4th Generation Atheist

Ever notice how the press always has to make it look like the good religious people won one over those ridiculous mean atheists, even when the facts are more of a compromise? Of course the original objection asked for having the prayer removed entirely; that was the "asking price". Of course the decision didn't go that far; that's the "counteroffer". The end deal was much more like what middle-people would ask for; the opportunity for private speakers to include religion, plus a disclaimer that says the Chicago government does not intend to favor the religious. Looks to me that it takes the wind out of fundies' sails should they later try to conclude that the Chicago gov't is "Xn", while allowing private people all the religious expression they wish. But that's not how the press has to report it. They have to make it look like the evil atheists were up to their old tricks and then got struck down completely. Which isn't what happened; though some nontheists might have to be bored or offended while listening to some other private citizen's statements, there still is a specific statement against the "Xn nation" theory included in the program. I don't think I'd seek this particular program out, but the resulting one coming from this fray doesn't especially scare me either.

Secular Elation

Yeah... what good did "bothering" do slaves, women, and gays? Should we just sit back and be quiet like good little sheep? Win or lose, it's still a plus that atheists are speaking up with more regularity and bringing the issues into the media. Why bother, indeed.

So, as atheists, our goal is to limit the religious expression of others because we don't believe in the same things and find it offensive?

Our goal should be to raise our status in society, not censor the expression of others.

Lone Wolf

Nope. It's not about trying to silence Joe Public's religious expression. It's about keeping government's endorsement of religion in check, as is supposed to be guaranteed by our Constitution.
Our status in American society will be difficult, if not impossible to raise if there's an uneven playing field. The government endorsing a particular "expression" - especially one that excludes others - is specifically opposed to the idea of "of the people, by the people, and for the people".

Secular Elation

Has the government explicity denounced atheists in these recent situations? I don't think so.

Lone Wolf

So government should be able to sponsor and endorse religious events, as long as they don't insult atheists? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

GaryP

If govt. officials pray or otherwise express their personal faith at a public, official ceremony, they are implicitly excluding all who do not share a belief in the supernatural.


[ September 14, 2002: Message edited by: GaryP ]

[ September 14, 2002: Message edited by: GaryP ]</p>

Amen-Moses

Can you name any atheists in the UK government?

I am in the process of choosing a high school for my daughter, this is the standard order of selection criteria: (copied straight from the application form btw)

1) Children whose parents have a religious and philosophical conviction for attending a specific school. (These reasons must be supported by relevant documentation from your religious leader)

2) Location, i.e children that are within the specified school catchement area.

3) Child's significant medical, physical or psychological condition.

3) Brother or sister already in the same school.

Note the first one! This means that even though you live right next to a school someone from miles away can get their children into the school purely of religious grounds forcing your child to have to travel some distance to another school.

Now I wouldn't mind so much except that virtually all the schools in my area claim in their prospectus to teach "christian moral values" or to be based on "christian ethics".

Amen-Moses

4th Generation Atheist

Are you permitted to count your (presumable) goal of gaining access to a school that does not make the teaching of Xn princliples a priority as a moral/philosophical criterion of the same importance as a religious family's goal of getting their child into a religious school? If criterion #1 aids you in this case, then it is somewhat more arguable that the system is fair. If an atheist family's desire to gain a quality secular education for its child is dismissed under #1 in favor of a religious family's wishes for a reilgious education, then that rule seriously stinks.