Atheism isn't cause - secularism is! Discuss!

[Seth]

Reading up about Madalyn O'Hair led me to looking at the 'formal' atheist movement a bit earlier on. Her successor talks about 'organising' atheists as a force etc.

I think this is misguided. As we have often discussed here, atheism is the absence of something and does not therefore make a natural rallying point for ideology or even values as such.

Secularism on the other hand is about making sure church and state (or religion and state) are kept separate as a general rule. This *is* a 'cause and does provide a rallying call. What is more it is actually possible to be religious and take a secularist viewpoint.

What do you think?

Of course it's possible. The vast majority of Americans are religious and are secularists and don't want government and religion intertwined. That's why we have the First Amendment Establishment Clause for pity's sake. The jurisprudence on the subject is extensive and detailed and covers just about every issue that's of legitimate concern to those who don't want to see a theocracy established. The fact is that it's extremely unlikely that any such thing would happen in the US, and it would take an overthrow of the Constitution to accomplish it, and we're in far more danger from the Socialists and the Atheists in that regard than we are people of religion.

But minimizing the influence of religion in government is NOT the same thing as extirpating religion from the public square, which is what Atheists want, which is why we have the Free Exercise Clause to protect religion against the tyranny of either the majority or the minority.

We've been carefully managing the intrusions of religion into government and the intrusions of government into religion for more than 230 years now, and it's all worked out pretty damned well so far.

[Feck]

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

[Seth]

I agree that secularism is an important step, it's highly desirable, because it counters the people who want to indoctrinate children. Everybody has a right to believe what they want to, but I think that the indoctrination of children is a crime, just as much as chopping off their foreskin, or clitoris.
Also, worming religion into state ceremonies should be banned in any country that really believes in equality and freedom.

I do think that secularism should be entirely separate from atheism. It's got more chance of making progress anyway, if it's not atheists who are prominently pushing it.

Atheism is a worthwhile cause, I'm happy to argue for it, but I don't really give a toss if people disagree, I just hate to see kids leant on to believe in woo.

Secularism doesn't attempt to prevent parents from indoctrinating their children, it just prevents GOVERNMENT from doing so, at least insofar as classic theocratic religion. Instead, government now indoctrinates children (in the US and elsewhere I imagine) into the religions of Socialism, Marxism and Progressivism.

What we need to do is to have the courts declare Socialism, Marxism and Progressivism as religious beliefs (which they are) which would prevent all three from being taught in the public schools.

[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.

[Exi5tentialist]

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.

If these things are so unimportant, they should be easy enough to abolish, no?

[Feck]

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.

If it's about heritage why was it Added ? If it had always been there I would agree that objecting to it would be trivial but the fact the words were added shows that religion is trying to intrude on the state .

[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.

If these things are so unimportant, they should be easy enough to abolish, no?

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.

[Exi5tentialist]

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.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

We've been carefully managing the intrusions of religion into government and the intrusions of government into religion for more than 230 years now, and it's all worked out pretty damned well so far.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Atheism isn't A cause - secularism is!
OR
Atheism isn't THE cause - secularism is!

Which?

[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.

If it's about heritage why was it Added ? If it had always been there I would agree that objecting to it would be trivial but the fact the words were added shows that religion is trying to intrude on the state .

True enough, but the intrusion was insignificant and causes no harm to anyone because no one is compelled to speak the words or do any thing different with the money. It would be different I suspect if the pledge was mandatory, but that's long been adjudicated to be a violation of the First Amendment so it's a moot point.

The Establishment Clause does not require or call for the extirpation of religion in the public square, it prohibits government from establishing a state religion. In the words of the Lemon Test, so long as the government action neither advances nor inhibits any particular religion, or irreligion, and the primary purpose of the action has a rational basis not connected with religion, and it does not "excessively entangle" government in religion, the action is lawful. The Court has ruled that neither the change to the pledge or the words on the money do more than acknowledge the history of this nation as expressed by the Founders themselves, and neither produce any threat of government "establishing" a state religion.

And the Free Exercise clause ensures that all persons may freely express and practice their religious beliefs in public, and this includes public employees where the exercise is not part of the official performance of their duties and does not violate the prongs of the Lemon test. That's why a state-sponsored display of the Ten Commandments in a courthouse is illegal, while a display in a public park funded by a private group or organization may not be.

Time, place, manner and context largely determine whether a religious display violates the Establishment Clause.

[Gallstones]

Atheism is not a cause. It is a state of mind and should be the default.

Secularism is social and political and should be policy.

[Seth]

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.

[Seth]

Atheism is not a cause. It is a state of mind and should be the default.

Secularism is social and political and should be policy.

True, unless the Atheist makes atheism a cause...

[Exi5tentialist]

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. 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.