Re: ESTABLISHING THE RELIGION OF ATHEISM

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 16:20:18 GMT, BlackWater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 22:46:42 GMT, BlackWater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>'A-theism' is obviously not a 'religion' in any
>>>of the usual meanings. However, in the POLITICAL 
>>>arena, it has taken on much of the "look & feel"
>>>of one religion trying to displace its competitors.
>>>It's not entirely unfair to claim that there's an
>>>attempt to "establish" atheism. 
>>
>>Then you should have no problem providing an example.
>
>   Every time someone feels inhibited about expressing
>   their religious convictions in a public forum. Their
>   money went into that forum, their fates are decided
>   there. The people the representatives are representing
>   are religious. How DARE you tell 'em they can't express
>   their religious beliefs in such places ? 

The US Constitution, in order to protect everyone's religious freedom,
forbids an official in his/her official capacity from promoting any
religion or religious practice.


>
>>>The solution ? SLACK ! Don't be so eager to blot
>>>out the religionists. Put up with a little discrete
>>>prayer and such in the halls of taxpayer heaven.
>>>The republic won't crumble nor will idiot teens
>>>be instantly brainwashed. Better that religionists
>>>fade from the public forum because their ideas are
>>>less and less supportable than to give the impression
>>>that they're being BANNED or EXTERMINATED. That
>>>will only make people cling more tightly to such
>>>beliefs ... and make them more willing to become
>>>marytrs for the faith. We've seen where THAT leads ...
>>>
>>>The best thing for athiests was when religious
>>>expression in public institutions and such was
>>>so ordinary, bland and ubiquitous that nobody
>>>even listened anymore. Make a big deal about
>>>it and everybodys knees jerk as they run to
>>>take sides. Then, all attempts at reason and
>>>persuasion are for naught. 
>>
>>Officially supported religion is not just opposed by atheists.  It is
>>a violation of everyone's religious freedom and has often been opposed
>>in court by theists.
>

>   That's selfishness, not any higher principle. They
>   just don't want the State to do anything which might
>   disempower THEIR religion. 

How can the state "disempower" their religion by not promoting any
religion?

>
>>None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
>>"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
>

>   Even 'atheism' is a religious philosophy - it simply
>   posits that there are no 'supernatural' forces or
>   entities. Zero is still a number dontchaknow ...

You are still wrong.  Atheism is merely lack of a belief in a deity.
It posits nothing.


>
>   The problem is that purging every trace of religion
>   from the govt apparatus is now persued with such
>   fanatical energy and zeal that the EXPERIENCE is
>   little different than olde-tyme religious zealots
>   purging the heretics. It does the same damage - to
>   individuals and to the idea of free expression. 
>   Even a good idea, taken to excess, can become a
>   bad thing. 
>
>   Worst of all, it's really an excercise in "Let's
>   pretend". Do you think you're purging religion
>   from the State just because the officials are
>   not allowed to SPEAK it ? It's there, affecting
>   all decisions and policies, hidden just below
>   the surface. It's dogmas and tenets are still
>   being promoted - just through actions rather
>   than words. The State isn't atheistic because
>   the people who COMPRISE the State aren't
>   atheistic. The more you try to silence them, the
>   more they'll just sneak around you - and the
>   more attractive the official naughtiness of 
>   religion will become. 


The court cases are not trying to make the state atheistic.  That is
absurd.  

>
>   If you want an American Taliban ... just keep
>   up the crusade the way you're doing it now. 
>
>   This needs to be played differently. Give the
>   religionists some slack - just not enough rope
>   to hang you with. The whole thing needs to 
>   become a non-issue again, boring. THEN we can
>   start sneaking in doubts about 'supernaturalism'
>   once again without meeting knee-jerk resistance.
>   It can become a discussion, instead of the
>   shouting-match we see today. 

You seem to be worrying about some non-existent fight.  Keeping
government neutral in religious matters is not an atheist fight.  It
is in the interest of all who support religious freedom, and it is the
law of the land.


None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.