Atheists Disrespecting Respectful Theists

I'm still working on my Free Exercise post, but I thought I would cover some DisComforting Comments from Ray's blog, and also some sentiments of his own: that atheists are often disrespectful while Christians are often respectful. I have planned this post for a while (I in fact wrote it several weeks ago), but decided to finally pull it out again when I saw yet another comment on a slavery post over at the Raytractors. The cliche goes that atheists should be more respectful, but sadly, most are very rude, profane, disrespectful, etc:

You guys are honestly making me rethink that the atheist/non-believers only reasonable answers to Christians are to attack them verbally with cruelty.

The original comment which prompted this post was from a Christian poster to Ray's blog I found one night:

So far, the many (while there are some who have respectful blogs)atheists blogs I have been on are degrading, and un-respectful,,,towards Christian's in particular.

In the thread where I found this weeks ago, I counted, at the time, 7 uses of "atheist" and 4 uses of "Atheist." Ray has written that it is a sign of disrespect to improperly not capitalize "Jesus" or "God" (when reference the god of the Christians). I would imagine, then, it should also be taken as a sign of disrepect when any variant of atheism is improperly capitalized.

Besides the possible ulterior motives for doing such, this is pedantic and I doubt it is to what the commenter is referring with regard to disrespect towards the opposition. Or what of the popular "atheists have potty mouths" such as Sower Benjamin says: (thanks to Captain Howdy for the heads up)

The topic of decorum within the constraints of the "Blogosphere" is one that has been on my mind lately... If you've been reading the comments on my particular blog or those of any Christian on the Internet who is attempting to carry out Christ's Command to "seek and save that which is lost" you have no doubt, encountered the venom of the atheist.

[...]

It's difficult to really decipher what you are trying to say when your posts are so riddled with profanity... Perhaps science has come up with a pill for that or something...

If you have included yourself in the "atheists all use profanity" or anything along that line and juxtapose it with the nice, clean Christians who don't, you are either blithely regurgitating something you hear other sheltered Christians say and/or you've never had many experiences with atheists yourself.

There are plenty of "respectful" atheist blogs who don't have "potty mouths." These aren't obscure blogs; they are fairly well known in most atheist circles:

About.com Atheism / Agnosticism
Daylight Atheism
The Atheist Blogger
de-conversion
Atheist Ethicist
Friendly Atheist

I could go on, but that's just copying the first few out of my Google Reader which have new posts. And what of dirty, disrespectful Christian bloggers? Except for the first one below, I don't care to read them, so I don't, but I have a few I remember visiting recently:

Debunking Atheists
Debunking Atheism
Debunking Crap

The list could go on (or perhaps simply replaced with "Westboro Baptist Church"), but the point is that there are disrespectful atheist blogs but as are there disrespectful Christian blogs. Not only blogs, but disrespectful Christians in general. Take a look at some of the emails to PZ Myers, or even death threats. You can find Christians being nasty in blogs, forums, and chats, using profanity, and issuing threats.

You can also watch the popular TV show, The Atheist Experience, which I do recommend for Christians as it is aimed at non-atheists. On here, I can't count the number of Christians who call in and one way or another insult the hosts or threaten one. In one segment, after the host has dismantled him for ten minutes, the good Christian concludes with "why don't I come down there and punch your fat face in..."

I hope that my blog is represented in a respectful manner, as that is how I conduct myself in person and what I aim for here. For those Christians who comment here, I respond to them as respectfully as I do the atheist commenters. I certainly do not call them fools as Ray calls atheists, or fiends as Terry has called me, or baby-eaters as Dan has called us. I have been told here on this blog that I fabricate stories, I am arrogant, a muckraker, a pompous ass, and write mindless drivel.

That isn't to say that Christians aren't respectful. Some are and some aren't. The same with atheists. There are those Christian blogs which are meant to vent frustration for Christians and mock the opposition, as there ought be. There are those atheist blogs which are meant to vent frustration for atheists and mock the opposition, as there especially ought be. We shouldn't make the mistake of using them as the basis for characterizing either atheists or Christians as representing disrespect.

On Free Exercise of Irreligion

Dan, over at Debunking Atheists, made a post last week about how the court has ruled that atheism is a religion and therefore atheism is a religion. This is, obviously, absurd to anyone who has had even the basic introduction to jurisprudence. He made yet another post on it, though, and this time trying to attribute certain things to the "atheist religion" (though, with his methodology everything including libertarianism, philosophy, computer science, and candle stick making is a religion).

He doesn't seem to grasp the point I was trying to make, so I thought that I would expand it into a full blog post. Within a few days I will also make a post on the history of the Supreme Court's jurisprudence on the Free Exercise and Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Contrary to what Dan believes, this is not the first time the questions of "what is religion" and "does atheism, philosophy, and other irreligious beliefs covered under the protection of the First Amendment." There was, in fact, nothing new in the court case mentioned in his post. You can read my original comments there.


Technical terms vs lay terms
One of the many things I found interesting about Dan and this whole the courts have decided "atheism is a religion" episode is that it's so much like the battle of terms in evolutionary theory with the public. We know the difference between a lay theory and a scientific theory, so I won't go into it here. If you don't know the difference or have made the argument "evolution is just a theory," I encourage you to read the Wikipedia article on theory vs fact, wherein evolution is used as an example.

The same problem is happening here. The Court considers atheism a religion in a legal sense: for the purpose of protection under the First Amendment. The Court also considers corporations persons in a legal sense as well. Does this mean that, since the Supreme Court has ruled that "corporations are persons" (Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific R. Co.), corporations are literally people as we understand the term in the laity? Obviously, according to Dan, yes we should.


The mentioned case, Kaufman v McCaughtry
What is interesting about the case he mentions in his blog post, Kaufman v McCaughtry, the judge has actually said that atheism is not a religion, as we understand religions. I have emphasized the portions when it discusses that atheism is only going to be considered a religion for the special purpose of protection under the First Amendment.

An inmate retains the right to exercise his religious beliefs in prison. The problem here was that the prison officials did not treat atheism as a "religion," perhaps in keeping with Kaufman's own insistence that it is the antithesis of religion. But whether atheism is a "religion" for First Amendment purpose is a somewhat different question than whether its adherents believe in a supreme being, or attend regular devotional services, or have a sacred Scripture.

[...]

Without venturing too far into the realm of the philosophical, we have suggested in the past that when a person sincerely holds beliefs dealing with issues of "ultimate concern" that for her occupy a "place parallel to that filled by... God in traditionally religious persons," those beliefs represent her religion.

[...]

We have already indicated that atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion. ("If we think of religion as taking a position on divinity, then atheism is indeed a form of religion.")

[...]

The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a "religion" for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions...

The Establishment Clause itself says only that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," but the Court understands the reference to religion to include what it often calls "nonreligion." In McCreary Country, it described the touchstone of Establishment Clause analysis as "the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion."

[...]

As such, we are satisfied that it qualifies as Kaufman's religion for purposes of the First Amendment claims he is attempting to raise.

And just why was he raising First Amendment claims? Because he had tried to form an atheist study group which would work "to stimulate and promote Freedom of Thought and inquiry concerning religious beliefs, creeds, dogmas, tenets, rituals and practicies." They were denied the official form which they submitted, entitled "Request for New Religious Practice." While they were rejected, actual religions were allowed, including "Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, and Wiccan" groups.

Since atheism is considered a religion for the purpose of protection under the First Amendment, Kaufman's rights were clearly violated. It's a win for baby-eating atheists everywhere.


Example of how America views atheism as a religion?
The real kicker to all this, though, is that Dan used it as an example of how America views atheism as a religion. The prison officials, though, had denied the request as they didn't view atheism as a religion. As such, they subjected it "under the procedure for forming a new inmate activity group."


The Next Time On DisComforting Ignorance...
As I mentioned at the beginning, I will soon make a post on the history of the Supreme Court's jurisprudence on the First Amendment with regard to the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses. The history is quite interesting, as it starts with a polygamy case. I will focus especially on its treatment of irreligion under the First Amendment.

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.

An Open Letter to Patrick

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

I'm Back!

Dear Readers,

I am finally back from my terribly extended trip! The result was that my friend had her wedding delayed. Despite being an adult who works and has her own home, her mother, upon learning that my friend and her fiance, were moving in together five days before the wedding, promised to disown her and not support her marriage. Is the meddling mother an "aggressive atheist"? No, she's an aggressive Christian. Not wanting to lose her mother, they decided not to move in, which set off a chain of events of losing their prospective home and missing their set wedding date. Due to other obligations in their schedules, the wedding has been postponed a few months until they are in a situation to get married and then move in together.

I have a lot to catch up on now, including the loss of a Raytractor, Patrick, and PZ Myers vs Ray Comfort.

I apologize for the lack of posts the past few days, but the post count will be back up to once a day again. Also this week will be the unveiling of the latest project that I worked on in my spare time during my trip. What is it? The only detail I will give away is that it will include a tasty atheist recipe for eating babies.

- JT