Do you believe in God?

[Famine]

i'm starting to believe....


...Believe that the discussion of whether; 'in god we trust' on money is constitutional or not, needs it's own thread that is

It'd be a bit of an Americo-centric thread though - the rest of us aren't governed by the US Constitution (which is in many respects a pity).


Mind you, I could bring up our national anthem, which requests salvation on behalf of an unelected head of state who happens to be the oldest surviving member, within a certain set of conditions, of a family who in the past were simply on the winning side of a series of very bloody conflicts, to be given by a very specific invisible supernatural being.

And it's considered unpatriotic not to sing it!

"Practicing" would propably be a better word, but concerning the point it doesn't matter much.

Again, it may be offensive, or even insulting, but it is not discriminatory.

Concerning that last statement, what do they believe in? I equate Atheism with "unbelief".

It's not possible to "practice" the "religion" of atheism, because atheism isn't a religion!

The correct reading is this:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

That's the correct text. Your interpretation is what's in question.

The word "respecting", to be interpreted ligitimately, as does the rest of the document, must incorporate "intent" of the writers, examining past rulings and most importantly the exsisting attitude and practices at the time it was written.

The point is, you cannot apply a contemporary interpretation to a 200+ year old document.

If it was as simple as you try to make it sound, it would have been removed along time ago.

Here's the question...

The intepretation that I have of the First Amendment (and which Duke also has), where no law shall be passed with regards to any religion, protects any citizen from any discrimination against them on behalf of the government on the basis of their religion and essentially prevents government itself from having a religion. Your interpretation of the First Amendment, where no law shall be passed which honours the creation of a religion, protects... who from what?

Remember what the Bill of Rights actually is. It's 20 rules which must never be broken that prevents citizens from the tyranny of government. Your interpretation won't actually do that. Mine will.

Even if you could clear "law respecting" which ligitimately is doubtful, you still have to clear "an establishment of religion". The deity in question can imply all it wants, because it is implying several different religions and not one in particular.

But it excludes those with no religion (as I said earlier, zero is the most important number while not being a number itself) and those whose religions have no deity. Thus implying ANY religion is fundamentally discriminatory.

 

[Danoff]

The correct reading is this:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

The interpretation of which is clearly:

"Congress shall not establish a religion"

It was the framer's intent that the country should not have an established religion (this is well understood). The text you quote is quite obviously the legal embodiment of that intent.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

If you sincerely believe this, then nothing else I say or do will ever penetrate that wall of institutional arrogance.

I am just pointing out what is a inescapeble, heavy, influential factor in this discussion.

UNfortunately, people who believe this was founded as a Christian nation are not as open-minded as the framers of the Constitution.

I don't have a problem with what your saying as much as how you think it's OK to accomplish it.

 

[Strop]

To all of you non-believers I say I have seen him with my own eyes and he held up before me a small white tablet which he called P-S-P G-O and he prophesized that the faithful would ultimately be rewarded with freedom to race Gran Turismo wherever and whenever they wished.

Oh ... did you mean the other God? Sorry I'm agnostic on that one (Unless he brings me GT-5 for Christmas, then I may just find religion).

 

[Touring Mars]

Amen, brother

 

[Duke]

Remember what the Bill of Rights actually is. It's 20 rules which must never be broken that prevents citizens from the tyranny of government. Your interpretation won't actually do that. Mine will.

And again, precisely right. My interpretation allows ALL people of ALL religious persuasions - including those with no religious faith - freedom to practice their beliefs as they see fit. SCJ's does not.

I think he is selling the Constitution framers substantially short in the depth of their vision.

I am just pointing out what is a inescapeble, heavy, influential factor in this discussion.

No, it is an inescapable, heavy, influential factor in your thinking. It is not inherent in the framing of the Constitution at all. The Constitution and Bill of Rights run to thousands of words, yet "religion" appears once and "God" appears NOT AT ALL.

 

[Famine]

Duke - You think I'll be okay when we emigrate/immigrate (point of view) to the US?

 

[SuperCobraJet]

It's not possible to "practice" the "religion" of atheism, because atheism isn't a religion!

This was my contention from the very beginning. If Duke doesn't have a religion, then he doesn't have a dog in the fight. The religion clause is of no consequence to him unless he gets religion or its ligitimately infringed.

The intepretation that I have of the First Amendment (and which Duke also has), where no law shall be passed with regards to any religion, protects any citizen from any discrimination against them on behalf of the government on the basis of their religion and essentially prevents government itself from having a religion. Your interpretation of the First Amendment, where no law shall be passed which honours the creation of a religion, protects... who from what?

Remember what the Bill of Rights actually is. It's 20 rules which must never be broken that prevents citizens from the tyranny of government. Your interpretation won't actually do that. Mine will.

It's irrelevant whose interpretation does what. Only the founders intentions are whats relevant.

 

[Famine]

This was my contention from the very beginning. If Duke doesn't have a religion, then he doesn't have a dog in the fight. The religion clause is of no consequence to him unless he gets religion or its ligitimately infringed.

*sigh*

Having NO religion is as legitimate as having A religion. It's still a set of religious leanings. I've pointed this out 3 times now - and you failed to acknowledge either this or the existence of religions which do not believe in a deity (Buddhism, Taoism and Raelism are three I've cited).

NO citizen should be discriminated against by government for religious reasons. This includes those who have NO religion.

It's irrelevant whose interpretation does what. Only the founders intentions are whats relevant.

The intentions were to establish 20 rules which could never be broken to prevent government from interfering in citizens' lives.

The fact that your reading of the First Amendment will not do this is testament to the fact it's the wrong way to read it. How does your interpretation protect any citizen from governmental discrimination?

 

[Sureboss]

Duke - You think I'll be okay when we emigrate/immigrate (point of view) to the US?

Well, I don't think you'd have a problem getting the yanks to like Parmo's.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

*sigh*

Having NO religion is as legitimate as having A religion. It's still a set of religious leanings. I've pointed this out 3 times now - and you failed to acknowledge either this or the existence of religions which do not believe in a deity (Buddhism, Taoism and Raelism are three I've cited).?

NO citizen should be discriminated against by government for religious reasons. This includes those who have NO religion.


The intentions were to establish 20 rules which could never be broken to prevent government from interfering in citizens' lives.

The fact that your reading of the First Amendment will not do this is testament to the fact it's the wrong way to read it. How does your interpretation protect any citizen from governmental discrimination?

By virtue of the fact that none are being discriminated against and are freely engaging any religion or non religion that they so desire.

 

[Famine]

By virtue of the fact that none are being discriminated against and are freely engaging any religion or non religion that they so desire.

Your interpretation of the Amendment doesn't do that. In fact your interpretation doesn't seem to do anything except to stop the government making a religion...

But it also seems to allow Federal recognition of and adherence to certain monotheistic faiths, which it is the actual intent of the First Amendment to prevent

 

[Sureboss]

Well, Obama is almost the head of a religious movement.

 

[TofuStoreDrift]

Well, Obama is almost the head of a religious movement.

lol, the Messiah, or as others I know have said the anti-christ.

 

[Duke]

By virtue of the fact that none are being discriminated against and are freely engaging any religion or non religion that they so desire.

You keep saying these words.

[Inigo Montoya] I don't think they mean what you think they mean. [/Inigo Montoya].

I am not allowed to freely engage in my atheism because every day I am forced to use official currency issued by my government that acknowledges the existence of God.

And don't tell me to use a credit card instead.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Your interpretation of the Amendment doesn't do that. In fact your interpretation doesn't seem to do anything except to stop the government making a religion...

But it also seems to allow Federal recognition of and adherence to certain monotheistic faiths, which it is the actual intent of the First Amendment to prevent

Recognition, yes. Adherence, no. Actual intent, as purposed.

You might not like the fact its a loophole, none the less it is.

Freedom of religion, not Freedom from religion.

 

[Sureboss]

You keep saying these words.

[Inigo Montoya] I don't think they mean what you think they mean. [/Inigo Montoya].

I am not allowed to freely engage in my atheism because every day I am forced to use official currency issued by my government that acknowledges the existence of God.

And don't tell me to use a credit card instead.

Nah, it'd only be a Mastercard.

*I'll get my coat.

 

[Danoff]

Recognition, yes. Adherence, no. Actual intent, as purposed.

Maybe.

Freedom of religion, not Freedom from religion.

Wrong.

It can be argued that printing "In God We Trust" on our money does not constitute "establishing" a religion and therefore is not unconstitutional. I think it's iffy ground, but based on the wording in the constitution (which I would have written a bit differently), I think it may hold up.

That being said, freedom of religion is necessarily freedom from religion. In otherwords, I am protected from having any sort of religious requirements forced on me. That is freedom from religion. Printing "In God We Trust" on currency requires nothing of me. So my guaranteed freedom from a legal establishment of religion is not infringed. A particular decoration on my currency levies no requirement on my religious affiliation.

Barring the legal argument, I still think it's an irresponsible and unecessarily thing for our government to be doing. It gives the distinct impression that our government is likely to violate its own constitutional guarantees. And regardless of whether or it actually does, that is not an impression that we should be giving.

 

[Famine]

Recognition, yes. Adherence, no.

How so, when your government acknowledges there is a god?

You might not like the fact its a loophole, none the less it is.

You've done little to support your position save for your misinterpretation.

Freedom of religion, not Freedom from religion.

Freedom from religion is also freedom of religion.

You've STILL not acknowledged that atheism is a valid religious outlook, or that there are religions which do not have a figurehead deity. Even if you still insist that atheism isn't religion and so atheists can have their rights infringed (which is patent nonsense), Buddhists have a religion without a god and, by your argument, are affected which makes the law unconstitutional by your own statements.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

You keep saying these words.

[Inigo Montoya] I don't think they mean what you think they mean. [/Inigo Montoya].

I am not allowed to freely engage in my atheism because every day I am forced to use official currency issued by my government that acknowledges the existence of God.

And don't tell me to use a credit card instead.

Your confusing "freely engaging" with "I want the government to agree with me".

Seriously, on the credit card you won't have to worry about it for long.

 

[Joey D]

The dictionary defines religion as: "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."

Atheism seems to fit that.

 

[Duke]

Freedom of religion, not Freedom from religion.

And I've never asked anyone to not have religion, so don't hand me that BS. But it is being forced on me nonetheless BY THE GOVERNMENT, not by other people freely exercising their own religions.

As far as I'm concerned, you personally are free to talk about God and religion till your heart's content. But the US government is infringing on the free practice of my religious beliefs. That's unconstitutional.

Your confusing "freely engaging" with "I want the government to agree with me".

No, frankly, I'm not. You are.

I believe there is no god. I don't want the US government to believe there is no god.

I want the US government to be completely silent on the subject. That's not having them agree or disagree with me.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

How so, when your government acknowledges there is a god?

I can't tell you how glad I am you asked me that question.
Because GOD, of the Bible anyway, only requires 10% of my income.
The Feds require much more. Hence forth they put themselves above GOD.
Thats how.
I guess I'm being discriminated against too.

Freedom from religion is also freedom of religion.

This is true.

You've STILL not acknowledged that atheism is a valid religious outlook, or that there are religions which do not have a figurehead deity. Even if you still insist that atheism isn't religion and so atheists can have their rights infringed (which is patent nonsense), Buddhists have a religion without a god and, by your argument, are affected which makes the law unconstitutional by your own statements.

You keep confusing me on this one, first it is, then it isn't. Which is it?

 

[Famine]

The dictionary defines religion as: "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."

Atheism seems to fit that.

Err... which bit of that?

a set of beliefs - Atheism tends to be a subset of rationalism, which requires no belief
the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies - Well... everything after "especially" is definitely out of the window!
usually involving devotional and ritual observances - Err, no.
often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs - I'd certainly question the fact that atheism has its own moral code though, again, as a subset of rationalism it can generate logical morals independant of "belief".

I can't tell you how glad I am you asked me that question.
Because GOD, of the Bible anyway, only requires 10% of my income.
The Feds require much more. Hence forth they put themselves above GOD.
Thats how.
I guess I'm being discriminated against too.

That doesn't actually answer the question.

You keep confusing me on this one, first it is, then it isn't. Which is it?

Atheism is a religious outlook. It isn't a religion. Easy.

Are you going to address the religions which do not have a figurehead deity or ignore them? Your own argument says they are being discriminated against as they have a religion (your prerequisite), but no god...

 

[SuperCobraJet]

That doesn't actually answer the question.

What? you must have been a sleep at the wheel on this one.

Atheism is a religious outlook. It isn't a religion. Easy.

OK, if its not a religion, how can the religious clauses apply to it.

Are you going to address the religions which do not have a figurehead deity or ignore them? Your own argument says they are being discriminated against as they have a religion (your prerequisite), but no god...

I have no idea what your talking about here.

 

[Danoff]

OK, if its not a religion, how can the religious clauses apply to it.

Are you saying that the US can legitimately declare it illegal to practice religion? If Atheism isn't a religion and religious clauses don't apply to it - then there's no problem with the government declaring Atheism as a national requirement.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Are you saying that the US can legitimately declare it illegal to practice religion? If Atheism isn't a religion and religious clauses don't apply to it - then there's no problem with the government declaring Atheism as a national requirement.

No. I've already answered this once or twice in prior posts

This is how the last time:

This was my contention from the very beginning. If Duke doesn't have a religion, then he doesn't have a dog in the fight. The religion clause is of no consequence to him unless he gets religion or its ligitimately infringed.

The free expression side prevents what you are saying.

 

[Danoff]

The free expression side prevents what you are saying.

I don't see how it does. If Atheism is not a religion, then the government is free to engage in as much atheistic promotion as it chooses and can even compel you to engage in atheist activities. In fact, given your own narrow interpretation of the first amendment, you're allowing the government to completely eradicate religion.

Here's the law:

No citizen shall engage in any religious practice and shall be required to adhere to atheist traditions and beliefs.


Now, you'd say:

"The government shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion."

...and I'd use your own reasoning to say that this law is not establishing a religion (by your own definition of it).

 

[Joey D]

Err... which bit of that?

a set of beliefs - Atheism tends to be a subset of rationalism, which requires no belief
the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies - Well... everything after "especially" is definitely out of the window!
usually involving devotional and ritual observances - Err, no.
often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs - I'd certainly question the fact that atheism has its own moral code though, again, as a subset of rationalism it can generate logical morals independant of "belief".

Atheism doesn't wholly fit it but I would classify Atheism as a religion because an Atheist believes there is no supernatural entity watching over us. Since they don't have a fool proof answer they are still holding a belief. The only people who I can think of that don't subscribe to a religion are those who classify themselves as "non-religious", those who don't care about anything other then the here and now.

Why do Atheist get all uppity when I say they subscribe to a religion?

 

[Danoff]

Why do Atheist get all uppity when I say they subscribe to a religion?

Because they equate religion with faith - which atheism does not require.