From Christ being taken out of Christmas to the attempts to delete “under god” from the pledge of allegiance there seems to be a removal of religion from public life. Some want to stop from teaching creation in schools and there are attempts to remove funding from schools with a religious affiliation. In fact, if one was to look at this objectively they would see that governmental influence is turning increasingly atheist, or at least agnostic. All in the name of “separating church and state”. Their views and opinions seem to take precedence solely because they are of a nonreligious affiliation. There is a double standard that favors those who consider themselves godless. I see a simple solution to this. Classify atheism as a religion. Because essentially the belief in no god is just that, a belief. Since the constitution forbids the favoring of one religion over another the system will not be skewed in favor of those without one. Governments will have to respect every religion equally and no one will be above this.
The audience is anyone that is affected by the religious debate. But I can imagine that atheists themselves would not be very open to this idea. As a man of religion I would have to prove to audience the universal benefits of this argument so as to not appear favoring religion. Rather I would need to make the impression of equality under the law for all of people regardless if they accept deity or not. The genres of the arguments are presented in the preivous paragraph.
If Atheism, or the absence of religion, was classified as a religion, how could the Government do anything with violating the religious neutrality since being neutral is now being religious?
ReplyDeleteYou paint atheists as if they were repressing religious beliefs. Creation has never been, nor should be, taught in a secular school. Since the supreme court case of Lemon v. Kurtzman, public funding for schools with religious affiliation is legal as long as the monies go directly to the secular education of the students. Atheists just don't want federal endorsement of religious views. The key is to balance the rights of those who wish to believe and those who don't. For the most part, I think the rights of atheists have been violated much more than those of religious people.
Our government needs to remain neutral. The neutrality of the government was VITAL to the restoration of the church! We suffered enough persecution as it is! Imagine if there was an established religion.
Interesting points on both sides. Atheism certainly is a belief, and often a dogmatic and intolerant one. However, when materialist science conflicts with matters of faith, it's difficult to be neutral.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTouché Jake. I do agree with your point that creationism should not be taught in schools. That was a weak argument. But there is one thing that i need to make clear. The whole point of this idea is to allow the government to be neutral, not to make it in favor of religion.
ReplyDeleteYou say that my proposal makes "religious neutrality" a religion. Atheism is not neutral. Neutrality requires opposing sides for which the neutral party is in between. If, as you define it, atheism is neutral, than we would have religion on one side and ... what on the other?
Rather then thinking of this linearly take it as a multidimensional concept. There are varying beliefs that have different attributes but cannot be classified in a single dimension. My proposal is to ensure that none of these beliefs (i.e. Atheism, christianity, Agnostic, Muslim) receive precedence in the eyes of the government.
The problem I see with keeping the government from not removing religion from schools and the pledge is that if they don't remove those things they would be favoring all relgion besides Athesim (which you define as a religion). But if they take those things out then they would be favoring Athesim over all other religion. Does that make any sense? The problem is that it is impossible to please everyone. I think the easiest solution for the government to remain neutrail on the inssue of religion is to the choice up to the poeple to say "under God" in the pledge or to observe Christmas as a Christain holiday. But it would be even better if people were just tolerant of each other.
ReplyDeleteTroy, I feel the difference of our argument lies in the definition of an Atheist. I believe you must be imagining an agressive one where I envision a passive one. It's interesting how our argument progresses but our points remain the same.
ReplyDeleteJake, not that this will really influence your opinion but here is a quote by Dallin H Oaks on the issue.
ReplyDelete"Atheism has always been hostile to religion, such as in its arguments that freedom of or for religion should include freedom from religion. Atheism’s threat rises as its proponents grow in numbers and aggressiveness."