fact that many religions (including atheism itself)

Point of order, kind sir! Atheism --whatever else this odd state may be -- is not a religion.

And before anyone tries to argue that point, note that it's been done to death already.

Look, I think the dude who took this to court is an idiot,

_t0ny,

I appreciate your very thorough treatment of this issue ('54 was it? I was thinking '52 but am pretty convinced that I am better off taking your word for it!) and I am guessing that you may be characterizing this guy as an "idiot" in a somewhat figurative "what a PITA!" sense.

I haven't seen this guy (the plaintiff) in the media, just saw this interview reprinted on CNN. He does have seem to have a few funny ideas, like "When atheists become the majority in this country..." (OK, that'll be, like, in the year 3067!), but I can't really fault him on his generally professed intent vis-a-vis constitutional issues.

This is not a suit I would have filed. For one, I am allergic to courtrooms and lawyers. Second, if I did, it might make it onto the NBC Nightly News and my 80+ year-old parents might see my mug shot, conclude that I am doomed to Hell, and they would no longer be able to sleep at night. (As it is, I can reveal my true, dark, godless nature here knowing that my folks are not internet-enabled!)

If this guy *is* a major PITA, that would not be a big surprise to me. It is not to say that that all folks that are a PITA are some vanguard of some worthy or admirable cause (and you may consider this guy's cause distinctly un-admirable), but it strikes me that it is sometimes the quirky, PITA type of folks who walk point on controversial issues while folks like me lie back, shelter their dear parents and relations from their true nature, and maybe reap the benefit of the PITA's efforts.

It's not directly analagous, but in this case I think of Jack Kevorkian. How is it that such an unappetizing point man should emerge for a issue with which I feel significant common cause? Dang! Isn't there someone *nicer* -- a little less rigid -- to carry the a right-to-die banner? Oh, that's right, the nicer spokesperson didn't get any media attention...

Likewise, the failure of atheists to build some big shiny temple may come down to the extreme distaste with which a lot of us regard the avowed spokespersons for our "religion", whether living or dead. Think Madelyn Murray O'Hare (sp?). While it does not please me that the KofC managed to get "under God" into the Pledge in the 50s, it does pain me to watch some of these humorless, self-promoting O'Harists behave as if they are my monsignor as they tilt at various church/state issues. Perhaps this plaintiff gent is one of those humorless PITAs? I don't know. On balance, though, I think I thank him for "walking point", even if perhaps I wouldn't want to invite him over for dinner.

(OK, if he wasn't rambling before, he is now! ...)

I guess I maintain a fairly high degree of sensitivity about membership in a minority, when I routinely see and hear sentiments in media and personal life like the prviously quoted woman lamenting the many "blind' godless who don't have the benefit of her particular religion. I send letters to the editor occasionally. I complained to United when i heard this song on their in-flight entertainment. The list goes on. Overall, though, I try not to get too torqued about it because....well...I'm in a minority. Especially on days like this, with continued Republican encroachment, and verdicts like the Cleveland school voucher verdict, I frankly feel a sense of resignation. The notion that somehow I could get more folks to think like me went away a long time ago (Hell, Jim, you're not even willing to go door-to-door on Saturday mornings! What *were* you thinking!!)

The depressing part of this feeling of resignation, though, is that, even if the "Under God" Pledge proponents and school voucher advocates (oh, and may I insert the mandatory drug testing for high school extracurriculars ruling here?) continue to assert their ersatz moral majority and score victories such as this, I don't think that it will satisfy. Maybe this is just US politics, but I think that these folks could succeed in instituting mandatory public school bible study, creationism curriculae, drug testing in kindergarden, and abolition of all public schools, yet still find themselves unsatisfied -- find that the institution of a lot of religio-cultural proscriptions perhaps did not really improve underlying societal fundamentals.

OK, I'm *really* rambling here. Question, though: Has anybody on the BBS read Kevin Phillips recently published book _Wealth and Democracy_?

Well, the atheists.org people are right that atheism is not a religion -- or, more precisely, that isn't always a religion. But I'll bet you money that, to this guy that brought the case, it's a religion.

The interesting thing to me here is I've always felt in the minority by believing in God. The more I've thought about this though, I think that belief in God and no belief in God are two extremes that do end up being minoritys. I now this sounds silly, but of all the poeple I meet, very view care one way or the other: They don't belive in anything. At least an athiest believes something: that there is no God.

You are in the minority because you claim this belief, but almost everyone I meet lives this way. I live in the south, wher most people seem to be born religious, but in the end most of these poeple are functionally atheist if not ones in belief.

I must admit I'm not so sure why that song would upset you, as most music out today (aside from some country and Christian music) outrightly defy's religion and Christian teaching in specific. I find little comfort in hearing such a song on the radio because the singer has other songs that go the other way (I much prefer a group like Rush: though I may completely disagree with them, at least thy are honest and engage the mind).

I guess my point is that if you want some comfort in your minority state, most people live like there is no God, even if they won't admit it to themselves. The thought is much to heavy for a culture that cares not to deal with consequences.

I guess my point is that if you want some comfort in your minority state, most people live like there is no God, even if they won't admit it to themselves. The thought is much to heavy for a culture that cares not to deal with consequences.

Well said.

In reply to:

---

You dope, the people of India are mostly Hindus. Maybe 10% of the country is Muslim. Go read a book.

---

In reply to:

---

Do I need to respond to this? Or does everyone see what is wrong with this statement?

Ok I thought so.

---

In reply to:

---

Then don't start spouting nonsense about Allah in India. I don't care what you choose to read, but here's a little tip: only use facts that you don't make up.

---

Ok so I made one F'ing irrelevant demographical mistake. Is it that big of a deal? You knew what I meant. Swap out "India" with "Pakistan" or "Allah" with whoever the hell the hindu god is. Why don't you tell me the percentage of jehova witnesses in the US? Ha, it's your own country and I bet you don't even know. How's it feel now, hypocrite? But I'm sure half a dozen people are gonna go to Google and shove the statistic back in my face and act like they knew it off the top of their head.

Calm down dude. I think it's more about debating in a calm manner and being able to make logical assertions from facts. Those responses to your mistake were a reaction to your confrontational posting style.

I, like you, defend our right to have "under God" in the pledge. You have to realize that no matter how logical the argument and no matter how much venom you inject in your invectives, noone here is actually going to change their mind. So lets be civil and state our case in a manner that is worth the time it takes to read.

Oh, don't worry, the India/Allah thing was just the most obvious (and humorous) logical errors you have made in your arguments here. It's hard to take your other aguments seriously when you're so ignorant of other cultures to think that India is a Muslim country. Did you also know that the "Indians" here in America aren't the same people as the "Indians" in India? They are also in no way related to the Cleveland Indians, the Atlanta Braves, the Washington Redskins, the Kansas City Chiefs, or the state of Indiana. Strange, but true.

You're right. I will chill out.

In reply to:

---

you're so ignorant of other cultures to think that India is a Muslim country

---

I never said India is a Muslim country.

yea.. every day I think more and more about moving to finland. my girlfriend has family there, and speaks fluently. she really wants to move over there... oh well..

In reply to:

---

Point of order, kind sir! Atheism --whatever else this odd state may be -- is not a religion.

---

Incorrect. The link Tony posted is also incorrect.

The fact that "Nearly every dictionary will define religion as belief in a divine or superhuman power or powers to be obeyed a worshiped as the creator(s) and ruler(s) of the universe" is true, but it is not the only definition. You will also find that nearly every dictionary will also define religion as "a set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader" and/or "a cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion". You might also examine the definition of atheist, which is typically defined as "one who disbelieves or denies the existence of a god, or supreme intelligent being". Thus, if I wish to pursue my non-beliefs with zeal and conscientious devotion, I should be able to enjoy the privilege of calling my atheism religion. And why would I wish to be associated with such a repugnant concept as traditional, supreme-being based religion? Because an Atheist is at least as devoted to his or her beliefs as your average American follower of a bible based religion, and thus should be able to enjoy the benefits of being recognized as a religion. I feel strongly that if Christians should be able to designate a myriad of days "holidays" due to their beliefs, and feel that they should not be expected to have to attend their places of employment on these days, then a devout Atheist should at least be able to enjoy a holiday of their own.

I would also like to comment on the somewhat confused commentary that Tony linked to. The author begins by pointing out how disturbingly wrong (and even insulting) the definitions of many dictionaries are, and then goes on to use said dictionary definitions to back up his or her argument. I can only hope that they are two completely different essays that had the misfortune of being combined as one without adequate review.

I noticed that incongruity about dictionaries in the treatise there. Doesn't mean his statements are wrong. He just notes that the dictionaries get it right in some places and not in others.

And as I said, the "atheism is/is not a religion" philosophical argument has been done to death already, and in the end it all boils down to semantics or basic philosophical concepts where the two camps simply agree to disagree.

"I feel strongly that if Christians should be able to designate a myriad of days "holidays" due to their beliefs, and feel that they should not be expected to have to attend their places of employment on these days, then a devout Atheist should at least be able to enjoy a holiday of their own. "

Except that I can't think of a truly "Christian" holiday. Easter, Christmas, and All Saints Day are all "Christianized" holidays that started out secular. Of these, only Easter really remains a Christian Holliday, and even that can be suspect to me sometimes. Christmas is a consumer bonanza having more to do with Santa Clause that the birth of Christ. Not that I'll deny that these days to still carry some religious weight, I just feel they are pretty hollow at the core. Still, I'll take "athiest day" off too if you think that would be more fair

a devout Atheist should at least be able to enjoy a holiday of their own.

Holiday, Hell! (or is using that invective wrong?)
I'd rather have tax-exempt status. If the Scientologists can get it, surely we followers of the Almighty Empeg must be able to cook up something worthy enough to pass IRS scrutiny.

Follow me brethren, as we kneel before the pulsing LED.....

Well, the atheists.org people are right that atheism is not a religion -- or, more precisely, that isn't always a religion. But I'll bet you money that, to this guy that brought the case, it's a religion.

Oh, I think I know what you mean (maybe!) in terms of somebody's single-minded, zealous pursuit of, and identification with, an issue. I suppose that for somebody who spends a year sitting in the crown of an old-growth tree or who spends 10 year bicycling around the world multiple times preaching the virtues of solar energy, well, that's their "religion". In those cases, though (which I made up, BTW), a moniker of "religion" wouldn't really do much to confuse the "is-or-isn't-something-a-religion?" question. So I guess that's one reason you always have atheists popping up like Internet Jacks-in-the-Box whenever the label is applid!!

Tony is right that the issue has been done to death, and God help us if alt.atheism should ever be dragged over here! Whenever I verge on a protracted discussion of anything like this, I just point to the a.a intro doc over here which I think does a decent job of summarizing my general thinking (Hell, does a much better job than I can!)

I saw a little news clip of the plaintiff playing back threatening messages on his answering machine. Sure, I'd say he has a major hair up his ass. One thing that is very interesting is that, while the ACLU agreed with the ruling, they had nothing to do with the suit. Did the plaintiff not seek their help? Or did they refuse? Is he the PITA, go-it-alone vengeful paladin we suspect? Mebbe.

I never said India is a Muslim country.

Ummm... actually, I kinda think you did, right here.

tanstaafl.

Now on the particular issue of the PoA, I couldn't care less whether "Under God" was in there and I think we should be focusing our resources on more important problems. My first reaction to this was, "haven't we already covered this before?"

While I obviously have some opinions on the whole PoA issue and I don't begrudge the plaintiff his right to pursue the case, one of the reasons it upsets me so much is for precisely the reason you mention. Whoever "wins", I fear there are much bigger issues left unattended. In some sense, the plaintiff and the ruling create an opportunity for many of our elected representatives to perform cheap tricks -- stand up, blast the ruling, and recite the pledge while other bigger issues float by uninspected.

I always remember a Boston talk show host -- Gene-something --who made an unbelievably large political name and career out of a single issue -- repealing the state's seat belt law. The amount of energy expended in that non-issue campaign could have built 14 Hoover Dams.

I just point to the a.a intro doc over here

Ah, that's the doc I was originally looking for when I wanted to link the statement that "it's been done to death". Didn't have it immediately handy, so I went for the other one, which isn't as detailed.

The interesting thing to me here is I've always felt in the minority by believing in God. The more I've thought about this though, I think that belief in God and no belief in God are two extremes that do end up being minoritys. I now this sounds silly, but of all the poeple I meet, very view care one way or the other: They don't belive in anything.

Well, it doesn't sound silly, but it is surprising to me -- that you have a serious feeling of minority. Guess that says something about respective vantage points. I saw a reference to this House Bill 459 which essentially denounces the PoA ruling. I don't know what the spread will be if and when it comes to a vote, but I assume that it will pass quite handily with many of the few reps who don't support it vanishing into the woodwork of abstention. If that's how it goes, I guess I'll say "Yep, I'm in the minority!" How about you? Seriously?

At least an athiest believes something: that there is no God.

That intro link I posted in response to Bitt deals with this issue in a way I agree with. I think that there are lots of things that I don't believe in but which I don't consider positive beliefs.

You are in the minority because you claim this belief, but almost everyone I meet lives this way. I live in the south, where most people seem to be born religious, but in the end most of these poeple are functionally atheist if not ones in belief.

Again, this surprises me but I guess it might come down to how strict your standards are and what people project (perhaps versus how they really behave). Example: I didn't know that the rather priestly priest who married me back in the early 1980s would turn out to be the life partner of the other priest now being tried in Boston for serial child abuse; my sister probably couldn't know that the very sanctimonious priest who indignantly *refused* to marry her (to a non-catholic) would later be convicted of multiple charges of child molestation! (edit: The point being that they all seemed pretty religious to me!)

I must admit I'm not so sure why that song would upset you, as most music out today (aside from some country and Christian music) outrightly defy's religion and Christian teaching in specific. I find little comfort in hearing such a song on the radio because the singer has other songs that go the other way (I much prefer a group like Rush: though I may completely disagree with them, at least thy are honest and engage the mind).

Different songs may upset me for different reasons. I'm a stong free-speech, anti-censorship kind of guy, but I have to say that I get really steamed (and write my local radio station to ask that they improve their playlist) when I hear a lot of the horribly misogynous music (rap, mostly) that gets airplay (this is *another* thread). But the fact that some music upsets me for one set of reasons doesn't help me not get offended by different songs for different reasons. The smug, insulting JM Montgomery song basically implies that if you don't subscribe to his particular religion that you are "lost" and that you are doomed to a life of drug abuse abuse and child neglect. That's enough for me to get insulted!

I guess my point is that if you want some comfort in your minority state, most people live like there is no God, even if they won't admit it to themselves. The thought is much to heavy for a culture that cares not to deal with consequences.

Thanks. This sounds like small comfort all the way around!

Read it again, Doug. I never said it.

Hey, can everyone stop abbreviating Pledge of Allegiance to PoA? I'm having a difficult staying focused. Everytime I read PoA, images of hot chicks enter my subconcious mind.

Anyway, we're all missing the point. This whole topic, while controversial, is pretty much a waste of time, money, and energy, given everything else going on in the world. So just why was it such big news? Did anyone check which Bills were going through the Houses that day?

Because we all need some new big controversy to keep our attention. Or at least, we think we do because the media tells us so. The entire nation has a severe case of ADD when it comes to this stuff.

That's right. Plus, since I'm young I need something to be pissed about.

Read it again, Doug. I never said it.

What you said was:

Imagine an American going to a school in India and demanding that they stop using the word 'Allah'. Do you think that would be reasonable?

which would certainly imply that you were suggesting that India was a Muslim nation.

All that aside... is anybody else as impressed with this bbs as I am? I can't imagine an open forum anywhere else on the internet where such a hot-button discussion as we are having in this thread could be carried out in such a civilized and intelligent manner. I've said it before: I count it as an enormous privilege to be able to associate with such an intelligent, articulate, and well-educated group of people.

Now, obviously all you godless heretics whose religious beliefs differ in any way whatsoever from my religious beliefs are certainly going to burn in Hell -- but that's your problem, not mine. (Juuusssstt kidding!)

tanstaafl.

I can't imagine an open forum anywhere else on the internet where such a hot-button discussion as we are having in this thread could be carried out in such a civilized and intelligent manner.

And with Yz33d in the thread, too, no less.

(I think we've just gotten used to the guy.)

What really bugs me about this whole post..... what really gets me!!! Is that I'm labled "Enthusiast".... I've tried to contribute positively and held my tongue on more than one occasion. While Yz33d has done nothing but really agitate things since he joined and he's an "Old hand"!!!
Doh! Sorry for not offering up anything constructive... but thats my rant.

Bah. Those labels don't mean shit.

Well, Pooh on you.