Vylo

Perhaps that was bad terminology, but some atheists want to wipe out religion entirely from the nation. I would consider this to be an agenda.

crazyfingers

While I believe that religion is generally a bad thing, I would not attempt to "wipe it out" from the nation. I think that only a tiny minority of atheists would actually propose laws that would infringe on freedom of religion for those who are religious.

Separation between church and state actually maximizes freedom of religion and virtually all atheists I know of are in favor of CSS.

So I think that the agenda that you speak of is so insignificant in terms of real numbers that it is worth ignoring.

Vylo

I agree it is a minority, but it is not worth ignoring. It only takes a few to coerce many, and even the most resolute person my buckle morally when faced with the opportunity to seize power at another's expense, especially if that other happens to be someone they feel at odds with.

hezekiah jones

Originally posted by Vylo
Perhaps that was bad terminology, but some atheists want to wipe out religion entirely from the nation. I would consider this to be an agenda.

Hey everyone's got to dream a dream!

Seriously though there is neutrality and there is hostility. Several of the Supreme Court conservative dissenters have cited this "hostility." While I think their objections are misplaced under the relevant circumstances, it's a legitimate criticism, and needs to be addressed.

Vylo

Don't get the wrong impression that I am saying that every (or even many) atheists will try to destroy religion through legal tampering. From what I have seen, theists tend to be a bit more prone to this type of action. But we must be careful that we don't perform the very acts we are trying to prevent.

Charles Darwin

We've talked about the sweeping religious assumptions already in this thread. I suspect you disagree they are sweeping, perhaps you disagree they are religious, though I can't imagine how you'd back such claims up. Frankly, I think you'll have a pretty hard time defending the claim that the assumption that religious matters are separate and distinct from state matters is not a religious assumption. And unless you are able to show that the CSS is religiously neutral (something I strongly suspect you cannot do; I certainly cannot imagine how you would do it), then the imposition of CSS constitutes the imposition of a particular religion.

Your logic for justifying the CSS, it seems to me, is itself religious. You cannot defend your claim that the golden rule should apply to everyone without resorting to a higher authority.


That's easy. Say you meet an evolutionist who wants to maximize his take in life and has no interest in other people's welfare except when it is to his benefit. He happens to be the top legislator and is about to eliminate the CSS. He also believes that the CSS is, at bottom, a religious law. The job is up to you to explain to him that the CSS is religiously neutral. He has stated publicly that if someone could explain to him that the CSS is religiously neutral, then he would allow the law to remain, even though he doesn't much care for it otherwise.

When you use your golden rule argument, he laughs in your face and asks why in the world he should abide by that. In order to prove this to him, you are going to have to appeal to your god as having authority over him, and that is why he should keep the CSS. You will fail to prove it is religiously neutral, because it isn't.

crazyfingers

That is a nonanswer to the question. Many words but not an answer.



Sorry. I don't appeal to any god in arguing that I think that the golden rule is the most useful and just value on which to base a moral code. You truly assume much too much.

Charles Darwin

Well you are making my point for me. This is precisely what I'm talking about. Why do you say these people are religiously motivated? I know one who has all sorts of arguments, none of which have anything to do with religion. He does rely on the law against murder though. Is that too religious for you? Of course not, everyone agrees with that law. So why is he any more religiously motivated than others?

Charles Darwin

Well why leave us in the dark then. I'm awfully curious to see how you justify your golden rule to the evolutionist. Remember, he's an evolutionist.

dangin

Simply point out that social species evolve social "contracts"(yep all of them) the golden rule is simply a statement of and a desire for action that best exemplifies the social contract that evolved among humans from our earlier primate forms. It actually goes above and beyond the calll, but it is a simple way to state the rules of our society that matter.

Damn, is there any failure of religion that science can't just fix up in a jiffy?