Replies

Well. You argued that atheists did not kill most people percentage-wise. I gave you evidence that atheists historicaly are the worst butchers of all absolutely and relatively. You said "And..."??? Next, I asked for more undrestanding for the religious expression of Christians, the religion that made us what we are. I did it the way you like it - giving historic arguments and asking for understanding, not by invoking any inherent rights. You said that "The US government would then endorse a specific religion. Sorry, no." So??? Looks like you think of this endorsement thing as some kind of heresy (hint, hint)? But it is NOT. The Gov is prohibited from making a law that establishes a religion or forbids religious expression. Your reasons are touchy-feely... Religion for us is not some little game we play for fun, it 's a most serious matter. People DO have the right to have religion in their kid's education if they pay taxes. Taxes that are then given to schools by the Gov. It's their own money! I would not mind if the Gov drops entirely this education thing. But many atheists want it - atheistic, with other people's money. O, the hypocracy.

BTW, if we tried to remove from the pledge everything that discomforts someone there would be just... silence.

You argued that atheists did not kill most people percentage-wise.

I didn't play the percentages game with atheists. I'm just contesting the notion that Stalin was as brutal as he was specifically because he lacked belief in gods.

I gave you evidence that atheists historicaly are the worst butchers of all absolutely and relatively.

No, you didn't. Your only example has been Stalin. That's a very small sample size, and you've yet to demonstrate a connection between his atheism and his brutality. As I said, it's not hard for a theist to invent justifications for similar actions. True, the God that you believe exists wouldn't allow it, but the one that you worship is not the only god construct out there.

Looks like you think of this endorsement thing as some kind of heresy (hint, hint)? But it is NOT. The Gov is prohibited from making a law that establishes a religion or forbids religious expression.

I would argue that endorsing the Lord's Prayer is an establishment of religion.

Religion for us is not some little game we play for fun, it 's a most serious matter.

I never claimed that it wasn't. Of course, I wonder why you wouldn want the government involved in something so sacred...

People DO have the right to have religion in their kid's education if they pay taxes.

I fail to see the logic in justifying tax-supported religious education..

Taxes that are then given to schools by the Gov. It's their own money!

So taxpaying Muslims therefore have a right to tax-funded Islamic religious education for their children. Okay.

I would not mind if the Gov drops entirely this education thing.

I'm not entirely opposed to that either.

But many atheists want it - atheistic, with other people's money. O, the hypocracy.

Huh? Atheistic what?

BTW, if we tried to remove from the pledge everything that discomforts someone there would be just... silence.

My objection is not based upon "discomfort", it is based upon government entanglement with religion. Not everyone who opposes "under God" in the pledge is an atheist, just like not everyone who opposed teacher-led school prayer was an atheist.