Theistic and atheistic influences on society

[questor]

Moderation note: the following 34 posts were split from the thread 16064

 

How are we to interpret this?

 

''(AP) An atheist seeking to remove the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance and U.S. currency is taking his arguments back to a federal appeals court.

 

Michael Newdow, a Sacramento doctor and lawyer, sued the Elk Grove Unified School District in 2000 for forcing public school children to recite the pledge, saying it was unconstitutional.

 

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Newdow's favor in 2002, but two years later, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Newdow lacked standing to sue because he didn't have custody of the daughter on whose behalf he brought the case. He immediately filed a second lawsuit on behalf of three unidentified parents and their children.

A Federal judge in Sacramento found in favor of Newdow, ruling the pledge was unconstitutional because its reference to "one nation under God" violates children's rights to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God." The judge said he was following the precedent set by the 9th Circuit Court's ruling in Newdow's first case.

 

A three-judge panel from that court was to hear arguments in the case on Tuesday. The same panel also was to hear arguments in Newdow's case against the national motto, "In God We Trust."

 

In 2005, Newdow sued Congress and several federal officials, arguing that making money with the motto on it violated the First Amendment clause requiring the separation of church and state.

 

Link: Pledge Of Allegiance Heads Back To Court, Atheist Seeking Removal Of "God" From Pledge And Currency Returns To Federal Court - CBS News

[Essay]

Galapagos, Thanks for the link!

 

How are we to interpret this?

 

''(AP) ....Michael Newdow, a Sacramento doctor and lawyer....

...hmmm, must be a Republican....

~ ;)

 

===

"How are we to interpret this?"

 

Border patrol militia, purist survivalist groups, murderous pro-life fanatics, rapacious financial predators, overzealous fundamentalists....

I interpret these as examples of unnaturally driven people or groups, more of which can also be found in other areas of society, business, religion, entertainment, academia, media, farming, homeowners associations, etc.

 

I interpret these examples as isolated tangents, not helpful or accurate in representing what either the conservative or liberal philosophies are trying to achieve as an overall goal.

 

Questor, how do you interpret that secular fundamentalist doctor/lawyer with, for whatever reason, an obvious axe to grind? What does he mean for you?

 

How do you interpret living in a society where it is possible to pursue a cause with zealotry?

 

Thanks,

~SA

[questor]

There are zealots on both sides. Some zealotry can be constructive ( some aspects of environmentalism), some destructive ( some atheists ). Atheism in itself is not bad, atheism that disallows others the free practice of their religion is coercion. I am not a worshipper of a diety, but I think law abiding people enjoy this right under the constitution. I prefer to live in a society that observes religious morality, rather than one where each person makes up their own idea of morality. I have never heard of atheists as a group doing anything altruistic...no atheist sponsored rallies for the troops,

no atheist visits to the ill, no atheist rallies to fight cancer, no atheist

scholarship funds, etc. Conservatism society best embodies the traits I look for. I would like for some liberal to describe to me the positive benefits of living in a liberal society, but I don't think they can.

[Moontanman]

There are zealots on both sides. Some zealotry can be constructive ( some aspects of environmentalism), some destructive ( some atheists ). Atheism in itself is not bad, atheism that disallows others the free practice of their religion is coercion. I am not a worshipper of a diety, but I think law abiding people enjoy this right under the constitution.

 

How do Atheists interfere with anyones freedom to practice religion? I've never seen any example of an atheist wanting to keep anyone from practicing religion.

 

 

I prefer to live in a society that observes religious morality, rather than one where each person makes up their own idea of morality.

 

Define religious morality, sexual abuse of minors? Killing anyone who doesn't believe the way you do? Requiring everyone to put up with religion being forced on them?

 

 

I have never heard of atheists as a group doing anything altruistic...no atheist sponsored rallies for the troops,

no atheist visits to the ill, no atheist rallies to fight cancer, no atheist

scholarship funds, etc.

 

That is mainly because atheists are not a organization like religion is. Atheists give money and time to help just as much as anyone else does, probably more than the average religious person because the atheist is careful not to give to religious organizations so his money isn't skimmed to build churches and keep huge populations of people who do nothing to help anyone but the Church. I visit the sick, give to the poor, cook for the homeless, anything i can as an individual. Anytime atheists try to organize we are demonized and in some cases actually penalized. Recently a man in Iraq who was a marine platoon leader was kicked out of the military because he was an atheist. I support the troops, i do all the things you say i shouldn't because i don't "believe" you are just trolling again questor.

 

Conservatism society best embodies the traits I look for. I would like for some liberal to describe to me the positive benefits of living in a liberal society, but I don't think they can.

 

A liberal society would take care of and help the poor and down trodden, they would allow people to worship as they please without coercion. Liberalism is freedom to be who you are with in reasonable limits. to do as you please as long as you don't harm anyone else. To have help in place when you need it. Liberalism is looking to the future for answers and not the past and liberalism is not doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. It's paying attention to what is going on in the world instead of ignoring it if it doesn't fit you world view. Conservatism is selfish and self centered, it throws away those who have failed and destroys anyone who disagrees with the zealots in control. conservatism is all about controlling the actions of others to bring them in line with what the Conservatives thing is right and wrong. It means the rich getting richer with no thought to the masses they use and throw away to get rich. conservatism is sweat shops, debtor prisons, child labor, Jim crow laws, the rich being able to get education and the poor being able to work for nothing until they cannot work and more and throwing the useless used up workers aside like a broken tools. conservatism is simply the man in the big house owning every one who isn't already on top. No middle class, only the very rich and the very poor serving them. It's religious zealots destroying peoples lives because they have the nerve to question old mythology in favor of reality. its the few controlling the many to the benefit of the few.

[CraigD]

I have been an atheist since 1976.

 

From 1975 to 1979, I was active in my school-sponsored service organization, spending 10 hours a week performing whatever community and outreach services my skills permitted.

 

From 1987 to 1998, I was active among the various service societies loosely affiliated with the Community for Creative Non-Violence, which at that time were primarily focused on providing essential services to houseless people in Washington DC. It’s difficult for me to estimate the work effort this involved, as at times it literally required 24-hour days.

 

From 1996 to 1998, I taught Math, Science, and English in a GED-goaled program in the Virginia state penitentiary at Stanton. Including prep and travel time, this required about 16 hours a week.

 

Since 1998, my service works have been much reduced, totaling only about 10 to 20 hours a year.

 

Since 2003, I have been a board member of a social club that sponsors fundraising activities for Amnesty International. Although it’s not a membership requirement, in my estimation about half of this club’s members could be atheists (Although over half of them would argue rather that they are agnostic).

 

Not at all metaphorically, I will and have given complete strangers the coat off my back, with no expectation or repayment. I believe that, by almost any standard, I can accurately be described as altruistic.

I have never heard of atheists as a group doing anything altruistic...

So now, questor, you have.

 

By no means do I claim a correlation between my lack of religious or other supernatural beliefs and my desire to give service. Although I know many service-oriented atheists, the large majority of such people I’ve know have been religious, many devoutly so. In my personal experience, as a group, the people I’ve found the most consistently dedicated altruists are Catholic nuns. It came as a surprise to me to discover that this group is also among the most tolerant of the religious beliefs or lack of beliefs of others.

 

That you are unaware of the existence of altruistic atheists, questor, leads me to suspect you are little acquainted with service communities.

[questor]

Craig, I commend you for your good works, and you may know other atheists

who are also inclined. I don't see atheism as any more than a personal belief and I can't understand why certain people seem to make their life's work of it. e.g. Madelyn Murray O'Hair. Why do atheists such as Rosie O'Donnell

continue to insult and disparage Christians? Why does Dr. Newdow try to eliminate the Pledge of Allegiance because it mentions the word ''God''?

This country was founded on Judeo-Christian morality which is the basis of our laws and which you and all of us use every day. Does atheism offer a better way? Whatever the answer, I do believe religion, properly practiced offers good for society at least for the present. When we lose religious teachings what will replace them?

[freeztar]

When we lose religious teachings what will replace them?

 

Common sense :confused:

[Moontanman]

Craig, I commend you for your good works, and you may know other atheists

who are also inclined.

 

Lots of Atheists are so inclined we just don't feel the need to proselytize atheism and try to say "hey look at us and how good we are" the way the religions do when they try to do good.

 

 

I don't see atheism as any more than a personal belief and I can't understand why certain people seem to make their life's work of it. e.g. Madelyn Murray O'Hair. Why do atheists such as Rosie O'Donnell

continue to insult and disparage Christians?

 

Why do chriustians make their lifes work involve the harrasment of anyone who disagrees with them, gays are usually first on thier list and gays aren't above getting a few licks in for thier own cause.

 

Why does Dr. Newdow try to eliminate the Pledge of Allegiance because it mentions the word ''God''?

 

Why does that "Pastor" who hates gays so bad travel around trying to disrupt the funerals of service men by protesting the USA allowing gays to live in our society and saying that the terrorist threat is Gods punishment on the US for allowing gays to live?

 

 

This country was founded on Judeo-Christian morality which is the basis of our laws and which you and all of us use every day. Does atheism offer a better way?

 

Yes, atheism offers a way that allows everyone to participate regardless of their beliefs, religion strives to exclude anyone who is not a Christian or to convert anyone who isn't. Atheists don't care what your religion is as long as you leave them out of it.

 

Whatever the answer, I do believe religion, properly practiced offers good for society at least for the present. When we lose religious teachings what will replace them?

 

I have a tendency to agree, sadly religion practiced properly is a very loose term and can include everything from assassinations to trying to include religion in public schools. Religion is a parasite on our society, very little of the time and money that goes into religion goes anywhere but the coffers of that religion and to promote that religion. Very little of the money, percentage wise, goes into helping anyone. Lately a preachers success is measured in outrageous houses, expensive cars, and an extravagant life style. Questor you of all people should recognize a social parasite when you see one, just because they aren't poor doesn't mean they aren't parasites. Religious teachings are not necessary to our society nor are morals handed down from religion. Religion has hijacked morals from the social pacts humans have been making for tens of thousands of years. The morals from religion and immorality from a lack of religion is one of the big lies and the basis of religious success. They've told that lie so often and for so long everyone assumes it to be true. An atheist can be just as moral or immoral as anyone else, the religious included, and usually is. What would you say are the unique morals handed down by religion we cannot figure out for our selves as part of a stable and successful society?

[questor]

Why do you think one bad act is balanced by another? Why do you think if there is a bad Christian, there should be a bad atheist?

[InfiniteNow]

This country was founded on Judeo-Christian morality which is the basis of our laws and which you and all of us use every day.

 

Actually, no. It was not. Your comment above, although a common misunderstanding, is not accurate.

 

 

 

 

The Christian Nation Myth

The primary leaders of the so-called founding fathers of our nation were not Bible-believing Christians; they were deists. Deism was a philosophical belief that was widely accepted by the colonial intelligentsia at the time of the American Revolution. Its major tenets included belief in human reason as a reliable means of solving social and political problems and belief in a supreme deity who created the universe to operate solely by natural laws. The supreme God of the Deists removed himself entirely from the universe after creating it. They believed that he assumed no control over it, exerted no influence on natural phenomena, and gave no supernatural revelation to man. A necessary consequence of these beliefs was a rejection of many doctrines central to the Christian religion. Deists did not believe in the virgin birth, divinity, or resurrection of Jesus, the efficacy of prayer, the miracles of the Bible, or even the divine inspiration of the Bible.

 

These beliefs were forcefully articulated by Thomas Paine in Age of Reason, a book that so outraged his contemporaries that he died rejected and despised by the nation that had once revered him as "the father of the American Revolution." To this day, many mistakenly consider him an atheist, even though he was an out spoken defender of the Deistic view of God. Other important founding fathers who espoused Deism were George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Ethan Allen, James Madison, and James Monroe.

 

Fundamentalist Christians are currently working overtime to convince the American public that the founding fathers intended to establish this country on "biblical principles," but history simply does not support their view. The men mentioned above and others who were instrumental in the founding of our nation were in no sense Bible-believing Christians. Thomas Jefferson, in fact, was fiercely anti-cleric.

 

 

 

The Founding Fathers' Religious Wisdom

In recent years, we have been told by a variety of conservatives that America’s founding fathers established the country under Christian doctrine—that we are a “Christian nation” and should operate accordingly.

 

This notion—that our country’s roots are explicitly Christian—is both foolish and wrong, for it devalues the Christian faith and disrespects the genius of the founding fathers.

<...>

The genius of the founding fathers is they understood that Christianity could not only stand on its own but would thrive without being written into the laws and founding documents of the country. In fact, it was likely their own “faith” that led them to this conclusion. Many of the founding fathers—Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison and Monroe—practiced a faith called Deism. Deism is a philosophical belief in human reason as a reliable means of solving social and political problems. Deists believe in a supreme being who created the universe to operate solely by natural laws—and after creation, is absent from the world. This belief in reason over dogma helped guide the founders toward a system of government that respected faiths like Christianity, while purposely isolating both from encroaching on one another so as not to dilute the overall purpose and objectives of either.

 

If the founders were dogmatic about anything, it was the belief that a person’s faith should not be intruded upon by government and that religious doctrine should not be written into governance.

 

 

 

This site, while much more forceful and not as objective about the approach, makes the case quite plainly, sharing quotes from these thinkers, and ending with the comment:

 

 

Religion and the Founding Fathers

With just these examples, you have the facts necessary to rebut any fundamentalist who proclaim this to be a Christian nation "just as the founding fathers desired".

[pgrmdave]

Wow. Interesting topic, but guys, let's keep the personal attacks out of it. I don't care if you're conservative or liberal (really, what do those words mean? If I'm against the war in Iraq, does that mean I'm a liberal? Does that mean that I'm not allowed to be against abortion? If I'm against high corporate taxes, does that mean that I'm not allowed to be for gay marriage?) I don't want to see ANYBODY insulted on this site.

 

As for my views - I think that the problem may be inherent partially in the terms 'conservative' and 'liberal', which not only are not very informative, but have actually changed in meaning over the years (I'll back this up if you want, but I don't have time right now to acquire my sources). I prefer a planer system to a linear system, wherein you determine your economic government interference vs. a more libertarian approach and personal freedom vs. state control.

 

So, for example, many of the 'conservatives' that we talk about score high on economic freedoms (lower taxes, fewer social programs) and high on state control of personal freedoms (restrictions on marriage, state endorsement of religions). While many 'liberals' score low on economic freedoms (increased government oversight, more welfare) and high on personal freedoms.

[questor]

I said Judo-Christian principles. Even though there was a Deist philosophy

adopted by many of the founders, where do you think their original thoughts of morality and social laws came from? Do you think these men made up their ideas out of whole cloth? Do you think they were never exposed to the social mores promulgated over centuries by other people and ancient races? Do you think each person arrives at his values with no input from religious thought?

[freeztar]

From the wiki on Desim:

 

Deism is the theistic belief that a supreme God exists and created the physical universe, but shall not intervene in its normal operation. It is related to a religious philosophy and movement that claims to derive the existence and nature of God from reason. It takes no position on what God may do outside the universe. That is in contrast to fideism which is found in many forms of Christianity[1], Islamic and Judaic teachings, which hold that religion relies on revelation in sacred scriptures or the testimony of other people as well as reasoning.

 

Deists typically reject most supernatural events (prophecy, miracles) and tend to assert that God does not intervene with the affairs of human life and the natural laws of the universe. What organized religions see as divine revelation and holy books, most deists see as interpretations made by other humans, rather than as authoritative sources. Deists believe that God's greatest gift to humanity is not religion, but the ability to reason.

 

Quite different than Christianity or Judeism.

[questor]

When the founders were young, where do you think they originally learned the difference in good and evil? Where did their parents learn it? Can you name a period in time in which religion did not play a part in man's morality? Can you name a secular society which you would most emulate?

[pgrmdave]

Questor is right - despite the views of the founders, they grew up in an overwhelmingly Christian environment, and the societal values were based on hundreds of years of Christian teachings. Pointing to them being diests and saying that their morality was somehow fundamentally different from the culture that they existed in is a little nitpicky, in my opinion.

[InfiniteNow]

Questor has presented a complete strawman anyway.

 

Nobody is here arguing that centuries of Christianity had no impact on society.

 

The larger point is that our founding fathers rejected those teachings and wrote our codes and laws and documents using a philosophy which was in stark contrast to the teachings of Judaism and Christianity. As repeatedly demonstrated, they rejected those teachings from their personal philosophies and chose a more enlighted and reasoned perspective. They treated the teachings of Christianity as man-made stories that had little to no merit. Ergo, to suggest that they used said stories when founding our nation would be completely false and would rely entirely on wish thinking.

 

Did Christianity and Judaism impact society? Sure.

Did the founding fathers base the principles of our nation on those iron age fairy tales? Nope.

 

 

Big difference. Simply repeating a false claim over and over does not suddenly make it true.

[questor]

I don't think you understand what you are saying.

''The larger point is that our founding fathers rejected those teachings and wrote our codes and laws and documents using a philosophy which was in stark contrast to the teachings of Judaism and Christianity''

 

I'm talking morality, societal rules to live by, mores. What are you talking about? Give me an instance where any founding father rejected any Judeo-Christian morality? Explain this ''stark contrast'' of which you speak?