Just to clarify, the argument that I asserted in our fervent debate in class was an atheistic position not an anti-theistic position. There is a difference, that difference primarily being the fact that the word atheist simply means one who lacks belief; which is a neutral position reflected by my advocation of government mandated activities being sterilized from religious influence and practice. Because this is a staunchly constitutional position I don't understand how the bulk of the class could so vehemently disagree with me. Unless you have problems with the provision in the first amendment for the separation of church and state there is really no authoritative basis for a counter argument against my position other than the fact that I may have offended your personal sensibilities.
I am an anti-theist as well but I keep that perspective compartmentalized from my beliefs about the necessity of a secular government which are based on an understanding of the dangers created by a government that allows for an atmosphere of religious contention in our public schools. Our deistic founding fathers, who authored the constitution, understood that danger as well; which is precisely why they made provisions in our founding document to prevent this from occurring.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1st Amendment:
ReplyDeleteCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It is not the fact that we disagree with the 1st Amendment. I highly agree and will defend it to the end. You are right about the clause of Seperation of Church and State. But this clause only goes re-enforce the idea that government establishments cannot fund, donate, or express opinion toward a religious establishment. It has also been ruled that Government shall not display any religious symbols (and you could argue this icludes our monetary system). This clause does not in any way prohibit individuals from expressing their religious beliefs.
Your argument fails to show where government is showing favortism towards a religious group by allowing religious garb. It may offend you only because you know what it means. But if you had no idea what someones dress symbolized, you wouldn't be offended. The government is not the one educating the public on religious symbols. So, until you can prove favoritism towards one religious group, the wall of seperation between Church and State still exists.
Another mode of thought: If the US was to ban religious garb, would it not show favortism to your beliefs and what offends you? Atheism/Antitheism is not a "religion" in it own self, but it is a set of beliefs that your world revolves around. So if the courts ruled in your favor, that seperation would be gone.
If you still dont like it, move to North Korea, or some other country. You sure do seem to hate everything about the US. I think you would do better somewhere else. But if that isnt what you want, learn to deal with our land and the laws. Laws which our highest courts have ruled upon.
Its amazing how far we've come in the interpretation of the constitution. Here is an excerpt from an old peace treaty:
ReplyDeleteFEBRUARY 2, 1848, the U.S. Congress ratified the peace treaty which ended the Mexican War.
In exchange for 15 million dollars the territories of California, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado and Wyoming, were brought into the Union.
The treaty stated:
"In the Name of Almighty God-
the United States and the United Mexican States animated by a sincere desire to put an end to the calamities of the war....have, under the protection of Almighty God, the Author of Peace, arranged, agreed upon, and signed the following Treaty of Peace."
The Treaty continued:
"If (which is not to be expected, and which God forbid) war should unhappily break out between the two republics, they do now...solemnly pledge themselves to each other and to the world to observe the following rules...
All churches, hospitals, schools, colleges, libraries, and other establishments for charitable and beneficent purposes, shall be respected, and all persons connected with the same protected in the discharge of their duties, and the pursuit of their vocations."
The Treaty concluded:
"Done at the city of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the 2nd day of February, in the year of the Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty-eight."
My argument was never hinged upon the idea that allowance of religious dress in public schools was the government showing favoritism towards one religion over another. Instead my argument was hinged upon the fact that since K-12 attendance is compulsory it should be a neutral religion free zone where students are free to learn without being made to feel uncomfortable by forcible exposure to the religious practices of others. Also this fallacious notion that the prohibition of religious practice in schools would be showing favoritism towards "atheism" is just plain silly. There is no "set of beliefs" which corresponds to atheism because atheism is simply a lack of belief in a deity.
ReplyDeleteSince the government is prohibited from making laws which respect the establishment of religion, it position is necessarily atheistic. As it is not motivated by a deference of judgment to some divine entity.
And this antiquated treaty just highlights the journey that the US has made from being a backwards superstitious nation to a nation which embraces socially progressive values which eliminates the need for baseless religious language in our treaties.
If K-12 attendance is compulsory, then why should people be forced to let go of their culture? I think your argument IS anti-theistic. It states in the Constitution, as my friend pointed out, that government should not do anything that impedes anyone from practicing their religion. That's why I still think your argument is flawed.
ReplyDelete"There is no "set of beliefs" which corresponds to atheism because atheism is simply a lack of belief in a deity."
ReplyDeleteAs a whole, atheist do not share a set of beliefs, but to say you do not have your own is imposible. What you are telling me is that uou don't believe in anything at all; evidently, you have no goals, no ideals, and no beliefs whatsoever. Do you believe ib evolution? Do you believe in natural selection? Even though facts point towards these things, it is still just a theory. But if you "believe" in this, then this is your "world view."
Also, found this mission statement on www.atheist.org It states a set of ideas that to me, sounds like a set of beliefs.
"Your petitioners are Atheists, and they define their lifestyle as follows. An Atheist loves himself and his fellow man instead of a god. An Atheist accepts that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth – for all men together to enjoy. An Atheist accepts that he can get no help through prayer, but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and to enjoy it. An Atheist accepts that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help lead to a life of fulfillment."
Those are your beliefs, are they not?
No actually those aren't my beliefs, the only cohesive qualifications for classification as an atheist is lack of belief in a deity. The rest is up for the individual to determine. There is a fundamental difference between a shared set of beliefs and a lack of belief.
ReplyDeleteNovalis is right. Atheists do not share any universal beliefs except the lack of belief in a God.
ReplyDeleteJoey to address your previous point, I understand that government should avoid explicitly forbidding the practice of a religion. But it has been upheld by the supreme court that dress codes implemented by school boards were constitutional because they are geared towards maintaining an educational climate free from the distraction caused by socioeconomic stratification. I am simply positing that allowing student to wear religious dress can have the same negative effects as allowing students to wear obscene or gang related clothing because opposing views about religion, when literally worn on the sleeve, can be just as offensive as a t-shirt depicting violence or drug use. K-12 compulsory schooling is no place to be having these types of interactions.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it is appropriate to compare youth gangs with organized religion. Government is supposed to keep order and therefor banning youth gang clothing from school is important. But government is not supposed to persecute religion or religious dresses. I think it is quite clear the effects of religious clothing are in no way similar to the effects of wearing gang related clothing.
ReplyDeleteNot true I find religious dress, especially in the context of Muslims in the post 9-11 world , to be quite terrifying. Who knows what kind of explosives are being hid under those burkas. I jest, obviously, but on a serious note the religious grouping of students which is prompted by religious clothing can have the same alienating effects of gang related clothing, especially if the charter for those gangs orders you to execute infidels.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, respectfully, You have no sounded so ignorant.
ReplyDelete