Atheism isn't cause - secularism is! Discuss!

[Exi5tentialist]

It depends on how you define "important." It's important to the majority that the expressions remain. It should be unimportant to Atheists that they be removed. They ought to have more important things to worry about.

Hmm so it is important to the majority but atheists should have more important things to worry about than what is important to the majority. (confused? you will be...)

[Gallstones]

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

[Gallstones]

The point is that they are important to the majority, and do no harm to those who object, which is why the Supreme Court has repeatedly refused to ban either expression. Like the prayers before the convening of Congress, it's a historical, ceremonial event, not an "establishment" of religion.

If and when the majority wants the expressions of faith removed, they will direct their representatives to do so. Until then, Atheists will just have to suck it up and tolerate it.

Ah so they are important now. Earlier you said they were unimportant. I see the source of my confusion.

It depends on how you define "important." It's important to the majority that the expressions remain. It should be unimportant to Atheists that they be removed. They ought to have more important things to worry about.

What important things?

[Seth]

It depends on how you define "important." It's important to the majority that the expressions remain. It should be unimportant to Atheists that they be removed. They ought to have more important things to worry about.

Hmm so it is important to the majority but atheists should have more important things to worry about than what is important to the majority. (confused? you will be...)

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. The problem is that Atheists (the big "A" zealously religious Atheists) waste both their time and effort, and any goodwill or commonality they might have with religious secularists complaining about meaningless and harmless historical artifacts rather than addressing those situations (like official prayers in schools) that pose a legitimate concern of state sponsoring of religion. In attacking the meaningless symbols of historical reference, Atheists do nothing more than steel the resolve of those who despise atheism to fight, obstruct and marginalize Atheists.

What it boils down to is a religious conflict between the majority religious sentiment that sees the US as a nation founded "under God" and has no problem with historical references to this sentiment and the minority religious Atheist sentiment that any public display or expression of theistic religion infringes on their purported (though vacuous and nonexistent) "right" to be free FROM religion.

Of course, what the religious Atheists forget (or more likely deliberately elide) is the Free Exercise Clause, which guarantees all citizens the right to freely practice and express themselves religiously.

Religious Atheists fail to understand that the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause are not constraints on the People, they are a "wall of separation" that surrounds the government and its agents like a prison wall primarily to prevent government from interfering with the religious rights of the People. The original intent and meaning of the Establishment Clause ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion") applied only to Congress, and was not applied to other levels of federal, state and local government until the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868, some eighty years after the Constitution was ratified, and the Establishment Clause was not "incorporated" as applied to the states until 1947.

Prior to 1947, and particularly prior to 1868, several states had organized and official state religions, and this was not felt to be in the least bit repugnant to the Constitution by the Founders. Their attitude was "If you don't like the state religion in your state, find another state." The principle in play until 1947 (really starting in about 1912 with the advent of Progressivism) was that except in the limited spheres of federal authority as explicitly authorized by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, each state was sovereign and the Founders felt that the state government, being closer to the residents of the state, would best represent their interests and beliefs, whereas a remote and inaccessible federal government would not, and should therefore be severely constrained to acting in matters of true national importance rather than meddling in the daily lives of a state's residents who have as their proper avenue of redress their own state legislatures.

Thus, the original intent of the Founders in ratifying the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses was not to constrain or inhibit the exercise of religion by the People, even at the state level, but rather it was to ensure that the Congress would never have the power to established an approved nationwide state religion or make observances of that religion the official policy of the United States.

Only through the "interpretation" of the 14th Amendment did the Supreme Court succeed in "secularizing" state and local governments, since nowhere in the language of the 14th Amendment, which was enacted to right the wrongs of slavery and ensure that blacks had an equal legal footing under the protections of the Bill of Rights and Constitution, was mention made of "disestablishing" existing state-based religions.

However, that interpretation stands, and it's a good thing for government at all levels to be carefully neutral when it comes to religion. But it's important to recognize that the mandate is for neutrality towards religion or irreligion, and neither advancement nor inhibition of either by government, and expressly not suppression of religious expression in and by the public.

The upshot is that the Constitution, as it stands today, requires tolerance on the part of all Americans for the peaceable religious beliefs and expressions of others, and the neutrality of government when it comes to religion.

The most important aspect of this requirement for tolerance is that neither Atheism nor secularism are "common ground" that can be used to suppress private religious expression or worship.

Thus, except where government entanglement with religion either advances or inhibits religion, secularists and Atheists are due no deference for their belief/practice system (religion) and they have to suffer the equal rights of others to express themselves religiously.

[Exi5tentialist]

No, Atheists should have more important things to worry about than expressions of religion that harm no one

Yes but... see my other post, on how they do cause harm to atheists.

[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.

[Exi5tentialist]

A lot depends on where prayers take place. Are they in a separate room designated for the purpose? Do atheist members of congress have to stay silent during prayers, while others around them get on with it? Is it acceptable for anyone to leave the room because they don't agree with it - and do they? Same with the oath of allegiance.

[Seth]

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.

[Seth]

A lot depends on where prayers take place. Are they in a separate room designated for the purpose? Do atheist members of congress have to stay silent during prayers, while others around them get on with it? Is it acceptable for anyone to leave the room because they don't agree with it - and do they? Same with the oath of allegiance.

According to the House Parliamentarian, whom I consulted some months ago on precisely this question for an article I wrote on the subject, the invocation is held after the gavel drops bringing the House to order. However, my understanding is that no member is compelled in any way to participate in the observance and they may go about their regular business during the invocation without sanction, and may leave the chamber if they choose, or indeed not enter the chamber till the invocation is over.

My preference is, as I state in the article referenced, that the invocation should come before any public body is called to order, to clearly define the line between individual activities in a group setting and the official business of government. The Court, however, declined to make such a fine distinction, though I wish they would.

[Exi5tentialist]

Well this is crazy. It goes well beyond just protecting people's right to religion. I'm amazed this bizarre ritual is allowed to occur in the debating chamber at all. It should be matter for a separate room, or if there isn't the room available, a nearby church. I fail to see how this harms no-one. Can members call points of order during these 'invocations'? Can they heckle the speaker? I am not convinced that this practice does not trample roughshod over normal human rights. Same with the oath of allegiance - I've made similar points.

[Feck]

At what age is it explained to school children that the pledge is optional they are perfectly entitled not to take it and there will be no repercussions (is this actually the case ) ? On what planet is the state deciding to add In god we trust to the money and Under god to an oath NOT a religious intrusion into a so called secular state ?
There is Harm real actual harm for a nation state based and boastful of it's secular democracy to deny an atheist public office ,print affirmations of religion on it's currency and to expect it's school children to take a pledge of a religious nature .

It seems to me that your view of a secular state has a 'don't ask don't tell' view of actually being an atheist or even agnostic .

[Seth]

Well this is crazy. It goes well beyond just protecting people's right to religion. I'm amazed this bizarre ritual is allowed to occur in the debating chamber at all. It should be matter for a separate room, or if there isn't the room available, a nearby church. I fail to see how this harms no-one.

I fail to see how it harms anyone.

Can members call points of order during these 'invocations'?

Of course.

Can they heckle the speaker?

Certainly.

It may not, however, be the most politically astute thing to do or do much to advance one's political career or gain the respect (not to mention the cooperation) of one's peers. Zealotry is allowable, just not viewed very favorably by others. That is as it should be. Politics is the art of compromise after all, and pissing off the very people you may need to cooperate with you to pass your bill is generally not a good idea, as Obama is discovering, to his chagrin.

Nothing in the Constitution protects you against the bad opinions of your fellow citizens if you insist on being a zealot.

I am not convinced that this practice does not trample roughshod over normal human rights. Same with the oath of allegiance - I've made similar points.

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?

[Exi5tentialist]

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.

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

[Seth]

At what age is it explained to school children that the pledge is optional they are perfectly entitled not to take it and there will be no repercussions (is this actually the case ) ?

At the same age that explaining to school children that Marxist/Socialist/Progressive collectivistic propaganda and indoctrination in the public schools can be ignored I suppose. We leave it up to the parents to decide for their children whether they should recite the pledge. When they are old enough to understand what they are saying, they are free to make the decision for themselves if they so choose.

On what planet is the state deciding to add In god we trust to the money and Under god to an oath NOT a religious intrusion into a so called secular state ?

Well, the United States is not a "secular state," you see, so there's your problem right there.

There is Harm real actual harm for a nation state based and boastful of it's secular democracy to deny an atheist public office

Where and when has an atheist been denied public office by law in the last 50 years? And I don't mean remnant, unenforced statutes, I mean when was an atheist officially prohibited from either running for or holding office by an act of government (not an act of the voters denying them office)?

,print affirmations of religion on it's currency

What "actual, real harm" is caused by putting "In God We Trust" on the currency?

and to expect it's school children to take a pledge of a religious nature .

Since no child is compelled by law to take such a pledge, where's the "actual, real harm?"

It seems to me that your view of a secular state has a 'don't ask don't tell' view of actually being an atheist or even agnostic .

No, you can be an atheist or agnostic all you like, but you can't force that belief on others or demand that they do other than tolerate your peaceable exercise of your religious beliefs to the same extent that you tolerate their peaceable exercise of their religious beliefs.

If your fellow citizens choose to disassociate with you because of your religious belief in atheism or any other religious belief, why that's their First Amendment right of freedom of (dis)association. To compel them to associate with someone who holds repugnant religious beliefs (like Atheism) is to violate their civil rights.

And again, the United States is NOT a "secular state." Never has been. 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.

[Seabass]

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.