What Atheists Want

The Washington Post ^ | Chris Mooney

[TXLibertarian]

Excerpted from a longer op-ed. Author discusses the danger of legal proselytizing by a few firebrand secularists. Worth a read, IMHO.

What Atheists Want

By Chris Mooney

....

Unfortunately, in my experience, the U.S. atheist and secularist communities contain a number of activists who are inclined to be combative and in some cases feel positively zestful about offending the religious. Madalyn Murray O'Hair, easily America's most famous atheist firebrand, wasn't dubbed "the most hated woman in America" for nothing. Despite her landmark 1963 Supreme Court victory in a case concerning the constitutionality of school prayer, O'Hair's pugilistic and insulting public persona hurt atheists a great deal in the long run. A head-on attack on the pledge seems to epitomize the confrontational O'Hair strategy.

....

[singsong]

"Atheists" do not attack Christianity especially. Some do, I suppose. Most atheists are simply interested in living their lives, god-free.

Therein lies the problem, You deny the right of other people to practice their religion on public places although NOBODY denies your the right NOT to practice. This is neither patriotic nor democratic. If you were a patriot you would be fighting for the right of your countrymen to practice their religion.

[gcruse]

Actually you're just renting yourself, because one day you're gonna get evicted.

I own my home and the land it sits on.  When I die,
it will be sold and the money given my heir.  Until
that time, I cannot be said to be renting inasmuch
as I pay no rent.  Your point?

[Salman]

Atheism as Vegetarianism? Silly.

Here's an old joke for you:

An atheist, a Christian, and Jew are friends and they all get the news that the ice caps are melting and we're all going to drown within one year.

The atheist says, I'm going to get together with my atheist pals and have a big party before we all go.

The Christian says, I'm going to fast an pray and get my soul read for judgement.

The Jew says, I'm going to figure out a way to live under water!

:)

[charmtrap]

Therein lies the problem, You deny the right of other people to practice their religion on public places although NOBODY denies your the right NOT to practice. This is neither patriotic nor democratic. If you were a patriot you would be fighting for the right of your countrymen to practice their religion.

A non-action is hardly the same as an action whether in physics or law. And no-one (no-one I've ever heard anyway)questions your right to practice your religion publicly. That's called a straw man, and it don't fly.

And questioning someone's patriotism? I guess Samuel Johnson was right...

[Graybeard58]

"although NOBODY denies your the right NOT to practice"

...Yeh! but are you denying me my right not to not practice?

[Graybeard58]

"although NOBODY denies your the right NOT to practice"

...Yeh! but are you denying me my right not to not practice?


...There's a techinical term for this kind of reasoning, I think it's called "Wacky"

[singsong]

And no-one (no-one I've ever heard anyway)questions your right to practice your religion publicly. That's called a straw man, and it don't fly.

Do you support the pledge? School prayer? How about the Ten Commandments monument? The list is growing fast... It's not a straw man, you are simply refusing to acknowledge the problem.

[xm177e2]

Why would you "love for more religious people to become atheists"?

Because I have a high opinion of myself? </kidding>

[charmtrap]

Do you support the pledge?

Sure, as long its completely voluntary. I don't support anyone being forced to say anything. Down that road lies totalitarianism.

If you mean, do I support the pledge having the words 'under god', no I don't. As I said before, I think tying god-belief to allegiance sets a bad precedent. Many people love their country but lack a belief in gods. I think the two ideas should be separate.

School prayer?

Praying in school is completely legal. School-sponsored prayer is not, and should not be.

How about the Ten Commandments monument?

If you mean Judge Moore's little joke, no. He made it perfectly clear that that monument was put there for a religious purpose. Christians should be embarassed by people like Moore. He's making you look bad.

[singsong]

...Yeh! but are you denying me my right not to not practice? ...There's a techinical term for this kind of reasoning, I think it's called "Wacky"

Don't blame your inability to comprehend on me. I'll try again though - anobody is suing atheists because they don't acknowledge God. But the atheists sue those who practice around them, because they are offended by it. I've already mentioned examples. This is why atheists are considered arrogant.

BTW, I simply can't explain it easier than that.

[Cultural Jihad]

A person has to be a theist in order to believe in democracy as practiced in the United States. Atheists have a hard time coming up with a convincing argument for human rights.

[M Kehoe]

While I would love for more religious people to become atheists,...

What if your position is wrong?

5.56mm

[singsong]

Sure, as long its completely voluntary. I don't support anyone being forced to say anything. Down that road lies totalitarianism.

There is no "forcing" envolved. Those who don't want to do it have the option not to. But now, no teacher can lead the students in reciting the pledge. I remind you that to recite in a group is as fundamental right as individually. The same goes for prayer. All of this is easily resolved in principle - the "opt out" principle. Instead, we have court-created prohibition. Court-created law - which is in itself unconstitutional.

[Ronin]

Sorry, but you can't be neither an atheist nor theist. You either believe in a deity, or you don't.

Who made that rule?

I have no idea whether God exists or not. The universe obviously does, but science has not provided any ultimate answers that I can accept, so I refuse to rule out divine providence in some form. On the other hand, I am disinclined to believe that any human organization has a full lock on what is "TRUTH" either.

I simply don't know. And, not knowing, I refuse to decide one way or another. That may change in the future, but that is how I feel now.

[reg45]

O'Hair is NOT a atheist.

At this point in time she knows the truth better than either of us do.

[MWS]

Don't blame your inability to comprehend on me. I'll try again though - anobody is suing atheists because they don't acknowledge God. But the atheists sue those who practice around them, because they are offended by it. I've already mentioned examples. This is why atheists are considered arrogant.

A better example is the fact that there were laws in the past in some places that made atheism criminal. The trial of Socrates comes to mind, where one of the accusations levied against him was atheism (which, if I am not mistaken, had a punishment of death attached to it). That certainly would have been the denial of one's right not to believe...

[Graybeard58]

"BTW, I simply can't explain it easier than that"


...It's time for you to give it up then because for you to say that you don't deny someones right to not do a particular thing says absolutely nothing. It's simply meaningless.

[charmtrap]

There is no "forcing" envolved. Those who don't want to do it have the option not to. But now, no teacher can lead the students in reciting the pledge. I remind you that to recite in a group is as fundamental right as individually.

What's your point? A public-school teacher is a government actor. A government actor leading a pledge that implies god-belief is wrong, on principle.

Try to understand this point: not everyone believes in your god! Try replacing God in the 'Under God' with Allah, and tell me if you approve.

All of this is easily resolved in principle - the "opt out" principle.

That's a good principle. There's also the principle of 'captive audience'. To date, captive audience has won.

Court-created law - which is in itself unconstitutional.

I'm not even going to address this one. 'Court-created law' is a conservative boogeyman. I don't believe in the boogeyman either.

[reg45]

Try replacing God in the 'Under God' with Allah

Sounds like a perfectly good Arabic translation to me. After all "Allah" means "The One God".