Comments on: One Nation Under God

By: Big Dog

Big Dog — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 02:24:39 +0000

No heated debate, just argument over the idea (argument in the debate meaning). I am pointing out that if we consider the impact of the Amendment on established religions we have to consider that, if the SCOTUS has decided atheism has equal weighting under the law, then they are being allowed to “establish” their religion (in the legal sense) and other religions are not.

In other words, why are they allowed to dictate what happens when the result honors their religion at the detriment to others?

By: Adam

Adam — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 02:11:12 +0000

I see now. I think this is an interesting subject. One of the few subjects I won’t get really heated over.

By: Big Dog

Big Dog — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 01:48:00 +0000

Atheism by definition is not a religion just as theism is not. However, that is the layman’s definition. For legal purposes the Supreme Court of the US has determined that atheism is a religion when considered under the context of the First Amendment.
“The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a ‘religion’ for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions”

In Wallace v Jaffe the SCOTUS said:

“At one time it was thought that this right [referring to the right to choose one’s own creed] merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not require equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Islam or Judaism. But when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all.”

“As we’ve seen, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals hasn’t declared atheism to be a religion as the layperson might usually define it, they simply acknowledged that atheism hold equal standing with religions with regard to the First Amendment.”Atheist Community

From a legal standpoint, atheism is considered as equal footing as any established religion when it comes to the First Amendment, though I agree from an other point it lacks the worship of a traditional religion.

By: Adam

Adam — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 00:12:47 +0000

Well, “under God” is not generic, as in god, or gods. Atheism is not a religion.

By: Big Dog

Big Dog — Thu, 15 Sep 2005 18:43:09 +0000

A Christian believes Christ is the son of God. Under God does note Christianity, it demonstrates a belief in a creator. All religions except atheism believe in a God (or Gods). Therefore, the mention of God only affects atheists in a negative way.

No one forces the small number of children who are atheists to say it but we are forcing children NOT to say it and that would be the large majority affected.

By: Adam

Adam — Thu, 15 Sep 2005 18:13:10 +0000

They aren’t pushing a religion of atheism. That’s just divisive politics you’re preaching. What they do is accept that there are people in America that aren’t Christian. I agree that rulings like these take it too far, but at the heart of this is still the one idea. I’m not a lawyer either so I won’t go any further than to say that I think students shouldn’t be forced into saying “under God.” I guess you could argue that they aren’t forced…

By: Big Dog

Big Dog — Thu, 15 Sep 2005 16:01:55 +0000

How about the majority who want it in there? How about Congress passed this as a law and for 3 days they have been having a hissy to ensure Roberts will not be activist (using the new definition for activist) and change laws the Congress has passed.

How about we see how many people are affected and use majority rules? What if a few people decide that they don’t want to learn history or use books in school that teach our ancestors came here because of religious persecution? Slippery slope…

Atheism is a religion as defined by the Supreme Court so now they get to push their religion on others. Why is this right?

By: Adam

Adam — Thu, 15 Sep 2005 04:50:13 +0000

Well, is it so wrong to want a school “free from a coercive requirement to affirm God” to quote the judge? I don’t have a real strong stance on this, but I agree with the people want to return to the original version that had no “under God” in it. It is as much a “patriotic exercise” if it doesn’t contain “under God.”