Freedom of Religion or Freedom From Religion
 

Well this could be an interesting discussion. I believe this group is going a lot overboard.

Per the article:

"A group of atheists has filed a lawsuit claiming the display of the World Trade Center cross at the 9/11 memorial in lower Manhattan is unconstitutional, calling it a "mingling of church and state."
The American Atheists, which advocates an "absolute separation" of government and religion, filed the lawsuit Monday to stop the display of the cross, arguing that it should not be included if "no other religions or philosophies will be honored," according to a statement on the group's website. "


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/07/27...#ixzz1TL00IsXm

1) People need to stop being so easily offended.

2) People need to get over themselves. I don't think whoever put up this memorial was so concerned with the American Atheists that they went out of their way to offend them. They aren't the center of everyone's world.

3) Absolute separation =/= complete exclusion. It just means separation.

Hang with me for a minute, this stuff really rubs me the wrong way so some of this might not make sense. This particularly opinionated group of American Atheists is probably made up of people who were those kids in school who got picked last for whatever team and are still bent out of shape about it. (This also makes me think of how ridiculous it is that nowadays every kid that participates in a sport is made to feel like they've won everything. There aren't any losers or last places anymore. Which is stupid. You lost. Get over it. It'll make you a better player.) We're raising a bunch of wimpy pussy kids that turn into these people (of any organization, not just the American Atheists) that need to make EVERYthing fair.

Life ISN'T fair, which is why you live and let live and try to develop a gracious attitude about it.

In addition, 4) DON'T BE A VICTIM!
/rant

I got into a discussion about this somewhat recently.

I always ask if the people who say "just get over it" would say the same thing if they were not members of the dominant religion. There was a shitstorm when the Muslim prayer center was announced, so how is this different?

That being said -- is this site somehow government related? Isn't the WTC owned by a private company? If so, they should be able to display whatever they want.

My exact thought.

If it's a government facility, I don't see why it needs to have a cross at all. You can have a memorial without bringing religion into it. If for whatever reason you just *have* to have a cross for the Christians who died, then you should also *have* to have symbols of some kind to represent the members of other faiths, as well as the atheists and agnostics, who died as well. Otherwise, just having the cross is disrespectful to the memories of all the non-Christians. I don't blame people for being upset. If one of my Christian relatives died someplace and the government put up a memorial with Buddhist symbolism and only Buddhist symbolism, I would be irritated about it.

Yes, and

Yes

According to www.wtc.com, Silverstein Properties is the developer. I couldn't find anything about the owners of the land.

If the government owns the land, I can see the separation of church and state. But if the government doesn't own the land, people can pitch a fit all they want, but it would technically be private property.

As for the "cross", isn't it just two beams that "survived" the attack that resemble the shape of a cross?
If so, people need to get their panties out of a twist, they're the original beams and should be someplace in the memorial.

It looks like it's being leased from the Port Authority.

http://www.wtc.com/about/silverstein...tc-leaseholder
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Au...and_New_Jersey

To answer your question - I am perfectly happy with a Muslim memorial, a Jewish memorial, a Hindu memorial, a Wiccan memorial, should those groups wish to have one - all are a-ok with me. Should the government pay for them? No. The government should not impose a particular religion on anyone but they should also NOT prevent someone from practicing their religion.

Here in Houston we've just recently had a problem with the VA and the funeral services of veterans. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...n/7583145.html
Could there be anything more riduclous than forbidding people from saying "God bless you" at a funeral?

It's ridiculous the way people get "offended" by others practicing their religion. Here's an idea -how about, if someone gives a prayer which does not reflect your beliefs you don't say "amen"? How about you respect their right to pray however they wish, and not assume that it somehow an infringement of your rights if you don't agree with the religious beliefs of the speaker?

I am confused, the way I read the article was that the issueswas to keep a Memorial Day prayer as non-denominational as possible with the understanding that not all Solider's are Christian and the Minister wanted to end with Jesus Christ as the one savior. That's way different than someone saying "God bless you" at a funeral.

I am Christian but I don't see this as being easily offended, I see it as not wanting to feel like your religion is second class and/or you're not blessed if you don't believe a certain way. I can see how it can be alienating for people, especially at group memorials where people have died. It can send an implicit message that certain people are saved/remembered while others aren't.

I don't even see anything in the article about not saying "God bless you" at a funeral. I haven't ever heard of an athiest/agnostic arguing that individuals can express their religious thoughts openly. Their problem would be the expression coming from an official, government sanctioned source, ie. the VA. The majority usually doesn't see how others might have a problem with this...until they see another religion "threatening" theirs. (Islam anyone?)

Sorry - wrong article.
Here you go!

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...n/7630537.html

PRIVATE religious speech shouldn't be subject to governmental censorship - ANY private religious speech.

And again, if I went to a service and any other religious leader wanted to pray and invoke his/her deity - I wouldn't be "offended", or think my religion was being relegated to a second class status. I'd think he/she had a different religious tradition and I would be respectful.

I agree that if what is alleged in this article is true, this is ridiculous. If a family wishes to have a religious ceremony, they shouldn't have to have the ceremony pre-approved by the VA. The attendants should be able to say "God Bless You"...unless the bereaved are non-religious, then they should keep their traps shut. The funneral isn't about them, it's about the dead service member and their family. I bet you ten bucks, though, that this is more about a bureaucrat "following" the rules rather than an atheist laying down the law on separation of church and state. You see this type of crap in VA hospitals all the time with lifetime employees who can't be fired.

Hmm this one is different although I think it depends. It sounds like, based on the quote that the text should be approved by the family, that they are not stopping private religious ceremonies, but instead telling different volunteer groups who have contact with many individuals that they cannot use one specific religion. I do think the "god bless you" is pretty innocent but if they are working as a representative as the VA and it is considered a gov't agency I can understand their concern. Although, like I said, in terms of religious expression it doesn't seem too worrisome.

You may be OK with it, but apparently, the masses weren't happy with the idea of the Muslim center opening up nearby (not even on the premises).

If the speaker is acting as an agent of the government, then yes -- it can be offensive. It gives the impression that attendees who don't practice that religion are "less than."

A lot of people say to just sit back and wait out the prayer, but I can guarantee you that if someone broke out in a Muslim prayer at, say, a graduation, other attendees would raise hell.

The complaint can be read here. The allegations are not that the Museum and Memorial, a nonprofit corporation, is an agent of the government, but rather that the fact that it is on land leased from the Ports Authority and the fact that it is funded (partly) with government grants makes the Memorial and Museum "government action."

Establishment cases can be awfully hard to predict; even when the courts say they're applying a standard test, the test is often applied differently in different cases, so that the decisions are often very fact-specific.

That said, I don't think I'd be putting any money on the plaintiffs winning this one.

Apples/oranges. The Muslim center issue is not one of government speech (fwiw, I think the arguments against it are not logical or rational - the 9/11 terriorists are no more representative of Muslims than Anders Breivik is of Christians)- and I will go out on a limb and say you probably don't want military chaplains - agents of the government - to be restricted from practicing their religion.

As to those hypothetical attendees raising hell at a Muslim prayer - they would be as wrong as the atheists objecting to prayers at the VA cemetery. Just because you find something objectionable does not mean it is an example of government imposition of religion.

Didn't we have this discussion before? The titty bar is closer than the Muslim center.

Actually, I do want them restricted from preaching about the evils of homosexuality (which has consistently occurred) and if that's a problem they can resign. There are, I'm sure, many wonderful chaplains who provide counseling and support to the military men and women that they serve without discrimination for sexual orientation or religion, however there are some that do not.

When one is working for the government there is going to be some restriction. Would one support a military chaplain who was a pure pacifist?

So the American Atheists are only upset because there's only a cross and if they added a Star of David and a Crescent or two they'd be cool with the religious symbols on display? Suuuuurrrreeee. This group has always been a rabble rousing, Christmas tree suing bunch.

Atheism is such a waste of time anyway. Hey guys, lets create a religion (Dogma included) where we don't believe in religion!!!

You mean like a Quaker? I wonder if there ARE Quaker chaplains?

This may surprise you, but just like religious people, a-religious people are mostly quiet and keep to themselves. Nevertheless it is annoying to watch one's supposedly a-religious government supporting Christianity on a regular basis. Unsurprisingly most Christians don't notice/are OK with it.
Probably have been. Odds are they're not allowed to tell our soldiers to lay down their weapons and walk away (not that any particular Quaker would, I'm speaking in the hypotheticals.) Government employees and military personnel in particular have restrictions to their freedoms of speech. Ask state employees here who are restricted in the number of bumper stickers allowed on their cars, or political buttons they can wear.

Reality of anti LGBT sentiment among the chaplains who are supposed to be counseling

Why do people love to claim this? Atheists make up a small percent of society and for the most part are not an organized group of people. It's not a religion. Their is no "dogma" and no great leader determining what all atheists must believe. A very few are vocal and politically active, and this seems to stick in the craw of some Christians. I think that these critics really think that accusing atheists of having their own religion is some sort of insult...but isn't that insulting yourself?

I tend to think of those people as fundamentalist atheists, and some of them annoy almost as much as do some fundamentalist Christians.

Atheism certainly can be a religion, depending on how one defines religion. (And of course, to the degree it is, it is a very disorganized and individualized religion.) And I have known atheists who can be just as dogmatic about their belief system as the most dogmatic Christian.

But that's no reason to use such a broad brush in painting all atheists, anymore than it would be reason to use a broad brush in painting all Christians. Life is much more nuanced than that.

True.

I'm somewhere between an Atheist and an Agnostic (depends on the day, I guess) and it's not like I'm a card-carrying member or something. I don't go to meetings a few times a month and do "whatever-it-is-those-Atheists-do". While I'm sure that specific beliefs are different within those in any sort of religious community, so they are with myself and others.

That being said, someone wrote in to a paper I read online (@IL, if you check out SR.com, you'll see it) where a guy is all upset and wants to call the ACLU because he saw a group from a church sponsoring a 3-on-3 basketball event one afternoon at a local park. I don't understand how someone can get so offended by this! I may be a little more laid-back than others, but I just say to each their own.

I did read that yesterday AKD, and thought of this thread. Did you see the one the day before about someone complaining about the church signs and wondering if they had the proper permits?

That being said... I'm Catholic (yes, we are Christian), and I have no problem with atheist or agnostic views. Exactly, to each their own. If someone someday comes to the conclusion that they don't want to be atheist, evangelical, wiccan, or whatever anymore, then it is up to them to decide what to do with their spiritual lives next. I will never push my thoughts on religion on others. I will never degrade someone because of their religious or spiritual views. Now the yin to my yang is I expect others to do the same concerning me. Don't push your religious beliefs on me. Don't preach to me. Don't tell me how wrong I am, or how Catholics aren't "real" christians. I have no problem with a church group doing something at a local park, or a cross being displayed on municipal property. I would also have no problem with a Star of David, or any other religious display that is just quietly sitting there.

There is a new girl at work, been here less than 2 weeks, and 2 days ago she initiated a huge religious discussion and was extremely insulting. She is a very conservative christian, and would not shut up about how wrong other people were to not be like her. I wasn't really paying attention to their conversation, otherwise I would have gotten nasty. (It was really rediculous, it was the old "Taking the Bible literally, word for word" versus - not taking it literally.)

One of my project managers is also uber christian, and never once has he ever done something like this. He respects the right of others to form their own opinions, even if he doesn't see thigns in the same light. We can sit and have a civil religious based conversation (me Catholic, him super Christian, another girl we work with a former JW), without insulting or degrading. It's wonderful, and exposes my mind to different ways of thinking.

One of my favorite sites for religion-related news is GetReligion, which is essentially devoted to considering how the press covers stories of a religious nature or with religious connections or over/undertones. The general gist is that "the press doesn't get religion."

This article posted today is, I think, pertinent to some of what we've talked about: "Not all atheists are alike."

An excerpt:

The [ABC News] article ends with competing quotes. One is from the rescue worker who found the cross after digging three bodies out from the rubble of the collapsed Twin Towers. He says he was overwhelmed upon its discovery and believes it’s a beautiful symbol of faith and freedom. He argues that it’s a “natural artifact” from Ground Zero. The other quote comes from the communications director for the American Atheists who says she can’t visit the memorial so long as there’s a cross there.

The article is fine but I wonder if it wouldn’t have been improved by including the voices of atheists who are not fans of this lawsuit. Otherwise it gives the impression that all atheists think lawsuits against featuring the remnant beam from the World Trade Center are a good idea.

Oh man, I really do hope that you tell her that, as a Catholic, you're glad to know that she takes it literally where Jesus said "This is my body; this is my blood." http://www.smilieshq.com/smilies/evilgrin0007.gif

I never said I was a GOOD Catholic, lol.... :p I'm not a huge fan of religious dogma. Well, unless it's the movie Dogma, because that one is one of my favorites!!!

http://consciencebound.com/wp-conten...9/04/dogma.jpg

iApprove

So? Why should/does this matter to you? Does a belief system need at least a 100 million followers for AOII Angel to consider it valid?

I take it you're not familiar with the writings Dawkins or Hitchens but either way there are many religions without the Pope-like supreme leader. Don't even try to tell me that atheists don't proselytize either.

I'm not calling atheism a religion to necessarily insult, but to call them out. They claim the desire to live free from having others religion thrown in their face yet they throw their religion around. As a non religious man myself, I find these atheism groups very ironic, as do many others.

Actually it doesn't. I know non-religious mostly keep to themselves but I was speaking of organized atheism (specifically AA) in my original post. Maybe I should have added a disclaimer :)

Also, can you point to some examples of how the government regularly supports Christianity?


Two words for you- conscientious objector.

All of the atheists that I have ever met fall into 2 categories- ones that you can't even tell they're atheists because they don't get into talking about religion and they don't really care what others have to say, and the ones that I can best relate to some of the vegans that I know. The vegans I know post articles on veganism, will refuse to eat lunch with someone that orders any sort of meat or dairy product, and will in general dress you down for your lack of knowledge and caring about animals' rights.

It's not that the first group of atheists that I know are touting their "religion", as you call it, and shoving it in peoples' faces. They are the opposite- they want the removal of any sort of religion from everything out there. The desire to remove religion from everything is no more of a "religion" than militant veganism in that regard.

This. My wife's an atheist and most folks don't even know it. She's gone to mass with me, she used to go to a Baptist church in her home town just to be social, but she never got the whole God thing.

Folks should also not be so hot to blame atheists for not wanting religious displays paid for on the public dime.

Publicly paid for religious displays could very well be the camel's nose under the tent in terms of religious-government participation. Never in the history of the world has a partnership between religion and government worked out very well at all, least of all in a country like ours.

Best to keep the secular and holy separated--and when someone crosses the line, sue.

I actually have read both Dawkins and Hitchens. Not religion. Mostly science, but not religion. Last time I checked, religion involves the worship of some thing or ideal. Atheism...not so much. If you were discussing a specific group of atheists, then yes, you should have specified that group, otherwise, your statement was ridiculous, inflammatory and ignorant. As AnotherKD pointed out, you wouldn't be able to pick out most athiests because they don't discuss it. Mostly because people who are ignorant decide to throw their own religions in their faces. This is just as offensive as making sweeping generalizations about Jewish people, Catholics, Mormons, etc. You just feel justified because people don't stand up for those with no belief.

BTW, AOII ritual is a belief system. Is that a religion? I feel very strongly about it, as do many of my 140,000 sisters. It's actually written out, unlike the supposed "belief system" of athiests. You have a very loose definition of religion.

Having read all that has been said so far, I want to share an idea that makes reference to the title of the thread. In the US, we have freedom OF religion, not FROM religion. It should be clear, but sometimes people don't seem to get it. The government cannot sponsor or favor any religion over others. That's it. That is freedom of religion, and that is the extent of separating government and church. The government cannot tell churches what to teach or preach. That been said, a Christian government official at a Christian event can be in official business and say God Bless. Same for Muslims and Jews and any other believer. His or her words are not the government's, but that of the person, even though acting in official capacity.

I give the example of Germany, which has had a very specific history, but can share some lights. In public schools, they teach religion. Teachers are government officials teaching religions. The kid (or the kid's parent) choose which religion they learn, but it is in a public space. Theology is taught in many public universities, same as philosophy or mathematics. Religion is present, though the government doesn't force anybody to believe or not believe in anything.

A government building in a Christian populated area has a cross. Should it have it? Only if government buildings in Muslim populated areas have the Crescent Moon or in Non-religious areas, have nothing. Government, as elected, represents its people.

Public display depends on the people being governed. I don't want to look, I don't look.

Another thing is passing laws favoring certain religious views. Then, we have an imposition. I don't want to follow, but then again, I could go to jail or pay a fine. That is wrong.

Atheist: I don't want my money to go into a cross in an official building.
Christian: I don't want my money to go into paying for an abortion under the healthcare reform.
Poor: I don't want my money to go into the rich's pockets.
Rich: I don't want my money to go into paying services that I don't use.

There are differences between actions of government that I may not like (including actions involving religions) and laws that impose religions or its practices on me.

If you can do something about it (not watching, not attending, keeping quiet) there is no imposition. If you can't or if something is expected from you, then everything is wrong with it.

Added:
BTW. As a Christian living in Spain (mostly secular society with reigning atheism), I know what it is to live in the minority. My positions stays the same.

Aww. c'mon. You don't have to be a good Catholic to have this kind of fun with her.

Ditto.

It can be, depending on what one wants to replace it with.

There is a fundamental issue that needs to be addressed: atheism and religion are not antonyms. One can be atheistic (or nontheistic) and religious. Traditional, classical Buddhism is nontheistic. There are atheistic (or nontheistic) Jews, atheistic/nontheistic Toaists, certainly atheistic/nontheistic Unitarian-Universalists and atheistic/nontheistic many-other-religions.

Dictionary.com defines "religion" as "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." The Wiki defines it as "a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and moral values." Frederick Streng (a founder of the Society of Asian and Comparative Philosophy) defined it simply as "a means of ultimate transformation." The line between philosophy and religion isn't always a clear one.

While the belief in a Supreme Being (or Supreme Beings) is certainly part of many if not most religious systems, especially in the West, it's not a necessary part by any means. Again, look at Buddhism, Taoism or, depending on the definition of "religion" used, Confucianism. So I think it is entirely reasonable and accurate to say that while some atheists are opposed to religion and seek to have religion of any kind suppressed (antireligious), and while some atheists simply live with an absence of religion (irreligious), other atheists seek to replace theistic religion with atheistic/nontheistic religion.

Again, not necessarily. Buddhism doesn't really fit into the description of the worship of some thing or ideal.

All that said, I think an argument can be made that folks like Dawkins and Hitchens make a religion out of science or out of human reason.

And in case I'm not clear, I don't mean this as disparaging of atheists at all. That's not what I'm trying to say. What I'm trying to say is that the typical discussion of "atheism vs. religion" is limited by a very Western (and American) understanding of what religion is. Per the Dalai Lama:

I'm Buddhist, I'm a Buddhist practitioner. So actually I think that according to nontheistic Buddhist belief, things are due to causes and conditions. No creator. So I have faith in our actions, not prayer. Action is important. Action is karma. Karma means action. That's an ancient Indian thought. In nontheistic religions, including Buddhism, the emphasis is on our actions rather than god or Buddha. So some people say that Buddhism is a kind of atheism. Some scholars say that Buddhism is not a religion — it's a science of the mind. . . .

I even consider Buddha and some of his important followers like Nagarjuna (one of Buddha's leading disciples) to be scientists. Their main method is analytical. Analyze, analyze — not emphasis on faith. And these masters are not magicians.

(And yes, I have known of a few Greeks who consider their ritual their religion. I remember an essay in an old edition of Baird's where it was discussed in those very terms.)

I think my only issue with that I don't see how a "traditional atheist" (I know, but that's all I can think of to call them right now) would view their not wanting to participate in organized religion as their own religion. I don't think that there is really a subset of atheists that have a set moral code and "a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and moral values", because, that kind of goes against the feeling that there is *nothing* out there. I guess it's the idea that the very point of religion not existing is a religion in itself, I can't wrap my head around that.

If that person is acting as a government agent, s/he is giving off the impression that the religion is the "right" one and is backed by the government.

If this person is making a speech at, say, a block party and decides to say a prayer and end with God Bless, s/he has every right to.

I would not consider Buddhism a religion as classically considered either, but unlike atheism, there are definitely ideals and thoughts in Buddhism that adherents try to live by. I'm very good friends with a practicing Buddhist. There is no worshipping, but there is definitely a following of the Buddha and his teachings.

As for Greeks having their rituals as their religion, that is pretty rare and bizarre as to border on unheard of. To then use that reference from Baird's to then espouse that Greek organizations are religions is ridiculous. Maybe you are being the devil's advocate, but as previously stated on other threads, he doesn't need one. Are there atheists who take it too far? Sure. I'd say they are more political than religious, however. Is republicanism or democratic membership a religion? Some people take it way too seriously, but it's not a religion.

As for I don't think this is anymore true than any scientist. People are passionate about their work. A evolutionary scientist who truly believes in evolution is making a religion out of science just because they don't believe the religious version of the beginning of the world? Or is it because Dawkins and Hitchens dare to write about it?

I see where you're coming from, and this is the reason I said upthread that, to the degree atheism could be considered a religion, is a very disorganized and individualized religion.

Beyond that, I'd say two things: First, that a large part of what I'm trying to say is that maybe there is no such thing as a "traditional atheist," or that what we think of as "traditional atheism" betrays our own relatively narrow experience.

Second, it is certainly true that there is no single worldview that can be described as "atheistic." In my experience, most atheists have replaced it with nothing/indifference (irreligion) or with some form of humanism, whether religious or secular. That's why I've been trying to be careful not to say that atheism is a religion, but rather that being atheist does not mean not being religious.

I see Buddhism as a prime example of where the line between religion and philosophy can get very blurry.

Careful there. I didn't say Greek organizations are religions. I said (and I really meant it as an aside, not an actual argument, so my apologies if that wasn't clear) that I have heard more than one person (inlcuding that writer in Baird's) say that their Greek organization/ritual was their religion. BIG difference. I too think it's bizarre. (And one of the people I knew to say that was himself bizarre.) But they did say it.


No and no, at least not to my mind. It has nothing to do with making a religion out of evolution (and I really don't want to go off on a tangent about evolution vs. religion -- as has been said many times, the two are hardly mutually exclusive), nor does it have anything to do with them daring to write about it. (Really? Don't you know me better than that?)

When I say an argument can be made, I mean just that: an argument can be made. Not that it is an argument that will convince many people or even most people, but that an argument can be made. Sorry, maybe it's a professional hazard. When I say an argument can be made that folks like Dawkins and Hitchens make a religion out of science or out of human reason, I mean that an argument can be made that they place their faith/reliance in science (or human reason) in a way similar to the way some place faith or reliance in a god; that they accord science or reason the authoritative role that other religions accord their scriptures, myths, leaders, _______; and that they can appear to be just as dogmatic in their positions as some religious people. In otherwords, that science (or reason) informs their worldview -- the cause, nature and purpose of the universe and the implications of that for how people relate to one another and to the world/universe/whatever -- in the same way that other religions do for other people.

Once again, I'm not talking about some random guy who doesn't go to church or believe in a higher power. I'm talking about organized atheism here, and they LOVE to talk about and share their beliefs with others. http://atheists.org/about



Atheists do have a belief.

Well, If you truly wanted to, I don't see why you couldn't make your ritual your religion. As for the bolded, you must not be familiar with the writing of Dawkins or other revered atheists who have written on the topic.... their "belief system" is perfectly spelled out.

You have a very constrictive definition of religion, not surprising since you've said that you don't consider Buddhism a religion.