McDuffie, how do you define belief system? It may be a pretty simple system, but it is what it is. If atheism can't possibly be a belief system, than what is it?
It doesn't really matter. Atheism as a religion is still an irrelevant detail. There are many christians who would be just fine with the removal of god from the pledge.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html
I thought this article might be relevant. It's important for people to understand the fundamental reasoning beind the oft repeated "separation of church and state" rhetoric.
I personally wore a cross to school and I prayed before meals at school as well from K-12. It never bothers me when my friends would wear a yamaka or fast for Ramadan. This guy is a religous bigot. It's pretty simple.
|
So what if it doesn't bother you? It bothers this guy, and he's using all of his legal options to try and do something about it. That's how america works, regardless of any article you can post claiming that america owes its soul to the bible. I read the rest of that site and if you'll pardon my opinion, it seems like a bunch of bullshit. They reek of the "clarity" that could only come from being sure beyond any doubt that anyone who doesn't agree with them word for word is going straight to hell. And you call this atheist a bigot. I know plenty of christians who would support that removal of the mention of god from the pledge and money, does that make them bigots too?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pinoychink790
Thank you cyrnel. You just helped proved my point. You seem to be the only person who understands what my point is. "religion" isn't limited to only one definition. It can have many different possible definitions. Therefore atheism can be considered a religion, because you can apply religion to any kind of belief structure you want.
|
Why stop there? My method of determining ideal parking spots at local shopping establishments? Religion, i want tax breaks. My opinion as to what makes a good cup of coffee? Religion, i want a shout-out in the pledge. I understand what you're saying, but that's a can of worms.
It reminds me of when the logging industry tried to sue the forest service for being the mouthpiece of the "religion" of "deep ecology" otherwise known as environmentalism.
http://www.courttv.com/archive/natio...trees_ctv.html
It got thrown out.
http://www.fguardians.org/news/n000208.html
Because:
Quote:
|
``This is as illogical as saying that if a tall man advocates a position, and the government takes a position in accord with the tall man's wishes, it therefore follows that the government has necessarily established the views of tall men,'' U.S. District Judge James Rosenbaum wrote in the 21-page ruling.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
This is about being exposed to religions. His daughter was not forced to say "under God", she was exposed to other people saying it. Just like we are all exposed to religion. Whenever you see someone make the sign of the cross - forehead,down to the chest, side to side - we are exposed. Are people so weak that they cannot even be exposed to religion without being troubled to the point of lawsuit?
The puritanical people left England because they were not allowed to worship the way they wanted to. England went so far as forbidding worship in private homes. This was the government trying to control where religion is okay or not okay. The same is the case here. If you are bothered by my praying or saying the word God, that's just too bad. No where in the Constisution does it say "You cannot speak of religion if it bugs people".
This is an argument based on a misunderstanding, and even without the misunderstanding, it still doesn't make sense. "Seperation of chusch and state" (as I stated above in my post that was aparently too long for some to read) is actually "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...", which is something completly different. It was a rule of law to prevent a theocracy. It was not to prevent little Miss Newdow from hearing the words "under God" in her classroom. She and her father will just have to deal with living in a diverse world.
|
It seems to me that you think that since no one is forcing anyone to say "under god" when they recite the pledge, that this shouldn't be a big deal. Not saying it is only a minor inconvenience, right? You know that not having it in there would only be a minor inconvenience too, right? You do know that many religions don't have one god and would therefore be excluded from the pledge as it is written? I think if i'm reading you right, you're answer to this complaint, and any similar one, is a resounding "quit whining, its not a big deal". To which i might simply request that you follow your own advice.
What the constitution says and how it is interpreted by the courts can be two different things. Precedent trumps ascribed founding father intent seven days a week. Precedent is that there is a seperation of church and state- the government is not allowed to officially endorse certain religions over others. This is exactly what a monotheist pledge does.
Incidentally, this isn't about telling you who or where you can and can't worship, this is about not allowing goverment endorsement of certain religions over other religions.