An Atheist Quickie
No true Atheist is hostile to the Bible, or to religion in general. A true Atheist simply doesn't care. Hostile Atheists believe in God, the know He exists, and they hate him, so they are not actually Atheists.
Also, I have recently found out there is a registered Atheist Church that is recognized by the US Spreme Court as a legitimate church. This means that every Seperation of Church and State case that has resulted in the removal of a religious symbol or statement is a government endorsement of the Atheist Church and is a violation of Seperation and Church and State. Oh! The delicious irony! I think I shall have to seek to exploit this through the courts. Anyone feel like joionin gme in a clas action lawsuit demanding the natonwide restoration of all religiious symbols that hev been removed from public areas based on this argument?
Also, I have recently found out there is a registered Atheist Church that is recognized by the US Spreme Court as a legitimate church. This means that every Seperation of Church and State case that has resulted in the removal of a religious symbol or statement is a government endorsement of the Atheist Church and is a violation of Seperation and Church and State. Oh! The delicious irony! I think I shall have to seek to exploit this through the courts. Anyone feel like joionin gme in a clas action lawsuit demanding the natonwide restoration of all religiious symbols that hev been removed from public areas based on this argument?
posted by Daniel Levesque at
8:16 AM
10 Comments:
Daniel said,
No true Atheist is hostile to the Bible, or to religion in general. A true Atheist simply doesn't care.
This is pretty much true. There is no reason to be hostile to the Bible itself, it is afterall just a book. However, it is the way in which it is used that creates hostility. When a Christian begins with, "The Bible says...", in order to back up a political point, then others go to the source of these beliefs and question its validity. Therefore, you could say that an (not all) Atheist, in this case, is hostile to those using the Bible, and not the Bible itself. All of us must live in this world, and therefore when ideas are presented that affect our lives, we must investigate the source of these ideas and decide whether or not they are valid. That said, yes, some people would attack the Bible even if left alone completely - some people will do anything for any or no reason.
Hostile Atheists believe in God, the know He exists, and they hate him, so they are not actually Atheists.
Not true at all. As noted above, people will attack other people who invoke their beliefs in order to hold on to or make changes in society. It is people who are being attacked, and people are not God.
I do not believe in God, and if I did, I would certainly be the most devout Christian the world has known in recent times. If I ever had proof of such existence, I would not hesitate to worship Him.
Only a fool would do otherwise.
Also, I have recently found out there is a registered Atheist Church that is recognized by the US Spreme Court as a legitimate church.
The cause of this could be argued that in an attempt to present no favor for particular religions, advantages have been given to religion in particular, and none to non-religion. Therefore, Atheists have created a church, ironically, in order to receive these advantages. It is not something I would participate in, it seems to take advantage of laws in a way that is improper.
This means that every Seperation of Church and State case that has resulted in the removal of a religious symbol or statement is a government endorsement of the Atheist Church and is a violation of Seperation and Church and State.
Does this mean that anywhere a blank space exists, Atheism lurks?
I realize the facetiousness of your remark, however, by posting it you are asking for serious discussion of it. Are you sure?
-Matt
By
Anonymous, at 10:39 AM
I am sure that the deliberate removal of existing religious symbols can be interpereted as the government sponsoring the Church of Atheism over the religion represented by the deposed religious symbol. I think a court movement to bring this argument to the forefront of this debate is very appropriate.
By
Daniel Levesque, at 6:13 PM
Good luck in your court movement, Daniel.
Also, thank you for the months of entertainment and lively debates. And thank you everyone else for the same. When things stop being taken seriously, and there is no room for debate, then it is always logical to move on.
- Matt
By
Anonymous, at 7:46 PM
"I am sure that the deliberate removal of existing religious symbols can be interpereted as the government sponsoring the Church of Atheism over the religion represented by the deposed religious symbol."
Can be? Sure. By the same token, failure to respond to every wild accusation somebody levels against you can be interpreted as an admission of guilt. Failure to get up and yell 9/11 at least once a day can be interpreted as 'forgetting'.
The question is not whether something can be interpreted as meaning x, it's whether something can reasonably be interpreted that way. Can denominational neutrality reasonably be interpreted as an endorsement of atheism?
If I start a "Don't Vote Party" do I get to claim as a member everybody who doesn't bear the logo of some other political party? We'd be the largest party in the country, hands down. After all, failure to affix a donkey or elephant to your lapel can be interpreted as an endorsement of not voting. Right?
By
catastrophile, at 4:10 PM
"Can denominational neutrality reasonably be interpreted as an endorsement of atheism?"
A better question is whether what you are calling demoniational neutrality iis truly neurtal. There is a vast store of evidence demonstrating that it is, in all actuality, not neutral. In fact, the only religious sybols and monuments that have been tartgeted are Christian ones, and Christian symbols are not the only ones on public display.
By
Daniel Levesque, at 11:06 AM
"If I start a "Don't Vote Party" do I get to claim as a member everybody who doesn't bear the logo of some other political party?"
Hey! I think you're on to something here, Cat!
By
Dan Trabue, at 1:42 PM
"Christian symbols are not the only ones on public display."
Public display isn't the issue. It's government endorsement, as in tax dollars being used to promote or endorse a particular faith. And I'm sure that the vast majority of the time it is Christian symbology being challenged because, by and large, it's Christians dominating our society. Not many people feel their religious freedom is being threatened by Zoroastrian symbology or Stars of David in the courthouse, for example, and it's not very often you're going to find such a symbol taking precedence in a government-sponsored display.
What I find fascinating about this issue is that I am a Christian, and I oppose giving the Ten Commandments prominent positioning in the courthouse, for example, because the Ten Commandments are not what the courthouse exists to enforce.
Under the new covenant, we are no longer supposed to focus on rules and restrictions to please God; our need for mortal law, for lists of dos and do nots to guide us, is a reflection of our failure as a planet to live up to the one simple law of the covenant -- not a reflection of how great and godly we are. The Ten Commandments are a relic of a former covenant, now cast aside. As principles they are fine, but as a graven image they will tend to detract from our understanding of what it is we're supposed to be doing here. So it puzzles me that people will argue so vehemently in favor of their graven images.
This theme of anti-Christian persecution is very dangerous to our country, since most of the prominent figures pushing it -- the right-wing politician/televangelist set -- are themselves some of the greediest, most hypocritical and least godly individuals we have. The Bennetts and Robertsons and Phelps are doing much more damage to American Christianity than all the Newdows could ever hope to.
By
catastrophile, at 11:19 AM
No true Atheist is hostile to the Bible, or to religion in general. A true Atheist simply doesn't care.
As an atheist, I'm hostile to the use of the Bible or religion of any kind as a tool for mandating people's behaviors. If a person chooses to be Christian or believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old and man frolicked with dinosaurs, fine. As soon as that person tries to get that taught in school in lieu of science or tries to pass laws requiring that I follow their Biblical morality, that's where the hostility starts. Religion should be a private matter, not a legislative agenda. When it's the former, everyone can get along, have discussions and debates without having half the country storm off in a tantrum because someone dared challenge their "ultimate truth". That's what secularism is all about: living with each other's beliefs.
By
Samurai Sam, at 11:17 AM
Athiests are like the muslims who shelled the large Bhuddist statue in Afghanistan, they are like the ones who destroyed the library at Alexandria. They destroy, and do not build. That is from the Cultural angle. Christianity is a culture, and Athiests are destroyers of Culture.
Lets try a different angle.
Atheists (or Athiests, im agnotic on the spelling), are moral deviants who wish to change common law to fit their morally deviant life style. That is the evil angle, atheists are evil.
Lets try a different angle.
Atheists didn't like the way their mamma made them go to Sunday School, so they are rebelling and causing grief to everyone else. That is the griefing angle.
Lets try a different angle.
Atheists are the anti-christ, they oppose Christ, they are pawns of Satan. That is the Satanic angle.
Nomatter which way you slice it, Atheists are assholes.
By
Anonymous, at 12:45 AM
Atheists are sad, pathetic angry people.
By
Anonymous, at 12:31 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home