Lawyer-Wearing-Yarmulka
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Atheists
I’ve never understood atheists. Agnostics, yeah, that’s fine with me. You’re apathetic, confused, or just don’t care about God and religion, I understand you.
But why label yourself an atheist? Is disproving God that important to you? Does it give your life meaning and purpose?
I wondered about this after reading about Michael Newdow’s latest crusade- to remove “In God We Trust” from our coins and dollar bills. What exactly drives a man to make it his life’s goal to remove all traces of religion from the public square?
I’m guessing that he just likes to see his name in the newspaper.
posted by LWY, 7:07 PM
12 Comments:
Newdow has some serious issues when it comes to religion. I remember seeing him on Crossfire back during the pledge case and he was talkign about how many hours he spent working on the case. Novak asked him if his time might have been better spent watching football, which got a laugh out of the audience. He didn't think it was funny, but who takes a guy like this seriously?
Mis-Nagid would disagree with your chracterization of Atheism.
Mis-Nagid would disagree with your chracterization of Atheism.
I don't think Newdow has his priorities straight. There are much more important church-state issues like "Intelligent Design" and faith-based initiatives. However, maybe I can help you understand why we bother calling ourselves atheists.
If everybody was an atheist, nobody would talk about it. But we (in the U.S.) live in a country that is led by religious fanatics, where an "out" atheist could never be elected president, where something like 50% of the country doesn't believe in evolution. The boy scouts don't allow atheists as members. The most church-going Americans supported a war that was triggered in part by religious-based terrorism. A majority of Americans believe that they have the right to decide that two consenting adults can't marry each other because they're of the same sex.
Think about the Pledge. Like the "in God we trust," it's not a particularly important issue. But have you ever really thought about what it means to have citizens of a country pledge their allegiance to a nation "under God?" What kind of theocracy are we running here?
Think of our outspokenness as a response to all of the bulls--t that religious people thrust upon us. We're not asking for the currency to read "we don't believe in God." We're not trying to get the pledge to say "without God." We just want everything to be religiously neutral.
Let God take care of himself.
If everybody was an atheist, nobody would talk about it. But we (in the U.S.) live in a country that is led by religious fanatics, where an "out" atheist could never be elected president, where something like 50% of the country doesn't believe in evolution. The boy scouts don't allow atheists as members. The most church-going Americans supported a war that was triggered in part by religious-based terrorism. A majority of Americans believe that they have the right to decide that two consenting adults can't marry each other because they're of the same sex.
Think about the Pledge. Like the "in God we trust," it's not a particularly important issue. But have you ever really thought about what it means to have citizens of a country pledge their allegiance to a nation "under God?" What kind of theocracy are we running here?
Think of our outspokenness as a response to all of the bulls--t that religious people thrust upon us. We're not asking for the currency to read "we don't believe in God." We're not trying to get the pledge to say "without God." We just want everything to be religiously neutral.
Let God take care of himself.
But we (in the U.S.) live in a country that is led by religious fanatics
How do you figure?
The most church-going Americans supported a war that was triggered in part by religious-based terrorism.
Why is that a problem? Because people go to church they can't support a war against religious extremism?
A majority of Americans believe that they have the right to decide that two consenting adults can't marry each other because they're of the same sex.
Right, and many of those Americans believe that for secular reasons.
But have you ever really thought about what it means to have citizens of a country pledge their allegiance to a nation "under God?" What kind of theocracy are we running here?
Why does the pledge containing under G-d have to do with theocracy? This country is no theocracy.
How do you figure?
The most church-going Americans supported a war that was triggered in part by religious-based terrorism.
Why is that a problem? Because people go to church they can't support a war against religious extremism?
A majority of Americans believe that they have the right to decide that two consenting adults can't marry each other because they're of the same sex.
Right, and many of those Americans believe that for secular reasons.
But have you ever really thought about what it means to have citizens of a country pledge their allegiance to a nation "under God?" What kind of theocracy are we running here?
Why does the pledge containing under G-d have to do with theocracy? This country is no theocracy.
The boy scouts don't allow atheists as members.
And the Communist Party doesn't allow Republicans.
And the Communist Party doesn't allow Republicans.
But we (in the U.S.) live in a country that is led by religious fanatics
How do you figure?
Bush is a religious fanatic. He leads the country. Ashcroft had himself annointed with oil when he was elected governer in order to replicate the practice of "the ancient kings of Israel, David and Saul." (From his autobiography.)
Why is that a problem? Because people go to church they can't support a war against religious extremism?
Of course not. Some of us secular folks believe that they support the war in part because of their religiosity. Obviously, reasonable people may disagree, but I think that religion has played a contributing factor to this war as well as others.
A majority of Americans believe that they have the right to decide that two consenting adults can't marry each other because they're of the same sex.
Right, and many of those Americans believe that for secular reasons.
I highly doubt that.
Why does the pledge containing under G-d have to do with theocracy? This country is no theocracy.
Then why was "under G-d" added to the pledge?
And the Communist Party doesn't allow Republicans.
You don't see a difference here? The boy scouts' policy is equivalent to the girl scouts not allowing Jews, not to one political party not allowing members of another political party.
How do you figure?
Bush is a religious fanatic. He leads the country. Ashcroft had himself annointed with oil when he was elected governer in order to replicate the practice of "the ancient kings of Israel, David and Saul." (From his autobiography.)
Why is that a problem? Because people go to church they can't support a war against religious extremism?
Of course not. Some of us secular folks believe that they support the war in part because of their religiosity. Obviously, reasonable people may disagree, but I think that religion has played a contributing factor to this war as well as others.
A majority of Americans believe that they have the right to decide that two consenting adults can't marry each other because they're of the same sex.
Right, and many of those Americans believe that for secular reasons.
I highly doubt that.
Why does the pledge containing under G-d have to do with theocracy? This country is no theocracy.
Then why was "under G-d" added to the pledge?
And the Communist Party doesn't allow Republicans.
You don't see a difference here? The boy scouts' policy is equivalent to the girl scouts not allowing Jews, not to one political party not allowing members of another political party.
Bush is a religious fanatic. He leads the country. Ashcroft had himself annointed with oil when he was elected governer in order to replicate the practice of "the ancient kings of Israel, David and Saul." (From his autobiography.)
I don't agree that Bush is a fanatic and maybe we disagree on what make someone a fanatic. But even if he is, so? Are his policies based on his religion?
Of course not. Some of us secular folks believe that they support the war in part because of their religiosity. Obviously, reasonable people may disagree, but I think that religion has played a contributing factor to this war as well as others.
I'm sure some do. So?
A majority of Americans believe that they have the right to decide that two consenting adults can't marry each other because they're of the same sex.
Right, and many of those Americans believe that for secular reasons.
I highly doubt that.
OK, but you'd be wrong. Most of the reasons against legalizing SSM are not religion-based.
Why does the pledge containing under G-d have to do with theocracy? This country is no theocracy.
Then why was "under G-d" added to the pledge?
To distinguish us from the Communists. What does that have to do with theocracy?
I don't understand your overall argument. It seems you are contending, if I understand correctly, that since the country is religious that atheists must spend their time fighting against religion in the public sphere. Why?
I don't agree that Bush is a fanatic and maybe we disagree on what make someone a fanatic. But even if he is, so? Are his policies based on his religion?
Of course not. Some of us secular folks believe that they support the war in part because of their religiosity. Obviously, reasonable people may disagree, but I think that religion has played a contributing factor to this war as well as others.
I'm sure some do. So?
A majority of Americans believe that they have the right to decide that two consenting adults can't marry each other because they're of the same sex.
Right, and many of those Americans believe that for secular reasons.
I highly doubt that.
OK, but you'd be wrong. Most of the reasons against legalizing SSM are not religion-based.
Why does the pledge containing under G-d have to do with theocracy? This country is no theocracy.
Then why was "under G-d" added to the pledge?
To distinguish us from the Communists. What does that have to do with theocracy?
I don't understand your overall argument. It seems you are contending, if I understand correctly, that since the country is religious that atheists must spend their time fighting against religion in the public sphere. Why?
Are his policies based on his religion?
Some of them are. Stem-cell research, faith-based initiatives, the threatened anti-gay marriage amendment.
OK, but you'd be wrong. Most of the reasons against legalizing SSM are not religion-based.
This is believed primarily by people who are religious. Hardly any secular Americans oppose SSM.
Then why was "under G-d" added to the pledge?
To distinguish us from the Communists. What does that have to do with theocracy?
What does G-d have to do with Communism? The Communists in question were atheists? So? That doesn't mean that all non-Communists believe in G-d. Why not "one nation, under capitalism?"
I don't understand your overall argument. It seems you are contending, if I understand correctly, that since the country is religious that atheists must spend their time fighting against religion in the public sphere.
It's not that we must; it's that we believe that a) the increasing role of religion in American politics (and education!) is dangerous, and b) that Christians are making many non-Christians feel less welcome in their own country.
Some of them are. Stem-cell research, faith-based initiatives, the threatened anti-gay marriage amendment.
OK, but you'd be wrong. Most of the reasons against legalizing SSM are not religion-based.
This is believed primarily by people who are religious. Hardly any secular Americans oppose SSM.
Then why was "under G-d" added to the pledge?
To distinguish us from the Communists. What does that have to do with theocracy?
What does G-d have to do with Communism? The Communists in question were atheists? So? That doesn't mean that all non-Communists believe in G-d. Why not "one nation, under capitalism?"
I don't understand your overall argument. It seems you are contending, if I understand correctly, that since the country is religious that atheists must spend their time fighting against religion in the public sphere.
It's not that we must; it's that we believe that a) the increasing role of religion in American politics (and education!) is dangerous, and b) that Christians are making many non-Christians feel less welcome in their own country.
This brings up an old debate: Why can't people's religious views help form their [political] beliefs? I have NEVER heard a good reason for this. The Establishment Clause is an atrocious reason, so please don't start with that.
I read a good article that was adressed to an atheist and the author said how do you explain the miracle of Jewish survival? And said that for 2000 yrs. the Jews have been persecuted and he gave many examples including the holocust and several arab countries attacking Israel and Israel won. And he asked how is it possible that after so many persecutions, we are still hear? And said that it's because there is Someone protecting us.
I mean here
Two points:
First, Jewish Atheist is advancing an argument I strongly disagree with. Namely, any viewpoint which is informed by religion is invalid.
Even within a seperation of church and state, it does not mean that religion is nonexistent. Otherwise, the only valid viewpoint is that of the secularist. The religionist is always wrong, or always shut out of public debate. And if the religionists viewpoint is wrong, is not allowed expression through policy decisions of public officials, what of freedom to practice religion?
Think about it, no one with a religious viewpoint, or who has exercised a religious viewpoint, is able to hold public office. Bush is a fanatic. Ashcroft too. So I ask, is there a single person, of religious orientation, who is acceptable to hold public office, or to advance a policy? And don't give me the line promulgated by some that their religion has view X but they can't impose it on others. Everyone imposes their views on those who disagree, whenever they vote, introduce a bill, or give a policy speech. That the origin of the view is based in religion (or anti-religion religion) is irrelevant.
That doesn't mean we don't or shouldn't give more scrutiny to public policies which seem to be religious policies (as opposed to policies informed by religious worldviews), but it doesn't mean that every policy which coincides with a religious view is a religious policy being forced down the throats of non-believers
First, Jewish Atheist is advancing an argument I strongly disagree with. Namely, any viewpoint which is informed by religion is invalid.
Even within a seperation of church and state, it does not mean that religion is nonexistent. Otherwise, the only valid viewpoint is that of the secularist. The religionist is always wrong, or always shut out of public debate. And if the religionists viewpoint is wrong, is not allowed expression through policy decisions of public officials, what of freedom to practice religion?
Think about it, no one with a religious viewpoint, or who has exercised a religious viewpoint, is able to hold public office. Bush is a fanatic. Ashcroft too. So I ask, is there a single person, of religious orientation, who is acceptable to hold public office, or to advance a policy? And don't give me the line promulgated by some that their religion has view X but they can't impose it on others. Everyone imposes their views on those who disagree, whenever they vote, introduce a bill, or give a policy speech. That the origin of the view is based in religion (or anti-religion religion) is irrelevant.
That doesn't mean we don't or shouldn't give more scrutiny to public policies which seem to be religious policies (as opposed to policies informed by religious worldviews), but it doesn't mean that every policy which coincides with a religious view is a religious policy being forced down the throats of non-believers
Ok, second point, this is aimed at CWY:
But why label yourself an atheist? Is disproving God that important to you? Does it give your life meaning and purpose?
Let's turn the question on you. Do you call yourself religious just because proving God is that important to you?
I should think not, because you probably can't *prove* God. If you do have a proof, please post it. Likewise, an atheist isn't someone who has found a mathematical formula disproving God, rather it is someone who believes that God doesn't exist, just like you believe God does exist.
Agnostics aren't just apathetic, confused or uncaring. They could be people who, having looked at all of the information, don't see a clear answer, intuitively or otherwise. When a scientist is unable to decide between two competing theories, that doesn't make him apathetic, confused, or uncaring about science. It means, based on the available information there is no clear answer.
But, for purposes of argument, lets go with your assumption, and again, put the question to you;
What exactly drives a man to make it his life’s goal to remove all traces of religion from the public square?
Someone who believes in God and really cares for his fellow man, who believes that atheists will burn for eternity...do you understand why they would proselytize? Let's be honest, Christians who believe Jews will burn...it makes sense for them to try and "save" us. You're motivated by the sense that you're right, and others are misguided.
Likewise an atheist. If you believe God doesn't exist, and if you care for your fellow person, do you want them living a life where they are enslaved? Worshipping some non-existent being, adhering to a code of misguided ethics thousands of years old? Please. Of course, if you're coldhearted, then I guess its ok.
In both cases, humility enters the picture. We think we're right (rarely do people act thinking they are wrong and unjustified), but we're not positive. Since we're not positive, we let others live their way, and if discussion on topics arise, so be it. There's also an added element that we don't want people converting us, so we don't try and convert others (both in religious and other spheres).
I think I've said enough for now. I feel like I've upset both sides, a good way to get hit by traffic in both directions
But why label yourself an atheist? Is disproving God that important to you? Does it give your life meaning and purpose?
Let's turn the question on you. Do you call yourself religious just because proving God is that important to you?
I should think not, because you probably can't *prove* God. If you do have a proof, please post it. Likewise, an atheist isn't someone who has found a mathematical formula disproving God, rather it is someone who believes that God doesn't exist, just like you believe God does exist.
Agnostics aren't just apathetic, confused or uncaring. They could be people who, having looked at all of the information, don't see a clear answer, intuitively or otherwise. When a scientist is unable to decide between two competing theories, that doesn't make him apathetic, confused, or uncaring about science. It means, based on the available information there is no clear answer.
But, for purposes of argument, lets go with your assumption, and again, put the question to you;
What exactly drives a man to make it his life’s goal to remove all traces of religion from the public square?
Someone who believes in God and really cares for his fellow man, who believes that atheists will burn for eternity...do you understand why they would proselytize? Let's be honest, Christians who believe Jews will burn...it makes sense for them to try and "save" us. You're motivated by the sense that you're right, and others are misguided.
Likewise an atheist. If you believe God doesn't exist, and if you care for your fellow person, do you want them living a life where they are enslaved? Worshipping some non-existent being, adhering to a code of misguided ethics thousands of years old? Please. Of course, if you're coldhearted, then I guess its ok.
In both cases, humility enters the picture. We think we're right (rarely do people act thinking they are wrong and unjustified), but we're not positive. Since we're not positive, we let others live their way, and if discussion on topics arise, so be it. There's also an added element that we don't want people converting us, so we don't try and convert others (both in religious and other spheres).
I think I've said enough for now. I feel like I've upset both sides, a good way to get hit by traffic in both directions
