"Your support of unrestricted abortion rights is based on your religiously atheistic worldview. My opposition to abortion is based on my religiously theistic worldview. Why do you get to bring your atheism to the public arena but I can't bring my Christianity?"

Because our Constitution is intrinsically and textually atheistic OR, to put it a BETTER way (since I know it would likely be as angering to you if I should use that term for the US as if you used Christian/theistic) the Constitution and US Legal Sphere...

Is SECULAR by its legal definition, textual construction, and nature.

So I simply ask that everyone remain secular in the public political sphere, as the legal framework of the nation intends, which brings me to...well, first,

"My tax dollars are spent ramming evolution - the creation-myth of secular humanism and the apology for British empire (whew, that's another big discussion!) - and a-moral "sex education" down the throats of unsuspecting children....why can't your tax dollars pay for some instruction in the theory of intelligent design?"

No. Just no.

Evolution is valid science, ID is not, THAT is why you must pay for the former with those tax dollars and I don't have to pay for the latter, as it is NOT valid science, and that's all I'll say on the matter, as Evolution/Intelligent Design is a thread unto itself, so let's leave that for another thread if you wish to get into that and challenge that.

Now, as I was saying, secular in the public sphere, bringing me to...

"I'm always amused by liberals who demand that people keep their religion out of the public sphere. Have you forgotten the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.? Should he have kept his religion out of the public sphere? Hmmmm."

To begin with--King DID NOT start in the public sphere.
He started, of course, preaching in Churches...
Where religion BELONGS.

That he did much good in the public sphere was not due to any one religion.

It was due to political social changes, NOW, it would be uncharitable to NOT acknowledge that King, of course, loved to use Biblical allegories in his speeches, maybe most famously his Moses/"The Mountaintop" speech, and...

That's OK.

We have freedom of speech and he was NOT an elected official invoking a deity, so...

That's perfectly OK. I have no quarrel with that.

I DO have a quarrel with POLITICIANS using or invoking religious rhetoric, or introducing it into the public political sphere.

If YOU wish to speak about religion in the public sphere, be my guest.
You have that right, and I don't wish to infringe on it, so long as it does not infringe on my rights.
BUT...
If you are an elected official and part of the STATE...

Then you simply must respect the Separation of Church and State and remember:

Presidents may have chosen to be sworn in on Bibles in the past...

But they are SWORN to protect and uphold NOT the virtues of the Bible...

But the Constitution of the United States of America--a Constitution that is secular BY DESIGN.

I hope you understand my distinction there?

@Mujus:

See my above response to the MLK point ;)

@Obi - I could see you having wtrouble with pliticians trying to force religious views into the public sphere as legally binding legislature, but a politician also has freedom of speech - in fact the whole reason for the freedom of speech clause was so that everyone (politicians, preachers, Joe Six Pack) *could* express their views without fear of reprisal from a corrupt government.

If you have a problem with a politician expressing his religious views, then you have a problem with the Constitution. Sorry, but you are WRONG (as you so like to express it).

And politicians are still individuals, not part of the state. The state isn't elected officials, it is the laws and regulations those politicians put into play. Politicians come and go but the state remains. So they *can* and *schould* express their religious views and not be muzzled by militant athiests like yourself.

Yeah, politicians have the right to free speech, but they should expect either public support or backlash from it. If the public doesn't respond to what they say, they aren't doing their job either.

And to expand on the real point of this thread, government and religion are separate. Correlation and association are two different things.

Correct bo_sox. I didn't say they shouldn't be prepared to accept the backlash. Everyone who speaks int he public sphere opens him or her self up to public backlash. That is the choice we make when we choose to go public.

I hope no politicians ever think they can get away with saying the phrase "militant atheists" with any connotation at all in public either.

Plus two Draugnar. And Bo Sox, politicians that don't reflect the will of the people lose their jobs--as they should. But some on both sides think it's ok or effective to demean the other side by calling them names. I respect the right of atheists to vote, speak out, hold the highest elected offices in the land, advocate for their positions, and that's what our constitution guarantees.

As do I, Mujus. I just don't believe being elected to pulbic office means you suddenly give up your Consitutional right to Freedom of Speech. You have to deal with the fallout of stating that opinion just as any public figure does, but you still have the right. The Constitution doesn't grant the right to everyone except those holding public office. It grants it to everyone.

Oh, my, Obi--you would shut the expression of religion into special buildings designed for that purpose. The Russians did that with Jews--oh but that was districts, not just buildings. It's against the law to tell certain people about Jesus in many Muslim countries. But your position is totally in contrast to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. You should just admit your religious biases (yes, atheism is a religious point of view) are in disagreement with the constitution and then work to amend it, if you feel that strongly. And while the U.S. government does not privilege any religon or belief system above another, it also guarantees the expression of religion, and many of the founders were in fact SUNDAY SCHOOL TEACHERS and preachers. If you are in fact a college graduate, or graduate student, you really ought to know that, and if you know that, then I'm calling your posts pure and blatant trolling.

Draugnar writes, "Everyone who speaks int he public sphere opens him or her self up to public backlash. That is the choice we make when we choose to go public."
Draugnar, that's an insightful comment, and it's definitely illustrated by what we each put ourselves through on this very site. :-)

Politicians are elected to represent the will of the people and I am wholeheartedly atheist and if you wish to add evolutionist as well you may. It's been awhile since the Pope himself declared evolution to be fact, and science hasn't faltered on that. It is fact; evolution exists. Why then are Catholic politicians and people around the country who follow the Pope still pushing for the teaching of traditional creationism?

I will not lie and say there is no way that there is a higher being; nobody has been able to reasonably say otherwise. I don't have any issue with others believing in a higher power, though I don't. Nonetheless, evolution does happen, and it should be recognized.

On that note, politicians are wasting their breath by spouting out their religious beliefs. Sure, they have the freedom to speak their religion, but to make laws based on their religion is to make me follow it, and that I will not stand for.

It's amazing that in 1878, the Supreme Court ruled that Jefferson and Madison were the most notable promoters of religious tolerance and freedom during both Constitutional Conventions, and for that reason, they directed their rulings off of them. They stated that "coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured." Thus, it was added to the Establishment Clause: religion and state rule (yes, skeptics and haters, that includes the federal rule) are entirely and wholly separate; there is no contesting it.

Need more? 1797, Treaty of Tripoli. "The government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." This was not written by a Supreme Court justice long after the deaths of every Founding Father, rather, this was a document sent through the Senate and signed by John Adams, a Founding Father himself.

Christianity is not part of politics any more than Judaism, Islam, or atheism. None of the former, or any other affiliation of any kind, should be at all in play in politics. It's shameful that we have to debate it.

Im amused that now suddenly conservatives claim MLK was a Christian, after claiming he was ai communist for decades. If religious folk want to run our government, they need to give up the sham that is their tax exemption status.

Christianity and communism are not in opposition. Only an idiot would think they are. Hell, some call Christ's teachings "socialist" and others "communist". Did he not advocate the rich giving away all they had to join him and is it not easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter heaven? Did he not ask his followers to pick up their cross and follow him? Did he not believe that everyone should receive what they need and give what they can? Sounds like communism to me.

@bo_sox - I think you will find it is the far right fundamental Christian base (like the Southern Baptists, not the Catholics) who are pushing the whole creationism argument and trying to co-opt real ID to give their nonesense so backing, but they wouldn't accept real ID any more than evolution as real ID is nothing more than guided evolution and has nothing to do with the whole Young Earth movement.

Science beats out religion in every instance around because they can back it up with more than a book. It sounds rude, but it's the truth. Just about every religion is based off of teachings of a book. I don't know how the scientific community even gets opposition with real data versus that.

**scales slowly slipping into Creationism v. Evolution**

lol CA. Well science has its limits, as has been agreed to on this forum on at least two other occasions. Science is based only on what one can observe in the natural world and does not preclude a supernatural aspect to creation, since that cannot be observed.

^ +1 Mujus

Science cannot prove or disprove God. Science and religion can live in perfect harmony

@CA: "If you want to support gay marriages, and to protect free-access to abortions, while at the same time to oppose Intelligent Design or prayer (when children are present) in school, Then why not debate the merits of those stances rather than placing blame on a specific group and calling for them to ignore their principles? "

I ASK PRECISELY THE SAME OF YOU, SIR

Mujus: "I respect the right of atheists to vote, speak out, hold the highest elected offices in the land, advocate for their positions, and that's what our constitution guarantees."

And then there are seven states whose constitutions forbid atheists from holding public office, and in some cases testifying in court. Tennessee further requires you to believe in Heaven and Hell.

@Draugnar,

Marxism is explicitly materialistic. There are various versions of Christian socialism, but they should not properly be called Communism. Even when Communism had some chance of gaining traction in various US demographics in the 30s, and its atheism was one of the primary reasons people continued to reject it, the party maintained atheism as a central tenet. (This is my understanding, though I'd be subject to correction -- not to be confused with bare contradiction).

So while one might say that a person could hold certain economic doctrines that are similar to Communism and be a Christian, Communism itself does and has always entailed atheism.

@Obiwan,

Everything SC said was spot-on. As far as the Constitution, it bans (a) legally required religious tests for holding office, and (b) establishment of a religion by the government. Nothing in it prohibits religious dialog in the public sphere, nor is there any reason to believe that such would have been frowned on. As for the founding fathers -- (a) you're wrong, and (b) what do you care anyway? In what sense are we bound by the non-codified preferences of the founding fathers?

Religion has long played a major role in American public discourse, as, again, SC pointed out. It carries its own price, of course -- the irreligious, and those of other religions, might not find the rhetoric convincing. That's as may be, but it remains up to anybody to use religious language as they wish. (But they can't require others to use it or to listen to it).

@AWB - Only because no one has bothered to challenge them. They would be overturned by the SCOTUS in a unanimous vote even if those state Supreme Courts upheld it for some bizarre reason.

In the case of South Caroline, it's own supreme court already found that a similar requirement for employment in the public sector violated Article VI and the First and Fourteenth amendments of the US Constitution.

And whjile Maryland's is technically on their constitution, the SCOTUS declared it invalid and unconstitutional in 1961 in Torcaso v. Watkins. SCOTUS unanimously declared that it violated the First Amendment despite MAryland's Supreme Court upholding it. So all those clauses in those seven states are meaningless and would quickly be overturned by the SCOTUS if not by the state's own supreme court.

"Christianity is not part of politics any more than Judaism, Islam, or atheism. None of the former, or any other affiliation of any kind, should be at all in play in politics. It's shameful that we have to debate it."

Obi, I think the first problem here is that you have a fundamentally mistaken view of religion. Religion - at least Christianity (I'll let other believers speak for themselves but I expect they would concur) - is not a comforting set of rituals or abstract mystical experiences. Religion is a way of life, a way of seeing and thinking about and responding to the world around us. Genuinely devout people simply CAN NOT engage in politcs without bringing their faith into it. If you claim that religious people are barred from bringing religion into politics, you are literally barring all believers from the public arena. What you are arguing for, knowingly or not, is actually the monster you claim to be arguing against - a religious test by which only atheists are allowed to hold public office.

This is, of course, laughable. The constution intends no such thing, as you will note in the "free exercise" clause. The consitution would much more properly be called "non-sectarian" rather than "secular".

Finally, it is shameful that we have to debate this, but from my perspective the problem is that atheists, knowing very little about relgion, don't realize how very religious they are. And not recognizing your own religiosity, you can't see that your own politics are completely shaped by your atheistic religion - as naturaly they would and should be. So your call for secularism is mostly - whether you intend it or not - seen as a rather dis-honest power-grab for your own belief system. And that doesn't make people feel very comfortable, and uncomfortable people tend to debate. So here we are.

"Finally, it is shameful that we have to debate this, but from my perspective the problem is that atheists, knowing very little about relgion, don't realize how very religious they are. And not recognizing your own religiosity, you can't see that your own politics are completely shaped by your atheistic religion - as naturaly they would and should be. So your call for secularism is mostly - whether you intend it or not - seen as a rather dis-honest power-grab for your own belief system. And that doesn't make people feel very comfortable, and uncomfortable people tend to debate. So here we are."

There's nothing religious about atheism. It is explicitly a *lack* of religion. So I'm not sure what your point is there.

I won't speak for obi but as a libertarian atheist I will happily give my perspective. When I came to realize that my fundamental philosophical beliefs were libertarian, and identified as such, I rather quickly left Christianity, recognizing that (a) I didn't believe its factual explanations of the shaping of the world to be true, and (b) I did not agree with what I perceived to be the required moral tenets to be taken up as a consequence of identifying as a Christian. My philosophical libertarianism informs my atheism and my political libertarianism; my atheism is a consequence of being libertarian, not the reverse.

So for myself, at least, you are wrong to assert that my "atheistic religion" (whatever this is - I'm using it to refer to my religious nonbelief) is completely or even partly shaping my politics.

Take the gay marriage thing for example. I don't think it is a stretch to say that the vast majority of opposition to gay marriage is entirely religious at its core. I am certain there are a few homophobes whose fear of homosexuals and subsequent desire to repress them is not explicitly tied to religion, and of course there may be some as-of-yet-witnessed-by-yours-truly nonreligious-based opposition to gay marriage. But the mainstream argument boils down to gay marriage disagreeing with their religion.

I do not base my support for gay marriage on opposing religious forces, though. I base it on my support for the freedom of two individuals to get married irrespective of their sexual orientation, and my belief that restrictions on that constitute immoral coercion. That religious view I cite as opposing gay marriage is opposed not because it is religious but because it is in contrast to a basic moral principle I adopted *before* adopting my present religious views.

I cannot at present think of an example of a political debate at present that doesn't fall along the same lines.

I can appreciate the notion that a call for total secularism isn't going to be even-handed, definitely. But I don't understand why calling for that nonetheless automatically makes one "religious."

Will get to all those responses, but to take Mujus' first...

"Oh, my, Obi--you would shut the expression of religion into special buildings designed for that purpose. The Russians did that with Jews--oh but that was districts, not just buildings."

No, you don't have to confine your worship to a chapel or church or synagogue or whatever.

Go ahead and go to the park and have an outdoor Bible study.

Go ahead and protest abortion clinics with religious pickets (I'll strongly disagree, but you have the right.)

Go ahead and, for that matter, protest on the steps of Congress.

JUST...

Don't expect or ask government officials to hold, voice, or vote based off a certain faith.
Don't expect policy to be shaped by a certain faith.
Don't expect the rights of others to be curtailed for the rights of a certain faith.
Don't expect those certain faiths to get certain protections or passes from the govt.
Don't expect those certain faiths to receive special or preferential treatment.

And DEFINITELY don't expect that certain faith to be defended as being the "default" or "national" faith.

Separation of Church and State--that's ALL I ask.

Want to use religious rhetoric?
Go ahead.
Just don't be an elected government official.
Want to use religion to justify or shape your decision about rights, wars, or anything?
Go ahead (bad idea in my opinion, it's a free country, but go ahead.)
Just don't ask or endorse ANYONE who invokes a religion or deity in making or justifying their decisions for you, for me, or for Americans of ALL Faiths and lack thereof on the whole.

So I'm not saying that all religious communities must only practice in their little box...

I'm simply saying that there are boxes--public school and the government being two big ones--it should not, must not, may not, CANNOT be allowed to cross into.

In fact...

I'd think that'd be against your faith itself, Mujus--

IF it's truly a Kingdom of HEAVEN...why not agree to leave the Countries of Man to fair, democratic, non-biased, secular rule, with some perhaps holding religious views while in office--I won't be so unfair or unrealistic as to say that our politicians should not have any religious views at all, they're only human, some will have such views, of course--but leaving their Bibles/Torahs/Korans at home and remembering it's the US Constitution or the UK Equivalent and the people of the US/UK they serve at that moment, NOT their religion?

Kingdom of Heaven?
Fine.
Keep the restrictions of rule to that ethereal realm, leave secular rule for nations.

After all (correct me if I'm wrong) but if Jesus could be contented with ruling the former and letting the latter go, treating the latter as extraneous and superfluous in the face of the former, what need have we--have you--to infuse your religious dominance into the latter, surely one Kingdom is enough?

"Religion - at least Christianity (I'll let other believers speak for themselves but I expect they would concur) - is not a comforting set of rituals or abstract mystical experiences. Religion is a way of life, a way of seeing and thinking about and responding to the world around us."

I'm not claiming that religions operate Temple of Jerusalem-style with mystical sacrifices and mystical experiences...

But the fact remains that a religious worldview isn't compatible for the legal portions of this nation when said portions have been designed specifically to be religion-free, NOT to actively hate religion, but simply to allow for one to keep one's religion...to ONESELF while in the drivers' seat for actual legislating.

To put it another way:

You may keep your religion and be a Congressman or MP.

BUT, when it comes to making decisions for the nation, you MUST put that religious view away--now, I am certain that the religious here will say that's either unfair, impossible, or both...

But consider the fact that the State allows the Church immense autonomy and freedom.

I'd submit the same in return is warranted and justified.

If the lawgivers here cane keep from infringing on the grounds of your Lawgiver and keep religious institutions private and (to a large degree) free of public influence or laws that affect public schools, if it can keep from taxing these institutions.

Surely the religious community, in return, can shelve their views--not ashcan them, not throw them away, not actively violate them, but just set them aside in the course of a working day and not operate solely according to their rules--while in the public sphere, which taxes did pay for, and while in a government designed intentionally to keep religion free by keeping religion out?

Now, I'm certain there are those that would say that even this seemingly-reasonable compromise is unfair--after all, if it's what you claim, FlemGem, a "way of seeing the world," how can one set aside those views?

Simply put (and to return to Mujus' earlier injunction about atheists in the public sphere)--

The same way all those who oppose religion viscerally and view it as a disgusting, destructive, abusive and altogether poisoning force set that personal view aside in the legal context of the public sphere and allow YOU, the religious, your legal rights, namely...

The right to hold the same level of rights as anyone else.

Religion as a viewpoint does not get a pass simply for being religion.

Religion is tolerated in this and other free countries by those who either disagree with the religion and have their own or else disagree with religion altogether because we are able to put aside our PERSONAL views (ie, "Religion Poisons Everything") to recognize your LEGAL rights (ie, "They Are As Right To Hold Their Views As Am To Hold Mine.")

To wrap up with an extended example:

John Stuart Mill, in authoring the brilliant "On Liberty," famously said that the freedom to swing one's fist ends where another person's face begins.

I'd argue here, then, that the right to look through Christ-tinted lenses in the public and political sphere, as it were, ends only where it unfairly or unequally colors the rights of another group, and thus takes them away.

You may very well go up the steps of Parliament or Congress thinking that you wish to be a good person and make people free because your religion inspired you to do so--and as much as I'd in another thread say "Are you SURE that's what your religion says?" I'd here say "More power to you"--if it gives you the power to go through the day and try and uphold the secular, neutral, fair rights of all others, then more power to you, go ahead...if it gives you that same kick to the day a great passage from Shakespeare or reading Byron or Milton gives me, then go ahead.

But if that religious conviction you hold takes you further than that, if it takes you up those steps of Parliament and Congress and convinces you "Gays are subhuman and homosexuality is unnatural" despite science saying everything to the contrary, and on that note, if it convinces you "I believe in a Creator, so despite the entire scientific community rejecting the idea and it not having gained acceptance via hard work and demonstration the way evolution had to," and this leads you to deny gays the right to marry or forces public school prayer or intelligent design into classrooms...

THEN we have a problem, because no longer is your "world view" now just serving as inspiration to you...

It's now actively harming someone ELSE--which is NOT acceptable tto do or have done with the Legislating Pen of a Nation.

If you doubt this, consider--

Suppose we replaced Secularism here with a religion, say, Highly-Conservative Islam?

How would YOU feel if the nation now had leaders who were creating laws according to Islamic tradition and Sharia law, allowing their religious convictions to override whatever secular status they might have?

Suppose they decide that Christians should pay an extra tax for holding their faith rather than subscribing to Islam, as was the case in the Ottoman Empire--

Would you be OK with that?

Or suppose you were a woman and they deny you rights as a woman and demand you and all women cover yourselves with a niqab or burqua, whether you wish to or not?

If you answer to this "No, that'd be wholly unfair, and a complete invasion of my privacy and rights," ask yourself--

What if it was a Muslim prayer that your children were forced to say every day in school, that they had to kneel and face Mecca, even if they were not Christian--would prayer in the public space still be OK?

What's the difference between such Islamic states forcing women to wear these oppressively (even if were argued they are not intrinsically oppressive, any state that FORCED women to wear them would make their wearing oppressive) and the United States not allowing women control over another aspect of their lives (abortion) or, if we want to leave that one alone, gay marriage then?

You're denying rights based on religious beliefs in any case, and THAT is the key, key phrase, FlemGem (and Mujus)

Denying rights based on religious beliefs.

As SOON as you do that with your religious beliefs, you have reached the point where they have ceased to e an internal inspiration or revelation and become a law imposed upon all others, and imposed unfairly and towards an unjust end.

"I could see you having wtrouble with pliticians trying to force religious views into the public sphere as legally binding legislature, but a politician also has freedom of speech - in fact the whole reason for the freedom of speech clause was so that everyone (politicians, preachers, Joe Six Pack) *could* express their views without fear of reprisal from a corrupt government."

What is too often overlooked is that Freedom of Speech is not necessarily "say whatever you like" as much as "say what you like freely," which is a huge, huge difference.

Now, you may STILL say just about everything you want or could ever want...you're free to speak freely...

But we can see clear instances where it has been ruled that this is NOT OK--

Shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, for instance.

That's not OK.

Or making threatening statements to the point it becomes harrassment.

That's not OK.

On that ground, then, I'd argue that you can't have politicians espousing personal beliefs in a religion when it amounts to THAT.

"But Obi," it may be responded, "that's not what they're doing here, they're just using religious rhetoric."

And I refer you to my previous statement on religion--namely, that if you take the stance that your religion supports liberty and justice for all...I would suggest you look again, regardless of which it is; if it is in the Abrahamic tradition, and you take the Bible as your book, then my work there is done, as God CLEARLY and REPEATEDLY denies freedoms and even encourages extreme violence towards those of different faiths or ethnic backgrounds from his "People."

The relevance here?

It should be apparent--the Bible is NOT all-inclusive and OK with rights for all, so when you take it and use it in the political sphere...

Well, women, for instance, might just be a bit rankled at its use, particularly if it's being used to deny them rights...the same may be said for gays.

NOW.

There is an important distinction here, and I think it should be addressed before anything else is here said:

There is a qualitative difference in speech between the usual ending to, say, a Presidential speech--"God bless you, and God bless the United States of America"--and the sort of religious speech I am talking about.

I cringe a bit every time that ending crops up, but I recognize it's also part of an old tradition in this nation, and that, really, it doesn't do any harm, it IS innocuous--it's silly (I like Jim Jeffries response to this--"History's been going on for thousands of years before America showed up...and THAT'S when God decided to pick a team!) but it really is harmless, even to atheists, no one is going to be incited by that sort of speech to go out and murder atheists or Jews or Christians or Muslims or whoever else.

The UK does it too--God Save the Queen--so some little sayings just sort of fly...they may not make much sense and they may be silly, but they mean no ill will towards anyone and they're essentially a centuries-old way of saying "Good luck to you all, my fellow countrymen," so really, no harm done, that's perfectly alright with me for politicians to say.

BUT, as the MLK example came up earlier, if a politician started to try and like our situation to a Biblical one...or else use and quote Biblical mantras and verses to make a point...

THEN we have a problem, because this is now a breach of the Separation between Church and State, we now have a religious view being forced and infused into our lawmaker's debates, and THAT could lead to it getting into the laws themselves.

And that's a best case scenario.

And that's the distinction I'd make.

"And politicians are still individuals, not part of the state. The state isn't elected officials, it is the laws and regulations those politicians put into play. Politicians come and go but the state remains. So they *can* and *schould* express their religious views and not be muzzled by militant athiests like yourself."

First--I'd argue that the state is BOTH...after all, who makes the laws but those statesmen, so as long as they are alive and making laws, they ARE partially the state.

Second--They should NOT express their religious views when it infringes on the rights of others.

And lastly--

I wholly resent that being vocal and an atheist today is equates as being a "militant" atheist...

And it seems ESPECIALLY hypocritical from someone who just advocated so much for elected officials expressing their RELIGIOUS views...

Should not the same equality of speech, in your system, be extended to those who reject faith?

If so, then it's not right to call me a militant atheist give the God-quoting politicians a free pass on the "militant" term, especially when it is them making laws and affecting and infringing upon the rights of others potentially, NOT me.

If not...well, then I hold your system to be a double standard through and through.