Atheism isn't cause - secularism is! Discuss!

[Exi5tentialist]

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.

Millenial? How so? I'm talking about this year, not 1,000 from now.

By the way the problem with your definition of atheism isn't that it's an incorrect 'translation' (translation from what?), it's that it's an incorrect definition.

[Seth]

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.

Actually, empirically I don't think this is at all true. What you are describing, the "absence of belief in god" is the definition of the implicit atheist, which is to say it's a condition in which the individual has never been exposed to theistic concepts and therefore has never had the opportunity to consider the arguments for and against god and draw a rational conclusion about the truth value of those claims. Only young children and mental defectives can generally be categorized properly as implicit atheists.

Everyone else, including anyone who has been exposed to theistic claims and has considered the truth value of those claims and actively rejected those claims as false or unsupported are categorized as explicit atheists, which is as Exi states, the mental state of actively denying the existence of god or the truth of theistic claims, which is much more than a simple non-existence or absence of belief in god, it's an express and considered rejection.

This is why the common atheistic evasion that atheism cannot be a religion (or more correctly practiced as a religion) is false. Religion and theism are not necessarily connected, and one may practice atheism religiously as a system of beliefs and practices every bit as much as a system of Catholic theistic beliefs and practices, but without the theistic component.

[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.

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

I shouldn't think so, but it's hard to predict in the absence of court precedent. Congress is quintessentially the People's house, and while there are rules of decorum, and restrictions on time, place and manner of exercising free speech which would make the disruption of the business of Congress unlawful, I suspect that a protest during an invocation, particularly on the part of a member, would qualify as permissible free speech, although it might take a court case to affirm it. Why don't you visit Washington and stop by the House or Senate gallery and give it a bash, and see if you get arrested and get back to us? I think it'd be an interesting case at the very least.

[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.

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.

Not at all. It's perfectly legal for government officials to gather on government property and pray. It happens all the time. The proscription is not on assembly for the purposes of prayer or prayer itself, it's a proscription on government agents advancing or inhibiting religion as a part of their official duties. Thus, a rule requiring people to pray before a public meeting is unconstitutional, while praying at a public meeting, even by a government official, is not. A group prayer is not prohibited so long as no one is compelled to participate. The invocation is not part of the official business of the Congress, and no one is compelled to participate or observe silence during the invocation, it is a private expression of religious faith by the members of the political body, each of whom may express a different faith or belief, or none at all.

Here's an example: Recently, the staff at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs organized a prayer breakfast on base, using base facilities. The event was sanctioned by the Commander, and organized by the chaplains, but it was paid for by private donations, and the expenses of the venue were also paid for by donations, not government funds. Attendance was by invitation only, and was not mandatory. This was a perfectly lawful exercise of religious faith by military officers on a military base because the event took place during their off-duty time, was organized without the use of government funds, and was not mandatory. In fact, DOD regulations (and the Constitution) REQUIRED the Commander to reasonably accommodate the religious needs of service members because of their unique position and restrictions as members of the military. This is why the military has chaplains in the first place, and why, for example there is a world-renowned chapel on the AFA grounds...and there is also a newly-created Pagan/Wiccan worship site created and paid for with government dollars on the base as well.

[Cormac]

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.

Millenial? How so? I'm talking about this year, not 1,000 from now.

By the way the problem with your definition of atheism isn't that it's an incorrect 'translation' (translation from what?), it's that it's an incorrect definition.

Millenial insofar as you seem to be postulating a defined future, a defined set of events.

[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.

Actually, empirically I don't think this is at all true. What you are describing, the "absence of belief in god" is the definition of the implicit atheist, which is to say it's a condition in which the individual has never been exposed to theistic concepts and therefore has never had the opportunity to consider the arguments for and against god and draw a rational conclusion about the truth value of those claims. Only young children and mental defectives can generally be categorized properly as implicit atheists.

Everyone else, including anyone who has been exposed to theistic claims and has considered the truth value of those claims and actively rejected those claims as false or unsupported are categorized as explicit atheists, which is as Exi states, the mental state of actively denying the existence of god or the truth of theistic claims, which is much more than a simple non-existence or absence of belief in god, it's an express and considered rejection.

This is why the common atheistic evasion that atheism cannot be a religion (or more correctly practiced as a religion) is false. Religion and theism are not necessarily connected, and one may practice atheism religiously as a system of beliefs and practices every bit as much as a system of Catholic theistic beliefs and practices, but without the theistic component.

I don't agree.

I see where you're coming from, but it isn't necessarily the case.

I find myself with an absence of belief in god.

I also reject all of the arguments in favour of god, because they make no logical sense.

These are not necessarily connected. Indeed, current research seems to show that this is how all "decisions" occur. We act, then we rationalise.

I do not practice "atheism". What is the object of veneration?

I'm sure human beings could contrive a way to make a religion out of atheism, but I do not.

[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?

I shouldn't think so, but it's hard to predict in the absence of court precedent. Congress is quintessentially the People's house, and while there are rules of decorum, and restrictions on time, place and manner of exercising free speech which would make the disruption of the business of Congress unlawful, I suspect that a protest during an invocation, particularly on the part of a member, would qualify as permissible free speech, although it might take a court case to affirm it. Why don't you visit Washington and stop by the House or Senate gallery and give it a bash, and see if you get arrested and get back to us? I think it'd be an interesting case at the very least.

There you go. chances are, the democratic rights of atheists would be suppressed in your creeping theocracy.

[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.

Not at all. It's perfectly legal for government officials to gather on government property and pray. It happens all the time. The proscription is not on assembly for the purposes of prayer or prayer itself, it's a proscription on government agents advancing or inhibiting religion as a part of their official duties. Thus, a rule requiring people to pray before a public meeting is unconstitutional, while praying at a public meeting, even by a government official, is not. A group prayer is not prohibited so long as no one is compelled to participate. The invocation is not part of the official business of the Congress, and no one is compelled to participate or observe silence during the invocation, it is a private expression of religious faith by the members of the political body, each of whom may express a different faith or belief, or none at all.

Here's an example: Recently, the staff at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs organized a prayer breakfast on base, using base facilities. The event was sanctioned by the Commander, and organized by the chaplains, but it was paid for by private donations, and the expenses of the venue were also paid for by donations, not government funds. Attendance was by invitation only, and was not mandatory. This was a perfectly lawful exercise of religious faith by military officers on a military base because the event took place during their off-duty time, was organized without the use of government funds, and was not mandatory. In fact, DOD regulations (and the Constitution) REQUIRED the Commander to reasonably accommodate the religious needs of service members because of their unique position and restrictions as members of the military. This is why the military has chaplains in the first place, and why, for example there is a world-renowned chapel on the AFA grounds...and there is also a newly-created Pagan/Wiccan worship site created and paid for with government dollars on the base as well.

Exactly my point, but you just draw the wrong conclusion from the circumstances.

[Seth]

Exactly my point, but you just draw the wrong conclusion from the circumstances.

What you seem to forget is that those government employees do not give up their religious rights merely by becoming government employees. You also seem to forget that you have no right to be free from exposure to the free exercise of religion by others in public or on public property except in very, very limited circumstances of official government acts. The fact that religious practice occurs on government or public property does not mean that government is "establishing" a state religion. In fact government is required to reasonably accommodate any and all religious expression on public property as a part of the Free Exercise Clause. This happens to include military reservations because of the unique restrictions placed on soldiers when they are restricted to the base. They have rights of religious freedom that must be respected and served, and the costs of doing so are part of the government expense of maintaining an army. This is not "establishing" religion, and it's not advancing any particular religion as a matter of government policy, it's simply reasonably accommodating the religious rights of soldiers who are otherwise restricted from engaging in free exercise of their religions by military discipline and regulations.

[Seth]

There you go. chances are, the democratic rights of atheists would be suppressed in your creeping theocracy.

What "democratic rights of atheists?" Atheists have no more right to disrupt a lawful public assembly or the business of government than anyone else does. Standing up and shouting competing religious dogma would be just as disruptive. You have a right to espouse your anti-theistic beliefs in a reasonable time, place and manner, just like everyone else does. The houses of Congress are not the appropriate venue for public protests about anything, and such protests are forbidden to all, but there is plenty of space outside the building for such protests, and that is where they are commonly held. Hell, the National Mall is directly attached to the Capitol building and it is commonplace for tens or hundreds of thousands of people to meet there to protest and petition for redress of grievances.

And what "creeping theocracy?" Invocations have been held at the opening of the session since the very beginning of the Republic, by the Founders themselves and no "creeping theocracy" has emerged. Just because you think that any public expression of religious faith is an indication of "creeping theocracy" doesn't mean it's true, or that you are being rational.

Whether a MEMBER of Congress could lodge a protest about or during the invocation is a matter of internal chamber rule-making and decorum, and there is a time and place for such objections to be raised in the regular course of business. I imagine that if a member chose to verbally disrupt the invocation, it would result in the member being subject to scorn and opprobrium by other members, both immediately and in the future, but I doubt there would be any official sanction because they are members, and therefore have the right to speak on the floor of the chamber.

But members of the public attend sessions of Congress as visitors, not participants, and their protests must not disrupt the proceedings. Still, it would be an interesting test case to see if disrupting the invocation with a competing religious expression (or irreligious expression in your case) would be deemed to be an unlawful disruption. Perhaps this is why the invocation comes after the gavel drops, to give security the ability to remove disruptive visitors. I would find that unacceptable, but I also see how maintaining decorum in the chamber is important and why they might do so.

[Robert_S]

Doesn't adding God to your pledge of allegiance and onto your money count as intrusions ?

Not really. No one can be compelled to recite the pledge of allegiance, or that part of the pledge, and having it on the money has no effect on it's usability or value. I'd prefer to see both eliminated, but it's only of concern to Atheists because it's a reminder of the strongly religious heritage of our nation. Those who complain about such things need to get a life and think about important things.

It is a concern of mine because I don't want my tax money used to support someone else's religion.

[Seth]

Doesn't adding God to your pledge of allegiance and onto your money count as intrusions ?

Not really. No one can be compelled to recite the pledge of allegiance, or that part of the pledge, and having it on the money has no effect on it's usability or value. I'd prefer to see both eliminated, but it's only of concern to Atheists because it's a reminder of the strongly religious heritage of our nation. Those who complain about such things need to get a life and think about important things.

It is a concern of mine because I don't want my tax money used to support someone else's religion.

I don't want my tax money used to support your religion, so I guess we're even. Sadly for you, there are more theists out there than atheists, which means you have to put up with them, since they can out-vote you when it comes to such issues. Democracy, doncha know...

[Robert_S]

Doesn't adding God to your pledge of allegiance and onto your money count as intrusions ?

Not really. No one can be compelled to recite the pledge of allegiance, or that part of the pledge, and having it on the money has no effect on it's usability or value. I'd prefer to see both eliminated, but it's only of concern to Atheists because it's a reminder of the strongly religious heritage of our nation. Those who complain about such things need to get a life and think about important things.

It is a concern of mine because I don't want my tax money used to support someone else's religion.

I don't want my tax money used to support your religion, so I guess we're even. Sadly for you, there are more theists out there than atheists, which means you have to put up with them, since they can out-vote you when it comes to such issues. Democracy, doncha know...

I'm not trying to put "There is no god" on the money, I'd rather the state stayed entirely and explicitly neutral on the subject.

[Seth]

Doesn't adding God to your pledge of allegiance and onto your money count as intrusions ?

Not really. No one can be compelled to recite the pledge of allegiance, or that part of the pledge, and having it on the money has no effect on it's usability or value. I'd prefer to see both eliminated, but it's only of concern to Atheists because it's a reminder of the strongly religious heritage of our nation. Those who complain about such things need to get a life and think about important things.

It is a concern of mine because I don't want my tax money used to support someone else's religion.

I don't want my tax money used to support your religion, so I guess we're even. Sadly for you, there are more theists out there than atheists, which means you have to put up with them, since they can out-vote you when it comes to such issues. Democracy, doncha know...

I'm not trying to put "There is no god" on the money, I'd rather the state stayed entirely and explicitly neutral on the subject.

Me too. But since it's a harmless expression I'd rather spend my time focusing on the truly important things, like keeping teachers from indoctrinating children in public schools in to the Marxist religion.

[Pappa]

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.

What if they were replaced with "under Allah" or "In Vishnu We Trust"?