Contact DisComforting Ignorance

Have thoughts, comments, criticisms, requests, or proselytization? Email

No prayers. (Why not?)

Sunday, August 3, 2008

Impeaching God

Ray writes:
And it’s clear that the atheists’ aggressive agenda is to remove God’s name from schools, from currency, from nature programs, and history books, and at the same time fill movies and television with His name used in blasphemy.
Why is it that leaders of Christianity feel it necessary to create a fictitious War on Christianity and then pin it on atheists? Can you name one battle front of the War on Christianity, where the goal is the elimination of Christianity? No, because it is perhaps better stated as the War on Christian Tyranny. And it is not the atheists who are waging it, but those who seek to maximize liberty and protect the rights of others.

In the constitution of my state, it reads in Article 1, Section 4:
No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.
Christians have forbidden atheists from holding public office in Texas. If atheists and social libertarians who seek to protect the inherent equal rights of all citizens try to get the constitution amended to abolish this, would this be yet another battle front in the War on Christianity?

But what of Ray's lists of charges?
Removal of God's name from schools.
Perhaps this is a reference to Court cases regarding school prayer? It is a popular misconception based on ignorance that these somehow prevent students from praying in school. They don't. Santa Fe ISD vs Doe, for a recent example, found that student initiating and leading prayer over the PA system at the football games violated the Establishment Clause. Does that mean that students can't initiate and lead prayers not on the PA system before the games? No, because that wouldn't be a violation. And was it the agenda of the aggressive atheists? No. The suit was brought by a Mormon and a Catholic -- Christians.

Or what about Abington Township vs Schempp which ruled that school-sponsored biblical prayer was unconstitutional or Engel vs Vitale which ruled that a mandatory daily prayer be recited was unconstitutional? And, in Abington the person who brought the suit was a Unitarian. The religion of the parents in Engel are unknown (as far as I know), but they were supported by a number of religious institutions, including the American Jewish Committee.

In all of these landmark Supreme Court cases, the issue has been state-sanctioned prayer, which is where it all fails. No case has been brought about students themselves praying because there is no violation of rights there, and doing so would be a violation of those students' rights which I would then defend. The aim of atheists, secularists, social libertarians, and the other proponents of equal rights is to protect those rights. Having the government in anyway endorse or sponsor religion or religious services is a violation of the First Amendment.
Removal of God's name from currency.
Again, it's a violation of others' rights. If there were to be "In No God We Trust" or "In Allah We Trust" or "In Satan We Trust" is something you would certainly oppose, as would I, as it violates the First Amendment. Why do Christians decide to use their status as the majority to act as tyrants and go around stamping their god's name on currency, courthouse monuments, and everything else that isn't nailed down... and then stamping it on everything else that is nailed down?

Proponents of equal rights do not oppose you doing it in your churches, private homes and businesses, or soapboxes; just keep it there. And again, it isn't just some group of atheists doing it. The history of court cases regarding religion are, overwhelming, brought by theists. That's because they recognize that it is not a question of religion; it is a question of freedom.
Removal of God's name from nature programs.
Cite an instance.
Removal of God's name from history books.
If God did anything historical and of historical importance, he would be in the history books. Historical religious events are covered in history books, which you would know if you bothered to check your baseless assertions with facts and evidence, those pesky things. The Great Awakenings, for example, are covered in any American History and English class which concern themselves with those times.
Fill movies and television with His name used in blasphemy.
Again, the atheist agenda? Firstly, it's not the atheists, or at least not just the atheists. Secondly, it's not an agenda to "fill" them with blasphemy.
agenda (n): a list, plan, outline, or the like, of things to be done, matters to be acted or voted upon, etc.
The use of blasphemy in movies and television are, by definition, agendaless. It is simply something that occurs. I, personally, hear "Christ!," "God dammit!," and "for God's sake!" used more by theists than atheists. I say "holy cow," on occasion, but that isn't because I seek to blaspheme the sanctity of cows; it is merely an cliche exclamation.

Nonetheless, don't pin it on the atheists or their "agenda." I wouldn't call it the Christian agenda to rape children, just because many of those molesters and rapists are pedophile Christian priests.

No comments: