Subject: Re: Atheism & Christianity
If you want freedom "from" religion, why not move to Cuba?
I don't need to move to Cuba in order to have freedom from religion -- I can have it here. America is the land of religious freedom and having freedom of religion requires also having freedom from religion. After all, it's not possible for anyone to be free to express or follow their religion unless they are also free from the rules and doctrines of other religions. The same goes for people (theists and atheists) who don't follow any religion at all.
Many people have the mistaken idea that "freedom from religion" somehow means being free "from" seeing or hearing anything religious. Is it a coincidence that all these people happen to be religious conservatives who oppose the separation of church and state? Secularists, atheists, freethinkers, and theists who support the separation of church and state correctly recognize that "freedom from religion" means simply being "free from" government imposition of religion -- whether directly through force or indirection through the endorsement or promotion of someone's religion.
There shouldn't be anything objectionable about being "free from" government bureaucrats singling out a religion for promotion or endorsement. Could that be why religious conservatives never actually address this and instead make up ridiculous straw men to attack?
Why do you think your religion of atheism gives you more rights than Christians?
Atheism isn't a religion and it doesn't give me more rights than Christians. After all, Christians have freedom from other people's religious beliefs and doctrines being endorsed by the government as well. Freedom from religion applies to everyone.
Indeed, it is arguable that freedom from others' religions is even more important to religious people like Christians than it is to irreligious atheists like me. When I'm forced to behave in a manner consistent with someone else's religious dogmas, it's an infringement on my liberty -- but that's all it is. When a Christian is forced to behave in a manner consistent with someone else's religious dogmas, this is not only an infringement on their religious liberty but also perhaps a violation of their own religious dogmas. They may, in effect, be in the position of being force by the state to sin.
You can believe or not believe what you want, but you do not have the right to deny the Christian heritage of the United States.
Beliefs aren't acts of will and the Christian "heritage" of America isn't something that one can be unequivocally proud of. Most Americans in the past have been Christians, but not all of them have acted in a way that anyone should consider anything other than reprehensible. Besides, the fact that most Americans have been Christian doesn't say anything about the political structure of the government. The Constitution wasn't set up to be a Christian or even a religious documents; it is unambiguously secular and godless.
Most Americans have been whites from Europe and, therefore, one could argue that America has a "white, European heritage." What would we say about people who go around proclaiming that America is a "White Nation"? What would we say about people who go around proclaiming that America's "White, European" heritage is being denied or suppressed when other races, or no race at all, is promoted by the government?
We'd call them racist bigots, most likely -- so why not make similar observations about people making parallel proclamations about America being a "Christian Nation"?
Why do you feel you are entitled to remove all aspects of religion from the public?
Depends upon what one means by "public." If one means "out in the open where everyone one can see, as opposed to hidden and secret," then I have never said or done anything that would require religion be removed from the public. Nor has anyone else.
If, however, by "public" one means "endorsed, supported, encouraged, and financed by the state," then I don't think that I am "entitled" to remove religion from the public. Rather, I argue that the state doesn't have the authority to endorse, support, encourage, or finance any religious beliefs, doctrines, dogmas, laws, rules, etc. The state has political, social, and police authority. It does not have religious authority. When a politician is elected or a bureaucrat hired, they don't thereby acquire authority in religious matters and they cannot make religious decisions.
There is more "public religion" in American than in any other nation, and that is in large part due to the fact that it has been kept out of the hands of state officials.
This is not yet a communist country, though I am sure you look forward to the day it is one.
Well, that's a non sequitur. There's nothing about removing religion from the hands of government bureaucrats and corrupt politicians that requires one to be a communist -- or an atheist, for that matter. Lots of capitalists and lots of Christians have believed very strongly in this. As a matter of fact, one of the first public figures to argue for the separation of church and state in America was also one of America's earliest and most important Christian leaders.
Do you know who it was?
Don't worry - with the help of the ACLU and intolerant people like you, the day is coming.
I wonder if Mary is aware of how often the ACLU defends the religious liberties of Christians? The ACLU defends everyone, regardless of the content of their views.
What have atheists ever contributed to America other than trying to destroy it?
Atheists have contributed as much as theists. I wonder what Mary finds so threatening about people who simply don't believe in her god? Is her theism so important to her that she can't handle the idea of others disagreeing with her?
Whether or not you believe in something doesn't change the truth.
I agree with Mary on this. That, however, has no bearing on whether the state should be charged with the power and authority to conduct religious affairs.
We will all die and then we will know.
Or not, if I'm right.
More selections from the Agnosticism / Atheism Mailbag...
No comments:
Post a Comment