Atheism isn't cause - secularism is! Discuss!

[Seth]

So - has anyone ever called a point of order during these invocations? It may be theoretically possible, but if no-one ever exercises it, then it is being suppressed quite clearly. The 'political' argument is hardly convincing. This is an argument about actual actions, not theoretical possibilities

I don't know. I know that the issue of both having an invocation and hiring a chaplain to give the invocation has been challenged all the way to the Supreme Court, where the Court held that such practices are permissible.

If such "points of order" are being suppressed, they are being suppressed by peer pressure, not an act of government or law. Again, understand that the Constitution only prohibits government from officially advancing or inhibiting religion. The actions and opinions of members of a legislative body (or the public itself) towards another member regarding that member's religious convictions or beliefs is beyond the ambit of the protections of the Constitution. Members of Congress have every right to render personal judgments about the character of other members and cooperate or refuse to cooperate accordingly. That's a human right too, and a Constitutional one.

What "human rights" do you putatively refer to? I've already told you that you have no "right" to be free from the religious expressions of others. So what "human rights" are you referring to, pray tell?

The human right of free speech - exercised in practice.[/quote]

To paraphrase the Supreme Court, in what way is the human right of free speech infringed upon by the equal exercise of the human right of free speech, or the human right of freedom of (dis)association by others? You have the right to speak as you please. You do not have the right to expect others to either listen to you, give your speech credence or respect, or be persuaded by your opinions.

No need for the superior tone, I'm not using it, please reciprocate.

Sorry, can't help it, I am superior, but I'll try to be a bit more humble for you.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

No, Atheists should have more important things to worry about than expressions of religion that harm no one and do not cause government to "establish" religion.

We'll decide what we should worry about.

[Exi5tentialist]

To paraphrase the Supreme Court, in what way is the human right of free speech infringed upon by the equal exercise of the human right of free speech, or the human right of freedom of (dis)association by others? You have the right to speak as you please. You do not have the right to expect others to either listen to you, give your speech credence or respect, or be persuaded by your opinions.

That's my point exactly. When these prayers or invocations are being spoken, representatives have the right to interrupt them. But they never, never do. The argument that this is not a suppression of their freedom of speech is not convincing. In every other type of meeting people are interrupted - but in prayers and invocations, not at all.

[Seth]

It's a nation of religious PLURALITY and mutual tolerance for the free exercise of religion by all that requires that government refrain from either advancing or inhibiting religion in it's official acts.

Isn't that what secular means? i.e., not under the control of the church.

Secularism, or "secularity" generally refers, when applied to a government or state, to the concept that a government does not engage in explicitly religious functions, as opposed to the idea that government must be free of all religious influences. This is a recognition of reality in that it is simply not possible to divorce the acts of government entirely from religious influence because government, and laws, are made by men, most of whom hold some kind of religious belief (be it theistic or atheistic). Accordingly, religion commonly influences and informs government to one degree or another.

In the context of the United States, secularity means that government acts may not be explicitly functions of any religion. But at the same time, religion does inform the decisions of elected officials in a legislature. The nuance is in distinguishing between religious practices and acts and government acts that may codify religious morality or ethics. So long as there is a rational primarily secular (non-religious) purpose to a law, and it neither advances nor inhibits religion, a law may inculcate religion-based moral or ethical precepts. Thus, government may not say "God says thou shalt not kill" but it may say "thou shalt not kill" if there is a rational non-religious basis for doing so, notwithstanding that the fundamental concept is expressed by some religion.

So, "secularity" or "secularism," upon which the United States was absolutely not founded, is intended to keep the actual practices and proclamations out of the acts of government while at the same time respecting the religious pluralism and mutual religious tolerance upon which the United States absolutely was founded.

[Seth]

No, Atheists should have more important things to worry about than expressions of religion that harm no one and do not cause government to "establish" religion.

We'll decide what we should worry about.

Fine by me, but carping about "under God" or "In God We Trust" makes Atheist look like ignorant, intolerant, bigoted asses. If that's how you wish to appear to the vast majority of citizens, by all means go right ahead.

[Gallstones]

I think prayers before Congress IS establishment of religion.
The Supreme Court is wrong about that.

No, it's not. Remember that Congress is made up of individuals, each of whom has a constitutionally-guaranteed right to worship and express religion freely, notwithstanding the fact that they are elected officials. They each have a right to pray whenever and wherever they wish, including during sessions of Congress. The invocations given are not "official acts" of the Congress, they are a group observance that occurs outside of the deliberative and legislative process by the consent of the members of Congress that has been going on since the very first Congress was seated.

To say that members of Congress have no right to pray before they begin their workday (or individually during the workday) is to unconstitutionally deny them their religious rights. And no member (or member of the public observing) is compelled to pray or participate in the invocation if they do not freely choose to do so. They merely have to tolerate that free religious expression by the members.

The Supreme Court has directly address such invocations and has ruled that there are sufficient checks and balances in the process to prevent any chance of the sort of hyperbolically ridiculous assertions of "theocracy" in the making that are constantly heard from Atheists. The Court has wisely balance the rights of members of Congress and historical precedent and the intent of the Founders against the vacuous and paranoid fears of Atheists and found the Atheist arguments wanting.

I think it is if it occurs once the workday has begun and they are being paid public monies.
Whoever "leads" this prayer can not be paid to do so out of public monies.

If they are doing it before the work day begins, fine.

What if a five or more separate petitions to lead prayer are made nearly every day. Do they draw straws? Do they each get a turn? Is there any who-leads-the-prayer affrimitive action policy to ensure that it is fair? How does that work when we can't have it going on while the Congressmen are on the clock--they come early according to a schedule?" When does the work they are being paid to do--as public servants--get done if there is so much prayer going on? If there is that much. Going on. Prayer.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

No, Atheists should have more important things to worry about than expressions of religion that harm no one and do not cause government to "establish" religion.

We'll decide what we should worry about.

Fine by me, but carping about "under God" or "In God We Trust" makes Atheist look like ignorant, intolerant, bigoted asses. If that's how you wish to appear to the vast majority of citizens, by all means go right ahead.

Quit yer bitchin'.

[Exi5tentialist]

carping about "under God" or "In God We Trust" makes Atheist look like ignorant, intolerant, bigoted asses.

That's just a bit over the top. Atheists who want a secular system of government are entitled to point out inconsistencies and propose their removal. I don't see how this qualifies as ignorant for a start - mostly they're far more knowledgeable about religion than religious believers are. Intolerant doesn't fit either - it is about the space occupied by government being open to everyone and free of propaganda that favours any one group of the population, but that doesn't mean that religious references in non-government spaces must be removed, so there's nothing intolerant about it. Bigoted doesn't fit either. A bigot is an inflexible person who doesn't change fixed opinions of others despite valid evidence to the contrary. This discussion doesn't fit in the realm of bigotry.

Finally, asses. I just don't see it. Maybe I need to wait for a full moon, but I can't see how this reference to asses is relevant to the discussion.

Still this thread has enabled me to get to know Seth - someone who is over-reliant on the decisions of the Supreme Court to back up his own opinions, who is often rather superior in tone, and who resorts to insult as an alternative to rational argument.

[Seth]

I think prayers before Congress IS establishment of religion.
The Supreme Court is wrong about that.

No, it's not. Remember that Congress is made up of individuals, each of whom has a constitutionally-guaranteed right to worship and express religion freely, notwithstanding the fact that they are elected officials. They each have a right to pray whenever and wherever they wish, including during sessions of Congress. The invocations given are not "official acts" of the Congress, they are a group observance that occurs outside of the deliberative and legislative process by the consent of the members of Congress that has been going on since the very first Congress was seated.

To say that members of Congress have no right to pray before they begin their workday (or individually during the workday) is to unconstitutionally deny them their religious rights. And no member (or member of the public observing) is compelled to pray or participate in the invocation if they do not freely choose to do so. They merely have to tolerate that free religious expression by the members.

The Supreme Court has directly address such invocations and has ruled that there are sufficient checks and balances in the process to prevent any chance of the sort of hyperbolically ridiculous assertions of "theocracy" in the making that are constantly heard from Atheists. The Court has wisely balance the rights of members of Congress and historical precedent and the intent of the Founders against the vacuous and paranoid fears of Atheists and found the Atheist arguments wanting.

I think it is if it occurs once the workday has begun and they are being paid public monies.
Whoever "leads" this prayer can not be paid to do so out of public monies.

I agree with you and said so in my article. But since the Founders themselves discussed this very issue and they themselves agreed that having such an invocation and hiring someone to give it, and appropriating the money from public funds to do so did not violate the document that they created, the Court ruled that whatever danger of establishing a religion it poses, the original intent of the Founders did not preclude it and the other aspects of the document sufficiently protect against it.

Still, it would be best, in my opinion, to change the timing so it comes before the gavel falls at the very least.

If they are doing it before the work day begins, fine.

What if a five or more separate petitions to lead prayer are made nearly every day. Do they draw straws? Do they each get a turn? Is there any who-leads-the-prayer affrimitive action policy to ensure that it is fair? How does that work when we can't have it going on while the Congressmen are on the clock--they come early according to a schedule?" When does the work they are being paid to do--as public servants--get done if there is so much prayer going on? If there is that much. Going on. Prayer.

This is a very interesting question, particularly since the potential for having Muslims elected to office brings the issue directly into focus.

That's why procedures should be changed so that any invocation occurs BEFORE the day's business commences, and why any praying done during the business day should be done on the member's own time.

[Seth]

carping about "under God" or "In God We Trust" makes Atheist look like ignorant, intolerant, bigoted asses.

That's just a bit over the top. Atheists who want a secular system of government are entitled to point out inconsistencies and propose their removal.

Sure they are, but this has been adjudicated before the Supreme Court several times and they've lost every time. This makes them look like cranks when they continue to fight a battle that's been lost long ago.

I don't see how this qualifies as ignorant for a start - mostly they're far more knowledgeable about religion than religious believers are.

Depends on what you mean by "knowledgeable about religion."

Intolerant doesn't fit either - it is about the space occupied by government being open to everyone and free of propaganda that favours any one group of the population, but that doesn't mean that religious references in non-government spaces must be removed, so there's nothing intolerant about it.

The First Amendment Establishment Clause does not require that space occupied by government be "free of propaganda that favors any one group." It merely prohibits the government from establishing a state religion.

Bigoted doesn't fit either. A bigot is an inflexible person who doesn't change fixed opinions of others despite valid evidence to the contrary. This discussion doesn't fit in the realm of bigotry.

Actually, bigotry nicely fits many radical Atheists like those who challenge such things in court.

Finally, asses. I just don't see it. Maybe I need to wait for a full moon, but I can't see how this reference to asses is relevant to the discussion.

One may be perfectly correct in one's arguments and still be an ass in how one presents it. Richard Dawkins is the quintessential example of that phenomenon.

Still this thread has enabled me to get to know Seth - someone who is over-reliant on the decisions of the Supreme Court to back up his own opinions, who is often rather superior in tone, and who resorts to insult as an alternative to rational argument.

Well, you'll also find that I disagree with the Supreme Court on many issues, but generally when discussing something like this, it's informative to point out when the Supreme Court has considered and rejected an argument, and why.

As for insults, I do occasionally cross the line inadvertently, but generally I only produce insults in response to insults.

As for being superior, I am of course superior because everyone and everything is merely a figment of my imagination...

[Seth]

To paraphrase the Supreme Court, in what way is the human right of free speech infringed upon by the equal exercise of the human right of free speech, or the human right of freedom of (dis)association by others? You have the right to speak as you please. You do not have the right to expect others to either listen to you, give your speech credence or respect, or be persuaded by your opinions.

That's my point exactly. When these prayers or invocations are being spoken, representatives have the right to interrupt them. But they never, never do. The argument that this is not a suppression of their freedom of speech is not convincing. In every other type of meeting people are interrupted - but in prayers and invocations, not at all.

That's a social function, not a legal one. The only thing that the Constitution and the laws can deal with is how government and government agents in the official performance of their duties deal with religion.

The fact that common respect for one's fellow members and tolerance for their religious practices that have no official weight or power may inhibit one from breaching common courtesy is not a matter for the Constitution to be concerned with. Social pressure to tolerate free religious expression by others is simply not a matter of concern. If you don't like the pressure, don't attend the event or refuse to participate, or leave the venue. You have no right to expect others to refrain from such observances to suit your particular ideological preferences for freedom from having to tolerate religious activities in the public square.

If you want to invoke your free speech rights and interrupt such an event, you have every legal right to do so, and no legal right to expect anyone else to respect your decision or tolerate your interruption without comment or agree to cooperate with you in the future. You are fully responsible for the consequences of your speech, which includes being ostracized and rejected by your peers and community.

[Cormac]

Religion and capitalism are symbiotically entwined. It is not possible to overthrow one without the other. Similarly, secularisation runs in parallel with reformism. Its adoption as an ultimate goal is an early step towards understanding that a revolution against capitalism is impossible unless we revolt against ourselves as the people who make up a capitalist world. Since most of us are not willing to entertain this level of self-revolution, we settle for seemingly lesser targets: in this case, secularism rather than atheism.

By the way, atheism is not defined as the absence of a belief in God. It is either disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of God - an either/or choice for each of us, a choice between a clearly defined rejection of the existence of God on the one hand, or a looser 'absence' on the other. Atheism therefore contains within it a similar choice as the one we are presented with in choosing between secularism and atheism, or revolution and reform, or atheism and agnosticism. Which we choose depends on how closely we identify with the current economic system.

What?

Are you saying that the supposed symbiotic relationship is inevitable?

Yours seems a very millenial ideology - and therefore, not all that separate from religion.

Atheism, as most atheists define it, is an absence of the belief in god. While this may or may not be a correct translation, it is what most atheists think.

[Cormac]

causes no harm to anyone because no one is compelled to speak the words

But they are compelled to remain silent while others speak the words.

No, they are not. No one, anywhere, can be compelled to remain silent. They may choose to do so out of simple respect, but they are not compelled by force of law to do so.

In normal conversation and political debate it would be acceptable to interrupt, heckle and talk over people asserting their truth. Therefore harm is done to those who are forced to remain silent during this bizarre ritual, because their freedom of speech is curtailed.

No one is forced to remain silent by anything other than their own conscience or the opprobrium of their fellow citizens at a disruption of a lawful public assembly. Whether interruption, heckling or talking over a recitation of the pledge of allegiance rises to the level of criminal "disrupting of a lawful public assembly" is a highly individualized set of circumstances that has to be judged on a case-by-case basis.

Speaking words of objection at some event where the pledge is being recited is not a crime, period. Running onto the stage and ripping the microphone from the hands of the person leading the pledge probably is a crime, but the crime is not objecting to the pledge, it's unlawfully disrupting the public meeting or assembly in a manner which is likely to (or does) incite violence and an immediate breach of the peace. That's a somewhat vague and subjective standard that applies to ANY speech ANYWHERE. by the way. The metric used by the courts in assessing whether some speech is unlawfully disruptive or constitutes inciting a riot is that the speech must be so inflammatory that it is likely to cause an immediate breach of the peace.

But, while the government (in the corpus of the police) cannot lawfully suppress political dissent, which would include speaking out in objection during a recitation of the pledge, there is nothing in the law that protects such a heckler from the opprobrium or other peaceable counter-objection by other members of the public, who are perfectly within their rights to shout down the heckler, show him with verbal opprobrium or cover his objection with a louder concerted recitation of the pledge.

The First Amendment gives someone who wishes to "heckle" a recitation of the pledge the right to speak his or her mind (in a peaceable manner), but it does not impose on anyone else the obligation to listen, pay attention, or refrain from expressing their displeasure at the individual's equal free expression.

In other words, you have a perfect and unassailable right to speak up with your objections during a recitation of the pledge, and your fellow citizens have a perfect right to peaceably shout you down and revile you in return. You have a right to speak, but no right to an audience.

So, no, you're wrong. There is no harm done to anyone during a public recitation of the pledge of allegiance because no government official can compel you to either participate or refrain from exercising your right to say something else or remain silent. That you might feel coerced into silence by the hostility of your fellow citizens is utterly irrelevant, because they are not obliged to respect your dissent or your speech, and are free to heap scorn and opprobrium upon you as it pleases them to do so. So long as they don't physically assault you in the process, you have no recourse in the law to require them to listen or respect your speech.

Would shouting disapproval, or singing an anti-religious song in protest at the prayers constitute disruption of a lawful assembly?

[Cormac]

I think prayers before Congress IS establishment of religion.
The Supreme Court is wrong about that.

No, it's not. Remember that Congress is made up of individuals, each of whom has a constitutionally-guaranteed right to worship and express religion freely, notwithstanding the fact that they are elected officials. They each have a right to pray whenever and wherever they wish, including during sessions of Congress. The invocations given are not "official acts" of the Congress, they are a group observance that occurs outside of the deliberative and legislative process by the consent of the members of Congress that has been going on since the very first Congress was seated.

To say that members of Congress have no right to pray before they begin their workday (or individually during the workday) is to unconstitutionally deny them their religious rights. And no member (or member of the public observing) is compelled to pray or participate in the invocation if they do not freely choose to do so. They merely have to tolerate that free religious expression by the members.

The Supreme Court has directly address such invocations and has ruled that there are sufficient checks and balances in the process to prevent any chance of the sort of hyperbolically ridiculous assertions of "theocracy" in the making that are constantly heard from Atheists. The Court has wisely balance the rights of members of Congress and historical precedent and the intent of the Founders against the vacuous and paranoid fears of Atheists and found the Atheist arguments wanting.

I think it is if it occurs once the workday has begun and they are being paid public monies.
Whoever "leads" this prayer can not be paid to do so out of public monies.

I agree with you and said so in my article. But since the Founders themselves discussed this very issue and they themselves agreed that having such an invocation and hiring someone to give it, and appropriating the money from public funds to do so did not violate the document that they created, the Court ruled that whatever danger of establishing a religion it poses, the original intent of the Founders did not preclude it and the other aspects of the document sufficiently protect against it.

Still, it would be best, in my opinion, to change the timing so it comes before the gavel falls at the very least.

If they are doing it before the work day begins, fine.

What if a five or more separate petitions to lead prayer are made nearly every day. Do they draw straws? Do they each get a turn? Is there any who-leads-the-prayer affrimitive action policy to ensure that it is fair? How does that work when we can't have it going on while the Congressmen are on the clock--they come early according to a schedule?" When does the work they are being paid to do--as public servants--get done if there is so much prayer going on? If there is that much. Going on. Prayer.

This is a very interesting question, particularly since the potential for having Muslims elected to office brings the issue directly into focus.

That's why procedures should be changed so that any invocation occurs BEFORE the day's business commences, and why any praying done during the business day should be done on the member's own time.

Atheists should just shut up and get back in their boxes. Clearly, free democratic expression, rights to challenge the constitutionality of behaviours and laws in society, and rights of legal representation are not for filthy loud-mouthed atheists, but just for fine god-lovin' folks.

[Cormac]

To paraphrase the Supreme Court, in what way is the human right of free speech infringed upon by the equal exercise of the human right of free speech, or the human right of freedom of (dis)association by others? You have the right to speak as you please. You do not have the right to expect others to either listen to you, give your speech credence or respect, or be persuaded by your opinions.

That's my point exactly. When these prayers or invocations are being spoken, representatives have the right to interrupt them. But they never, never do. The argument that this is not a suppression of their freedom of speech is not convincing. In every other type of meeting people are interrupted - but in prayers and invocations, not at all.

That's a social function, not a legal one. The only thing that the Constitution and the laws can deal with is how government and government agents in the official performance of their duties deal with religion.

The fact that common respect for one's fellow members and tolerance for their religious practices that have no official weight or power may inhibit one from breaching common courtesy is not a matter for the Constitution to be concerned with. Social pressure to tolerate free religious expression by others is simply not a matter of concern. If you don't like the pressure, don't attend the event or refuse to participate, or leave the venue. You have no right to expect others to refrain from such observances to suit your particular ideological preferences for freedom from having to tolerate religious activities in the public square.

If you want to invoke your free speech rights and interrupt such an event, you have every legal right to do so, and no legal right to expect anyone else to respect your decision or tolerate your interruption without comment or agree to cooperate with you in the future. You are fully responsible for the consequences of your speech, which includes being ostracized and rejected by your peers and community.

This is a neat piece of sophistry.

However, the facts are that government officials on government property gather and pray. The general public do not make such fine distinctions as those sliced out by you and the Supreme Court. Consequently, this behaviour is a direct promotion of religion by government.