This is regarding article:
The Pledge of Allegiance, the Courts, and Death Threats by Jeffery Jay Lowder
at URL:
<a href="http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?assetID=215" target="_blank">http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?assetID=215</a>

Quoting from the article.

'Second, I suspect that most Americans do not distinguish between a secular Pledge and an atheistic Pledge.'

'Nonbelievers would be just as opposed to an atheistic Pledge of Allegiance as they are opposed to a theistic Pledge of Allegiance.'

Comment:
The author is failing to make the exact same distinction. Some nonbelievers may be secular but being secular is not a requirement in order to be a nonbeliever. So nonbelievers may very well be 'for' an atheistic pledge and opposed to both a secular pledge as well as a theistic pledge.

-DM-

[Thank you for your feedback regarding <a href="http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=215" target="_blank">The Pledge of Allegiance, the Courts, and Death Threats</a> by Jeffery Jay Lowder. E-mail notification has been sent to the author. Although there are no guarantees, you might want to check back from time to time for a further response following this post. --Don--]

jlowder

Nonbelievers are against an atheistic pledge just as much as a theistic pledge, since an atheistic pledge would constitute governmental endorsement of atheism over theism. Therefore, an atheistic pledge would violate the church-state separation entailed by the First Amendment. Since nonbelievers are committed to church-state separation, nonbelievers are therefore just as opposed to an atheistic pledge as they are to a theistic pledge. A secular (but not atheistic) pledge ensures government neutrality between belief and nonbelief.

I am also baffled by the comment, "being secular is not a requirement in order to be a nonbeliever." It may not be a requirement, but "being secular" logically follows from "being a nonbeliever." <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/lowder2.html" target="_blank">All nonbelievers are secular, by definition</a>.

Sincerely,

Jeffery Jay Lowder

[ July 18, 2002: Message edited by: jlowder ]</p>

-DM-

[Moved here from Feedback at the request of one of our registered users who wishes to respond. --Don--]

enemigo

I, as well as many other atheists, define my atheism as a lack of a belief in any God.

If atheism is simply a lack of theistic belief, then wouldn't a pledge that didn't represent a theistic belief be atheistic? As in the weak/negative sense of the word?

Thats the only way I see that anyone could say that a secular pledge equals an atheistic pledge.


richard

Philosoft

Perhaps it's worth noting that I have no personal objections to a "one nation, under no god" pledge. However, the principle of church-state separation is worthy and, as atheists have for years argued that "freedom of religion" also implies "freedom from religion," I would be hypocritical to support the inclusion of the above phrase in the pledge. Hence, while I do think my own philosophical position on religion more correct than others and I don't think government promotion of my philosophical position would be, prima facie, bad, I have a prior commitment to the ethical and Constitutional principle.

Bokonon

I disagree. One can be either theistic or nontheistic and still support the notion that the government should remain secular. Looking at the definition from dictionary.com...

1. Worldly rather than spiritual.
2. Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body: secular music.
3. Relating to or advocating secularism.
4. Not bound by monastic restrictions, especially not belonging to a religious order. Used of the clergy.
5. Occurring or observed once in an age or century.
6. Lasting from century to century.

I think definition 3 is what is relevant to this discussion. I see not reason why a theist could not fit that definition.

crazyfingers

He said that being nonreligious leads to a secular outlook.

He did not say that religious people can not also believe and advocate that segments of a society are best left secular.

That nonreligion leads to secularism does not preclude other outlooks also leading to the belief that some segments are best left secular.

[ July 20, 2002: Message edited by: crazyfingers ]</p>

crazyfingers

I think that he confused his thoughts. My guess is what he mean't to say was "being a nonbeliever is not necessary to be secular". That I would agree with.

ithinklogic

Fair Disclosure: I started this thread as &lt;anonymous&gt;. I told myself that I would register and become involved if I got a reply to my posting. So I have registered. So thank you for replying to an anonymous post.

That said:

Definition of non-believer from dictionary.com
non·be·liev·er Pronunciation Key (nnb-lvr)
n. One who does not believe or have faith, as in God or a philosophy.

This does not say anything about the person's view on government. Hence my earlier comment "being secular is not a requirement in order to be a nonbeliever"

Further, the reason why I do not agree that ""being secular" logically follows from "being a nonbeliever.""

Suppose atheists were a predominant majority in a country and that country had a similar pledge with the words "free from god" or "free from religious influences" in it, now that would be an atheistic pledge that atheists could want.