[Dark_crow]

I'm not offended by the words under god. Offended is the wrong word. If the pledge was a private thing not endorsed by our country say what ever you want in it. However since we say it in public schools, I remember teachers making kids recite the pledge in highschool and getting very annoyed at them in they didn't. Might of been unconstitional but they did it and since there are so few open athiests, chances of parent sueing over it are slim. Even if a parent did complain all that would happen is that a teacher would be told don't do it this year anymore.

I see this issue as a where do you draw the line issue. Do we say well "in god we trust" is okay and then when a christian senator says lets change it to "in Jesus we trust" because they are basically the same thing. Do we complain then? How about when the President of the United States says that he doesn't think athiests should have citizenship. Should we complain then? Wait that thing about the president already happened then we elected his son for two terms.

I think we need to be optimistic at this time. Sure there will always someone who ‘breaks the rules,’ but the rules exist and appear to me to be largely working. And too, let’s not forget the intolerance by some atheists that runs through some courts and promote their position.

As I understand it the comment, “the President of the United States says that he doesn't think athiests should have citizenship” only came from 1 reporter…that’s a bit weak.

[BABRAM]

I see this issue as a where do you draw the line issue. Do we say well "in god we trust" is okay and then when a christian senator says lets change it to "in Jesus we trust" because they are basically the same thing. Do we complain then?

Good point. While the majority of the country is religiously affiliated with Christianity, the pledge, currency, etc.. Is fairly ecumenical. I can respect that here in the States. As far as the currency I'll spend money with the word "Jesus" on it. However should it be made mandatory for an Atheist to attend church services, or in my case being Jewish have it forced upon me to worship another religions standard, then that's were you'll see my exodus and millions of others.



Bobby

[michealb]

The in the letter written to the President of the American Atheist association. After he demanded an apology from Bush.
"As you are aware, the President is a religious man who neither supports atheism nor believes that atheism should be unnecessarily encouraged or supported by the government. Needless to say, the President supports the Constitution and laws of the United States, and you may rest assured that this Administration will proceed at all times with due regard for the legal rights of atheists, as will as others with whom the President disagrees."

It's a good thing that he is only one man but there are only nine that prevent men like him having their way with the country.

[speechlesstx]

However should it be made mandatory for an Atheist to attend church services, or in my case being Jewish have it forced upon me to worship another religions standard, then that's were you'll see my exodus and millions of others.

Nah, stick around because I would be fighting that fight with you. :)

[speechlesstx]

The in the letter written to the President of the American Atheist association. After he demanded an apology from Bush.
"As you are aware, the President is a religious man who neither supports atheism nor believes that atheism should be unnecessarily encouraged or supported by the government. Needless to say, the President supports the Constitution and laws of the United States, and you may rest assured that this Administration will proceed at all times with due regard for the legal rights of atheists, as will as others with whom the President disagrees."

It's a good thing that he is only one man but there are only nine that prevent men like him having their way with the country.

Let's be clear here, if the atheist comment was made it was by Bush the elder, not the current president.

[BBWfromPhilly]

Hello BBW:

I agree. We should NOT do that.

Apparently you don't know that the words "under God" were ADDED to the pledge in the 50's. We shoulda left it alone.

excon

I did know that... and if we were speaking of that copy of the Pledge, my perspective would be the same. It shouldn't be altered.

[lobrobster]

Is atheism in schools often censorship in disguise? Or does the author of the article slant it towards Christanity?

Atheism isn't even a belief. So how can it be a form of censorship?

[ETWolverine]

Atheism isn't even a belief. So how can it be a form of censorship?

Lobrobster, I have to say that I disagree with this statement.

Atheism is a belief... an affirmative decision by the proponent that there is no god. It is as much a belief as a belief in a specific god.

AGNOSTICISM is not a belief. Agnostics specifically have no belief, they have made no decisions as to whether there is a god or not, and what form a god might take. But that is not true of atheism.

Secondly, whether atheism is a belief or not has nothing to do with whether Atheists are actively trying to censor those who DO believe in G-d. Let's assume that atheism is not a belief, for the sake of agument. Does that mean that there isn't an active campaign by Atheists to eliminate talk of G-d in public? (I'm not talking about whether such a campaign actually exists. I'm saying that the fact that something is not a "belief" doesn't necessarily mean that there is no censorship going on. One does not follow the other.)

Elliot

[lobrobster]

Lobrobster, I have to say that I disagree with this statement.

Atheism is a belief... an affirmative decision by the proponent that there is no god. It is as much a belief as a belief in a specific god.

AGNOSTICISM is not a belief. Agnostics specifically have no belief, they have made no decisions as to whether there is a god or not, and what form a god might take. But that is not true of atheism.

Secondly, whether atheism is a belief or not has nothing to do with whether Atheists are actively trying to censor those who DO believe in G-d. Let's assume that atheism is not a belief, for the sake of agument. Does that mean that there isn't an active campaign by Atheists to eliminate talk of G-d in public? (I'm not talking about whether such a campaign actually exists. I'm saying that the fact that something is not a "belief" doesn't necessarily mean that there is no censorship going on. One does not follow the other.)

Elliot

Perhaps... Atheism is difficult to define. I suppose since I'm not willing to claim with absolute certainty that there is no god, you could say I'm agnostic. But then, you'd also have to say I'm agnostic about the prospect of there being little green gremlins living deep beneath the earth that only come out when no one can see them.

I think it is reasonable to for me to conclude/decide that these gremlins do not exist. And it's also reasonable for me to conclude/decide that god does not exist even though I admit to not being 100% sure. So for all intents and purposes I consider myself an a-gremlinist and atheist respectively.

As for campaigns, there just may be such a movement beginning in America (and it's about time). But it has nothing to do with censorship! Quite the contrary... It has to do with not forcing OTHER people's beliefs on everyone. Say what you want. Believe what you want. But don't think that the rest of us have to agree with you.

Personally, I have nothing against "one nation under God", or "in God we trust". I can accept this as tradition. But when people start really thinking that this country is a nation under God with Christian values, it's a problem. When ex-presidents start saying that those without faith don't derserve citizenship, it's alarming.

[Dark_crow]

What is alarming about ex-presidents, or anyone else for that matter, saying that those without faith don't deserve citizenship? What I would find alarming would be a law against saying that. Faith is a very powerful emotion, whether it is faith in a God, or faith in the spirit of the humanity of mankind.
I also don't believe Atheism is difficult to define…it is simply a lack of belief or faith in supernatural things.

[ETWolverine]

As for campaigns, there just may be such a movement beginning in America (and it's about time). But it has nothing to do with censorship! Quite the contrary... It has to do with not forcing OTHER people's beliefs on everyone. Say what you want. Believe what you want. But don't think that the rest of us have to agree with you.

Personally, I have nothing against "one nation under God", or "in God we trust". I can accept this as tradition. But when people start really thinking that this country is a nation under God with Christian values, it's a problem. When ex-presidents start saying that those without faith don't derserve citizenship, it's alarming.

Look at the quote from you Lob. Essentially, you just said that it's okay for anyone to say, think or believe anything they wish to without fear of censorship... unless its an ex-President with strong convictions about the role of faith in the USA, or a person who believes that this country has and should continue to have Christian values. Then he must be viewed with "alarm" over his beliefs, which are a "problem".

That sounds a little like censorship to me. Oh, it's not full-blown, cut-off-his-micophone, thow-him-in-jail censorship. But it is an attempt to eliminate his views from the public debate. That's censorship too. And that is a lot more alarming to me than anything said about faith and citizenship. I would rather have people freely saying things that are personally abhorrent to me than have free speech curtailed because someone finds it "alarming" to say what the speaker wishes to say.

Elliot

[lobrobster]

Look at the quote from you Lob. Essentially, you just said that it's okay for anyone to say, think or believe anything they wish to without fear of censorship... unless its an ex-President with strong convictions about the role of faith in the USA, or a person who believes that this country has and should continue to have Christian values. Then he must be viewed with "alarm" over his beliefs, which are a "problem".

That sounds a little like censorship to me. Oh, it's not full-blown, cut-off-his-micophone, thow-him-in-jail censorship. But it is an attempt to eliminate his views from the public debate. That's censorship too. And that is a lot more alarming to me than anything said about faith and citizenship. I would rather have people freely saying things that are personally abhorrent to me than have free speech curtailed because someone finds it "alarming" to say what the speaker wishes to say.

Elliot

Your point is taken wolverine. Of course, people have the right to say anything they want. But we're allowed to respond, aren't we?

Sure, the ex-president can say or hold any view he wants, but when he makes an assinine and bigoted statement like that, I have a right to call him out for what he is... Assinine and bigoted.

You might think blacks shouldn't be US citizens, or Muslims, etc. and you have a right to say so as well. But my tolerance of your right to bigotry does not include my having to shut up and letting your ideas take over. That's not what makes this country the great nation it is. Sure, people can say anything they want. But those who are rational can fight back.

[BABRAM]

Lobrobster-

Just to interject here, we all want our views heard, and of course that's natural. Views that do not incite the public to go beyond the law, as protected by our constitutional rights. In fact, on this same post I mentioned to MichaelB, that as a Jew, how I would leave the country if I was dictated to concerning my right to worship, and likewise I'd feel the same way if Atheists were forced to worship or disband their organizations. I would consider that a bad sign, since I'm in the minority, and I don't want to face the possibility of another Nazi Germany.

To quote myself:

While the majority of the country is religiously affiliated with Christianity, the pledge, currency, etc.. is fairly ecumenical. However should it be made mandatory for an Atheist to attend church services, or in my case being Jewish have it forced upon me to worship another religions standard, then that's were you'll see my exodus and millions of others.

I think, however, that ETW was discussing censorship in the context of your opening remarks. After reading the discussion I don't see where anybody was suggesting that you wouldn't have the right of view for disagreeing with an ex-president, or any current politician for that matter. BTW, Tomder55, S-TX, Excon, can someone please share a transcript link of those ex-president's comments so I can read the context before I send the ex-president a New Years card or start tying noose knots? I vaguely remember an incident that seemed years ago. Thank you. Lobrobster, I'm not sure why you brought up the example of "black" or "Muslim." Neither are in a category of automatic guilt in the US. Abiding by the law is what's necessary for every citizen and legal resident. Conviction numbers infer a different subject altogether, per populace, but as much as I love and agree with Bill Cosby, I'll let him do the seminars. He makes a good case as a positive influence. Anyway we all disagree with those elected to office, from time to time, as we should. I applaud them when I think they've done a good job and chastise them when necessary. If they are real bad, I do my best to vote them out.



Bobby

[lobrobster]

Babram-

Again, atheism is not a belief. It is a LACK of belief. We are all atheists to some degree. I just believe in one less god than you do.

That said, we are still a minority in this country (although I'm sure there are many more closet atheists than the polls account for). I used blacks and Muslims, because they too, are a minority. I find it extremely unbecoming of an ex-president to pick on a minority who are every bit as patriotic and tax paying citizens as HE is, and saying they shouldn't have a right to vote! That's absurd! And was my only point in that regard.

As to censorship, I'm very against it. I think everyone has a right to their own beliefs, thoughts, or worship. Just not in public schools. What's next? Should IBM shut down for 15 minutes so their employees can pray? I honestly don't see what the big deal is... Do your praying at home on your own time. If you're very orthodox and need time for prayer during the day, I'm not even against companies or schools making allowances for that! How much more appeasing can I get on this subject? I'm just saying don't push it on me or my kids. If you want to pray, fine. But I don't want to listen to it. I also don't want my time taken up for it. Pray. Just do so on your own time. That's all.

[BABRAM]

Babram-

Again, atheism is not a belief. It is a LACK of belief. We are all atheists to some degree. I just believe in one less god than you do.

I see this as a contraction. You said, "atheism is not a belief, then followed that with, "I just believe in one less god than you do." If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. For me it's an expressed ideology, a view, by an individual and/or organization. Personally, I think it's categorically defined, but takes away from more important discussion.

That said, we are still a minority in this country (although I'm sure there are many more closet atheists than the polls account for). I used blacks and Muslims, because they too, are a minority. I find it extremely unbecoming of an ex-president to pick on a minority who are every bit as patriotic and tax paying citizens as HE is, and saying they shouldn't have a right to vote!! That's absurd! And was my only point in that regard.

.

OK. There are many minorities in this country and all our previous presidents have been Caucasian. Soon all caucasians will be in the minority. Perhaps someone will get me that link to the remarks so I can read the context.

As to censorship, I'm very against it. I think everyone has a right to their own beliefs, thoughts, or worship. Just not in public schools. What's next? Should IBM shut down for 15 minutes so their employees can pray? I honestly don't see what the big deal is... Do your praying at home on your own time. If you're very orthodox and need time for prayer during the day, I'm not even against companies or schools making allowances for that! How much more appeasing can I get on this subject? I'm just saying don't push it on me or my kids. If you want to pray, fine. But I don't want to listen to it. I also don't want my time taken up for it. Go ahead and pray. Just do so on your own time. That's all.

Well if it's an ecumenical prayer that's OK by me. If it's not, I'll tune it out and consider it my personal time for a power nap. I live in Las Vegas and I don't really expect prayer in the workplace is going to become the standard here. The casinos, in respect for President Kennedy after his assassination, only shut down the slot machines for whole whopping five minutes. Our schools in Nevada are so short on good teachers, that I don't expect they have time for much. I forget the ratio of teacher to kids, but I'm sure it's below the national average. Anyway I do understand what your saying. I treat people cigarette smoking breaks as my time to relax since I'm not addicted to nicotine. I can always find a way to make good of the time.



Bobby

[lobrobster]

I see this as a contraction. You said, "atheism is not a belief, then followed that with, "I just believe in one less god than you do."

Ooookay...

-I believe there is a god.

-I'm not sure if there's a god.

-I believe there is no god.

-I have no compelling reason to think there is an invisible bearded man living in the sky somewhere.

You can put me down for the last one. ;)

[michealb]

Here is the full story on George Bush.

George Bush on atheism and patriotism
"Did George Bush really say that atheists should not be considered citizens?"

The following exchange took place at the Chicago airport between Robert I. Sherman of American Atheist Press and George Bush, on August 27 1987. Sherman is a fully accredited reporter, and was present by invitation as a member of the press corps. The Republican presidential nominee was there to announce federal disaster relief for Illinois. The discussion turned to the presidential primary:

RS:
"What will you do to win the votes of Americans who are atheists?"
GB:
"I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me."
RS:
"Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?"
GB:
"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
RS:
"Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?"
GB:
"Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists."
UPI reported on May 8, 1989, that various atheist organizations were still angry over the remarks.

The exchange appeared in the Boulder Daily Camera on Monday February 27, 1989. It can also be found in "Free Inquiry" magazine, Fall 1988 issue, Volume 8, Number 4, page 16.

On October 29, 1988, Mr. Sherman had a confrontation with Ed Murnane, co-chairman of the Bush-Quayle '88 Illinois campaign. This concerned a lawsuit Mr. Sherman had filed to stop the Community Consolidated School District 21 (Chicago, Illinois) from forcing his first-grade atheist son to pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States as "one nation under God" (Bush's phrase). The following conversation took place:

RS:
"American Atheists filed the Pledge of Allegiance lawsuit yesterday. Does the Bush campaign have an official response to this filing?"
EM:
"It's bull."
RS:
"What is bull?"
EM:
"Everything that American Atheists does, Rob, is bull."
RS:
"Thank you for telling me what the official position of the Bush campaign is on this issue."
EM:
"You're welcome."
After Bush's election, American Atheists wrote to Bush asking him to retract his statement. On February 21st 1989, C. Boyden Gray, Counsel to the President, replied on White House stationery that Bush substantively stood by his original statement, and wrote:

"As you are aware, the President is a religious man who neither supports atheism nor believes that atheism should be unnecessarily encouraged or supported by the government."
For further information, contact American Atheist Veterans at the American Atheist Press's Cameron Road address.

[BABRAM]

Michael you deserve the quick research award. I don't know what that will be other than a 'thank you' for taking the time. I've got a kid to feed and cloth so I can't afford much. :)

"I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me."
RS:
"Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?"
GB:
"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." .

Saying he doesn't know was silly. He knew.

After Bush's election, American Atheists wrote to Bush asking him to retract his statement. On February 21st 1989, C. Boyden Gray, Counsel to the President, replied on White House stationery that Bush substantively stood by his original statement, and wrote:

"As you are aware, the President is a religious man who neither supports atheism nor believes that atheism should be unnecessarily encouraged or supported by the government."
For further information, contact American Atheist Veterans at the American Atheist Press's Cameron Road address.

Ann Richards once remarked that he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. I'm sure his campaign advisers figured it to be his foot instead. I think he was trying for a Jimmy Carter "Christian" moment. Difference being that Carter would had been more tactful, nor would he had suggested the validity of any one's legal citizenship. I never lost sleep over George, I never voted for him. I'm sure he lost many of Atheist vote and some mature Christian support as well. I'm more centrist conservative in my political views now, than I was then. But if such happened again tomorrow, I still couldn't vote for him.



Bobby

[ETWolverine]

Ooookay....

-I believe there is a god.

-I'm not sure if there's a god.

-I believe there is no god.

-I have no compelling reason to think there is an invisible bearded man living in the sky somewhere.

You can put me down for the last one. ;)

That's still a choice. Somewhere along the line you made an affirmative decision that there is no compelling reason to believe in "an invisible bearded man living in the sky somewhere." The only one that might not be "belief" is the second one... where the subject has not made a specific decision one way or the other. That is agnosticism.

BTW, I don't believe in an invisible bearded man living in the sky either. I believe in G-d. He doesn't have a beard, he doesn't live in the sky, and his "footprint" is visible to anyone willing to see it. You must be thinking of Santa Claus. But that is a discussion for another time.

----------

I agree that you have the right to say whatever you wish about Bush the Elder... or anyone else. You can have any opinions you wish to have, and you may air those opinions in whatever form you wish.

But so does Bush.

And when you make statements like "But when people start really thinking that this country is a nation under God with Christian values, it's a problem. When ex-presidents start saying that those without faith don't derserve citizenship, it's alarming," it becomes more than just airing an opinion. It seems like an attempt to keep opposing opinions from being heard because they may be "alarming" or "problematic" for you.

Elliot

[jillianleab]

I agree that you have the right to say whatever you wish about Bush the Elder... or anyone else. You can have any opinions you wish to have, and you may air those opinions in whatever form you wish.

But so does Bush.

And when you make statements like "But when people start really thinking that this country is a nation under God with Christian values, it's a problem. When ex-presidents start saying that those without faith don't derserve citizenship, it's alarming," it becomes more than just airing an opinion. It seems like an attempt to keep opposing opinions from being heared because they may be "alarming" or "problematic" for you.

Elliot

I know I'm new to the conversation, but here's where I see the problem with Bush making those statements:

Of course he is entitled to his opinions, but he should know better than to publicly come out and say he doesn't think someone who is an otherwise law-abiding, tax paying citizen shouldn't be considered an American and should not have equal rights. He's a politician, and one with emmense power (when he was in office) and the fact that he will come out and SAY he thinks these people shouldn't have rights should make EVERYONE question what will he do? Will he try to restrict those people's rights? Replace the word "atheist" with "Jew" or "Christian" or "woman" or "blacks" - is it still acceptable for him to say it? I'm not saying he didn't have the RIGHT to say it, I'm saying he should have KNOWN BETTER than to say it. How is it acceptable for the American people to elect someone who says such things? Who presents a CLEAR bias to someone because of their lack of religious faith?

It's not about censoring him, or sending the thought police after him - it's about the fact that we elected a president who doesn't think ALL Americans should have equal rights. How do you not see a problem with that? Seriously - how do you not see a problem with the (former) leader of our country saying that not everyone is equal based off their religious belief?