficient justification for banning all religious groups or prohibiting the practice of all forms of religion in the U.S.

Respecting the statement that “[t]he main problem really is that wars are being fought over ways of thinking that are not based on scientific evidence, but on tradition, superstition......and beliefs that have been passed down through families over generation.”
Would you please identify the wars that you refer to? That way, we can assess the strength of your argument.

Respecting the statement: “This affects Christian families, Muslim families, Jewish families and all families with any kind of religious tradition......”: I can’t assess the strength of this argument unless you specify the wars referred to above.

[Penelope]

Richard - (I am going to call you that so I don't mix you up with Robert)

I was not arguing in favour, or against these issues. I was just summing up what I had learned so far from this forum.

And, also....trying to lighten up the debate, because I felt as though you and grim were becoming a little ascerbic in your responses.

There are several debates on these threads, in which I feel truely privilidged to take part. Where else would such as I, be able to talk, one-to-one with men of the calibre of Robert Tulip, DWill and Tom Hood?

People with great academic ability and of profound thought from all over the world contribute on here. Sometimes the language becomes quite esoteric and I need to chip and and say......'could you translate'?

Sometimes, it begins to get a bit vitriolic.....and I think that is a shame.

Of course, we don't believe that Atheism should be forced. You only need to look at the pole/vote to see that. However, this website has helped me to examine atheism and its adherents and understand, to some extent, why they take the stance that they do. When I join in, it is to promote a more tolerant view of the religious/philosophic outlook....because that is my own situation.

Also, it is to attempt to keep the discussions to my own simple level of understanding, because I know that there are others who read these posts who 'want' to comprehend the issues, but if the debate becomes too erudite(?) esoteric (?) they will be put off contributing and that would be a great shame......because we need to communicate on all possible levels.

Don't you think?

[Robert Tulip]

Respecting Robert's statement: "My own view is that Christianity needs major reform to become compatible with science before it will be credible. I think this will involve movement on the part of both science and religion to recognise a mystical basis for science."

Given the ability of Descartes, Pascal, Mendel, and Teilhard de Chardin, among many others, to successfully integrate Christianity with science, what reforms, exactly, are needed to render that integration credible?

Robert

Hi Robert, welcome to Booktalk. Great question. As you would know, there is a widespread contemporary view, eg Dawkins & Gould, that Christianity and science are incompatible. The mystical thinkers you cite include the marginal - Teilhard was not able to publish in his lifetime - and an expedient liar - Descartes went via God to science in his Meditations in order to deflect the attention of the Inquisition. In his heart Descartes agreed with Laplace (God? I have no need of that hypothesis).

Mainstream Christianity has ideas of God, heaven, miracles and salvation which are not compatible with science. My experience is that there is little appetite to analyse these problems except at the superficial level of Dawkins.

My own view is that we can use Christianity as a basis for understanding the world and the priorities for reform, but this understanding needs to be placed within a rational cosmic eschatology. Getting people to even acknowledge that cosmic eschatology is a legitimate topic of conversation is a goal that has largely eluded my efforts to date.

RT

[Penelope]

RT

My experience is that there is little appetite to analyse these problems except at the superficial level of Dawkins.

In the book 'The Devil's Chaplain' Selected Essays by Richard Dawkins, the final section is called 'A Prayer for my Daughter' and takes the form of a letter to his 10 year old daughter. 'Good and Bad Reasons for Believing'.....not superficial at all, Robert.

[richards1000]

Grim:

Thanks for your message.

Respecting your question, “No do you?”: I believe that question is unresponsive to my question. Since you appear to be arguing in favor of a position, you have the obligation to proffer persuasive arguments and evidence in support of that position. I believe that you are advocating the policy position that national governments, including the U.S. federal government, should ban all religious groups and prohibit the practice of all forms of religion. In support of this position, you argue that the U.S. government is violating the U.S. constitutional prohibition against establishment of religion. To support that argument, you adduced two claims: that the Internal Revenue Code and the existence of the executive branch office of faith-based initiatives violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In the U.S., constitutional law is determined by the text of the U.S. Constitution and the rulings of the U.S. federal courts, including the Lemon v. Kurtzman and Engel v. Vitale cases that you cited. Neither claim that you adduced has been accepted by any U.S. federal court, to my knowledge; that is, no U.S. federal court has ruled in an actual case that the Internal Revenue Code’s religious tax exemption provisions or the existence of the executive branch’s office of faith-based initiatives violates the Establishment Clause. And the assertion that the existence of the executive branch office of faith-based initiatives violates the Establishment Clause seems inconsistent with the text of the Establishment Clause, which facially applies only to Congress, although I acknowledge that the U.S. Supreme Court has extended the application of the Clause’s restrictions to conduct of the federal executive and judicial branches and to state governments. Accordingly, both claims you adduce to support your argument that the U.S. government is violating the Establishment Clause seem unpersuasive, because they are unsupported by any judicial decision or constitutional text. Since I disagree with the position that the U.S. government is violating the Establishment Clause, I have no obligation to adduce arguments or evidence in support of that position.

Respecting your statements that “I'll assume that my contention to your understanding is that the best form of government is an atheist one, that the government has a social and political responsibility to limit the influence of religious institutions of all denominations. In doing this the freedoms of the citizens must be maintained at all costs else the formation of an authoritarian state.” I respect that view, but I believe that view is inconsistent with the policy of the U.S. government. To my knowledge, the policy of the U.S. government, as expressed in the Establishment Clause and in federal court opinions interpreting it, is (1) that neither the federal nor any state government may create an official religion, and (2) that neither the federal nor any state government may prohibit any religion from being practiced in the U.S. I support this policy of the U.S. government, and believe it should not be changed, because it fosters socially beneficial religious activity, safeguards the liberty of nonreligious people, and embodies fairness.
I agree with Justice O’Connor’s concurrence in the McCreary County case, http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/jbalkin/case ... yvaclu.pdf , that the policy of the Establishment clause is rooted in “respect for religion’s special role in society. Our Founders conceived of a Republic receptive to voluntary religious expression, and provided for the possibility of judicial intervention when government action threatens or impedes such expression. Voluntary religious belief and expression may be as threatened when government takes the mantle of religion upon itself as when government directly interferes with private religious practices. When the government associates one set of religious beliefs with the state and identifies nonadherents as outsiders, it encroaches upon the individual's decision about whether and how to worship. In the marketplace of
ideas, the government has vast resources and special status. Government religious expression therefore risks crowding out private observance and distorting the natural interplay between competing beliefs. Allowing government to be a potential mouthpiece for competing religious ideas risks the sort of division that might easily spill over into suppression of rival beliefs. Tying secular and religious authority together poses risks to both.”

I disagree with the view that all religious groups should be banned and the practice of all forms of religion prohibited, because such a view would violate basic norms of human rights, including the right to religious freedom guaranteed by Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.” I also disagree with the view that banning all religious groups and prohibiting the practice of all forms of religion is justified on the basis that some, but not all, religious persons support particular policies (such as a ban on fetal stem cell research), because the bases for such policies include credible nonreligious arguments, and because proponents of such policies include nonreligious persons.

Respecting your statement “yet there remains a significant gray area somewhere between the Establishment Clause and the First Amendment”: I don’t understand this statement. The Establishment Clause is a component of the First Amendment. How can there be a “gray area” between them?

Respecting your statement: “It is obvious that there are currently in place restrictions on the role of church, unfortunately these seem ambiguous or outright ignored”: In the U.S., I believe there is no restriction on the role of “church.” Rather, there are restrictions on the ability of government to designate an official religion and to prohibit the practice of any religion. Those restrictions are designed to foster religious activity and protect the rights of nonreligious people. A policy of restricting the role of religion in society is contrary to well established U.S. law and public policy, and is, in my view, unlikely to prevail. I support the current U.S. policy on this issue, for the reasons stated above.

Respecting your statement that “once religion could be countered by the common sense of an integrated majority”: would you please cite a particular example of such conduct by a group, and would you please define “integrated majority”? I’m unfamiliar with that term.

Respecting your statement that “the majority of people have become seduced by theistic agendas or atheist apathy”: I don’t know what you mean by “theistic agendas” or “atheistic apathy”. Would you please define these terms and give examples?

Respecting your citing a link to a Catholic World News story, http://www.catholicculture.org/news/fea ... cnum=41403 , I believe this refers to the 6th Circuit’s opinion in the Mercer County case, full text of which is at
http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-app ... 24/602889/ . As I stated above, the U.S. constitutional law respecting the Establishment Clause is quite limited, and the 6th Circuit’s opinion in Mercer County seems consistent with that law. As I understand it, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the McCreary County case, http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/jbalkin/case ... yvaclu.pdf , that a courthouse display of the Ten Commandments violates the Establishment Clause to the extent that “the predominate purpose for the display[] [is] religious.” Since the Ten Commandments, apart from being a religious text, are a very important collection of ancient laws (along with other ancient laws such as the Code of Hammurabi), and play an important role in the development of U.S. law (particularly the criminal law), one can plausibly argue that the image of the Ten Commandments, as a respected symbol of nonreligious law, can be displayed in a courthouse for a primarily nonreligious purpose. I believe that is the argument that Mercer County made in the 6th Circuit case, and the court agreed. That ruling is, in my view, consistent with the Establishment Clause. It also seems consistent with Justice O’Connor’s concurrence in McCreary County. I note that in that concurrence, Justice O’Connor stated that “[r]easonable minds can disagree about how to apply the Religion Clauses in a given case,” and she based her concurrence on “the history of this particular display of the Ten Commandments” and the “purpose behind the counties' display.” These statements appear to imply that in a different case, where the history of the display evidenced a secular purpose on the part of government, such a display could comport with the Establishment Clause. The 6th Circuit held that Mercer County was such a display.