A piece on Atheists

[huskernut]

Nerds.

At least they're funny nerds. That counts for something.

[RedPhoenix]

At least they're funny nerds. That counts for something.

Totally!

[ColoREDo]

I get your point as well but, being a true geek, I think it can be explained in Database terms. The "default" is a Null value. In other words it has nothing there. As time passes it can be a Zero Byte Integer or an actual value, and it can go back and forth, but whether there is belief or no belief there is "something" there. Choice probably wasn't the best term.

Peace.

I ummm....what?

[SealBeachHusker]

I personally believe that a large number of Athiests would prefer that there was no religion on this planet. I've seen a lot of Athiest blame religion for many of the worlds ills while ignoring the good that religion has done. Not to mention the great lengths some go through to disprove and mock religion. If you choose not to believe, that's your issue.

Without a doubt there are atheists out there that would like religion wiped from the face of the earth. Just as there are some Christians who think that their God hates homosexuals. Opinions vary on all sorts of things in every group.

I meant default in terms of how the constitution is applied. The constitution , IMO, meant to avoid a state sponsored religion and allow all the freedom to believe and worship as you please...or not. Today's atheist groups (differentiating from all atheists here) seem to interpret the constitution as preferring the absence of all religion. The government allows and acknowledges all other aspects of culture...age, sex, ethnicity, race, etc...yet any acknowledgement of faith is met to screams of "preference" by atheist groups. As if the default of the country should be the absence of all religion or faith.

[BasilLongfellow]

I meant default in terms of how the constitution is applied. The constitution , IMO, meant to avoid a state sponsored religion and allow all the freedom to believe and worship as you please...or not. Today's atheist groups (differentiating from all atheists here) seem to interpret the constitution as preferring the absence of all religion. The government allows and acknowledges all other aspects of culture...age, sex, ethnicity, race, etc...yet any acknowledgement of faith is met to screams of "preference" by atheist groups. As if the default of the country should be the absence of all religion or faith.

My understanding of the Bill of Rights is that citizens have a freedom of choice with respect to religion, but no freedom from religion.

[Red_in_Blue_Land]

My understanding of the Bill of Rights is that citizens have a freedom of choice with respect to religion, but no freedom from religion.

Can you explain your understanding?

[BasilLongfellow]

Can you explain your understanding?

I can only give a cursory explanation. I'm not a Constitutional law attorney and outside of due process, I don't have a whole lot of depth of knowledge. Essentially, my understanding is based upon a textual argument encompassed within the greater 18th century societal considerations, namely the Declaration of Independence and puritanical beliefs that influenced the founding fathers. In addition, the religion jurisprudence of SCOTUS largely addresses evaluating whether a set of beliefs is a legitimate religion and preventing the state from establishing religion. The jurisprudence does not inhibit private citizens from forming religions nor insulating non-believers from the believers, i.e. Westboro Baptist, the line of Indian peyote cases. In the cases I remember, SCOTUS does not address a religion's opponent's grievances with a said religion as an avenue to place restraints on the religion.

[SealBeachHusker]

My understanding of the Bill of Rights is that citizens have a freedom of choice with respect to religion, but no freedom from religion.

Can you explain your understanding?

Do you believe the intent of the founding fathers was that America be free from all acknowledgment of faith as Atheist groups would interpret?

[husker6]

At least they're funny nerds. That counts for something.

Totally!

I ummm....what?

LOL!

[BasilLongfellow]

Do you believe the intent of the founding fathers was that America be free from all acknowledgment of faith as Atheist groups would interpret?

No.

[BasilLongfellow]

Do you believe the intent of the founding fathers was that America be free from all acknowledgment of faith as Atheist groups would interpret?

Our coins belie that position.

[SealBeachHusker]

Do you believe the intent of the founding fathers was that America be free from all acknowledgment of faith as Atheist groups would interpret?

Our coins belie that position.

So, it is not the position of atheist groups to have references to God removed from coins? (using your example)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/7426824/Atheist-in-battle-to-remove-In-God-We-Trust-from-US-currency.html

[ColoREDo]

Our coins belie that position.

"God" was added to currency and the pledge of allegiance in the 50's thanks mostly to the "red scare" of McCarthyism. Its also a pretty generic term since it could represent any of the thousands of Gods out there.

[BasilLongfellow]

"God" was added to currency and the pledge of allegiance in the 50's thanks mostly to the "red scare" of McCarthyism. Its also a pretty generic term since it could represent any of the thousands of Gods out there.

Agree. The generality emphasizes my point that there is not freedom from religion, simply freedom of religion.

[Red_in_Blue_Land]

I can only give a cursory explanation. I'm not a Constitutional law attorney and outside of due process, I don't have a whole lot of depth of knowledge. Essentially, my understanding is based upon a textual argument encompassed within the greater 18th century societal considerations, namely the Declaration of Independence and puritanical beliefs that influenced the founding fathers. In addition, the religion jurisprudence of SCOTUS largely addresses evaluating whether a set of beliefs is a legitimate religion and preventing the state from establishing religion. The jurisprudence does not inhibit private citizens from forming religions nor insulating non-believers from the believers, i.e. Westboro Baptist, the line of Indian peyote cases. In the cases I remember, SCOTUS does not address a religion's opponent's grievances with a said religion as an avenue to place restraints on the religion.

I had to step out for a while, an old friend showed up and we had to go do a couple of shots...

Now that I am a little oiled up I would like to discuss this, I had never looked at some of those cases for that theme, in fact I never really thought about it that way. My first reaction was that courts tell us that we can't have prayer in school, etc..., but in the perspective you are suggesting that was not a restraint to the religion itself.

[ColoREDo]

Agree. The generality emphasizes my point that there is not freedom from religion, simply freedom of religion.

When someone says that there is no "freedom from religion" it sounds like I have to worship something. Go Huskers!

[RedPhoenix]

I had to step out for a while, an old friend showed up and we had to go do a couple of shots...

Now that I am a little oiled up I would like to discuss this, I had never looked at some of those cases for that theme, in fact I never really thought about it that way. My first reaction was that courts tell us that we can't have prayer in school, etc..., but in the perspective you are suggesting that was not a restraint to the religion itself.

People can still pray in school.

[SealBeachHusker]

"God" was added to currency and the pledge of allegiance in the 50's thanks mostly to the "red scare" of McCarthyism. Its also a pretty generic term since it could represent any of the thousands of Gods out there.

Agree. The generality emphasizes my point that there is not freedom from religion, simply freedom of religion.

Yet that is not the position of most atheist groups, again acknowledging these groups don't represent all atheists, but these ARE the ones bringing lawsuit after lawsuit to erase any and all references to faith within any entity no matter how flimsy the tie to government.

[Nishioka]

At least they're funny nerds. That counts for something.

As long as you're laughing with us and not at us...

[RedPhoenix]

When someone says that there is no "freedom from religion" it sounds like I have to worship something. Go Huskers!

I understand where Basil is coming from though. You don't have to worship anything but by the same token you can't silence those that do.