The ACLU: Promoting Atheism as the New State Religion
I RESERVE THE RIGHT TO EDIT AND DELETE COMMENTS ON THIS POST
With the ACLU on the attack against Christianity more often than not, and let’s not forget the ACLU’s darling little rat terrier, Mikey Newdow, joining in the fray AGAIN with his newer version of the old game “Show Me the Word “GOD” So I Can Sue”, I thought that an honest look at what constitutes a religion would be in order.
Mikey “Rat-Man” Newdow obviously gave this some thought also, and has decided the same thing that I have, namely, that Atheism IS a Religion. Of course, the fact that Newdow heads a Church with the exceedingly odd name of The First AMENDMIST Church of True Science just goes to show that anything IS possible, and I look any day now for some fifth grader to start the First Church of Peanut Butter and Jelly.
(does that beat all or what? He MADE UP A WORD for his church name)
Over at the website for his Church is this Sermon, that attempts, in a round-about way to show that Atheism is NOT a Religion, but I disagree. In fact, I will lay out in easy to understand terms WHY Atheism IS a religion, but first I MUST say something here.
Michael Newdow is….uummm….strange, shall we say. He bases a Church on The First Amendment, but didn’t want to call it that for whatever reason, (he was probably afraid the government would sue him for copyright infringment) so he comes up with the word “amendmist”, goes on in his second sermon to create, in effect his Church’s Commandments, and then makes a valiant attempt at repairing the english language, which makes his sermons awkward to read, because the reader is left wondering who the blazes “ree” is and what did “ree” do to “erm”? One last bit before I head off into this, then, and that is this, I know that Rat-Man’s Church spells “FACTS”, so if that is the only reason you are going to comment, don’t even bother.
Now, onto today’s Big, Burning Question;
What, exactly, constitutes “religion”?
Is it going to church?
Well, my grandpa has always said that going to church no more makes you religious than going into the garage makes you a car, but I like the analogy better when it is read as “going to church no more makes you religious than going into the garage makes you a mechanic”.
Is it believing in what is in some book?
I don’t think so, because I know people that believe in those UFO books and nobody is claiming they worship aliens. Besides, Atheists don’t have “A Book” that they all read. Well, I don’t think they do, but if they do I bet it is something by Karl Marx.
No, religion is the WAY one lives their life and the creed to which one stridently adheres. The most rabid people I know are religious extremists and atheists, but, as Mark Twain once said, I repeat myself.
You see, atheism, not to mention secular humanism, is a religion. People that adhere to the belief that there is no creator are, in effect, adhering to a religious code.
Religion doesn’t mean that one fervently believes there is a creator, religion IS the belief system through which one lives their life. It affects the decisions they make day to day and moment to moment. In short, it affects HOW one interacts with the world.
Recently another judge ruled with this very argument.
“Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being,” the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said.
Even the Supreme Court of The United States of America has said the same thing:
The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described “secular humanism” as a religion.
When the ACLU takes up a cause for a Christian, is it EVER a case of a Christian stating “There is no cross on that building” or “Those non-religious holiday decorations offend me and trample on my right to worship as I see fit”? Nope. It is ALWAYS a case of the ACLU telling those in charge that the person in question has a right to preach on a corner or take a bible to school, as long as they read it on their own time.
However, when the ACLU takes up a fight AGAINST a Christian religious symbol or cultural tradition (nativity scenes for you libs reading this) it is almost never fighting an ACTUAL LAW!!!! I say “almost never” here because there may be one case of it and some lib will come harp on that one point incessantly, probably doing it anonymously, driving Gribbit crazy the whole time, (he hates anonymous posters), and I have better things to do with my time than to sit here and delete comments that harp on one point, so that is why there is the disclaimer……but I bet you a cookie the ACLU has never fought the Government over a LAW that favored Christianity.
So, the ACLU sides with Atheists over Christians, using the courts to enforce their interpretation of the First Amendment.
On the other hand, they side with Christians over the Government, using the courts to enforce their interpretation of the First Amendment.
The ACLU will go to court FOR and Atheist while attacking Christianity. They will only go to court for a Christian if the case is AGAINST the government.
So, with that little tidbit out of the way I ask you this;
Is this not proof that the ACLU is promoting one religion over another?
Email This
Posted by The MaryHunter on November 18, 2005 5:21 am
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, Activist Judges, Church And State
Trackback URL:
- Right Wing Nut House: CARNIVAL OF THE CLUELESS #22
Comments
13 Responses to “The ACLU: Promoting Atheism as the New State Religion”
-
-
-
Affiliations
The Giants
Advertise
-
-
Our Store
- Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
-
- More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
Good point, Kender! I was unaware of the legal definition of “secular humanism” as a religion, though I often rail against it. Does that make people like us “anti-religious zealots?” LOL!
Note to all atheists: Your belief that there is no God does not erase the belief in God of the founders of this nation, or it’s historical and moral signifigance today.
OMGoodness Christopher, that is a great point about being an anti religious zealot….why, we’re no better than those Islamic Radicals…….hating another religion like we do….does this mean the MSM and the far left will embrace us now? Or do we have to saw the heads off of some infidel atheists first?
You made a lot of good points. I would truly love to see some on sue the ACLU for trampling on the rights of Christians trying to use their right of free exercise of Religion,and promoting one Religion over another.
Keep religion out of the public arena and we will all be happier.
Jack? Did you take your meds today? Apparently you completely missed the point of this post, which shows that atheism IS a religion.
Now, go get your drool bib, your pacifier and your banky, grab you ba-ba and take a nap, because you are making no sense which means you need some sleep.
Atheism isn’t a religion, at least not at its core. All that is required is the absence of a belief in God. (Or gods, or what-have-you.)
Now, what Newdow has there… Okay, that is a religion, albeit a very stupid one. Someone recently called Newdow an anti-theist, and I think that’s apt.
Pixy, dear, Atheism IS a religion, along with secular humanism.
Please reread the post, and you will see that I point out very clearly the definition of religion.
“Is this not proof that the ACLU is promoting one religion over another?”
No, it isn’t. You can yammer all day long about how the lack of belief in supernatural beings constitutes a religion (a term you conveniently re-define to suit your purposes) so you can work yourself into a lather — i.e., set up a straw man — but unfortunately for your argument, the validity of facts isn’t subject to wild emotional appeals.
Here’s a similar but more defensible proposition: Muslims, Christians, and Hindus are all atheists because they don’t believe in Shiva, Allah, or Jesus-as-God respectively. Don’t buy it? Why not?
Read slowly: The ACLU opposes the government sanctioning or imposition of religion, sectarian or otherwise. If a group of atheists (or anyone else) attempted to enforce their views on others by attempting to eliminate their right to freely practice their faith, they would be in the wrong, and the ACLU would be all over their butts. There are precendents. Any lights going on yet? Hel-looooooo?
Anyhoo, if you honestly don’t understand why the simple absence of a belief in something doesn’t constitute a belief, you should avoid philosophy lite and stick to simpler topics, like why PB&J sandwiches with the crusts cut off are still sandwiches.
It is amusing watching someone like you try to practice condescension. Let’s see if you can respond without resorting to either the weakling tools at your disposal (edit/delete function) or a meandering dismissal coupled with a demand that I re-read your wreck of a post up there.
Battered Scarecrow,
“Muslims, Christians, and Hindus are all atheists because they don’t believe in Shiva, Allah, or Jesus-as-God respectively.”
Patently untrue. They all believe in A God of one stripe or another, therefore they cannot be atheists.
You argument is completely invalid here, as even SCOTUS has ruled that one does not need a belief in an omnipotent being as a requisite to having a religion.
Don’t bother trying to reread the post, as I doubt that you possess the intelligence to understand it regardless of how many times you read it.
“You argument is completely invalid here, as even SCOTUS has ruled that one does not need a belief in an omnipotent being as a requisite to having a religion.”
Discernment isn’t your strong suit, but I think if you concentrate hard enough, you’ll understand that there is a difference between clowns like Newdow and the average person with no use for skygod figures, and that part of the reason for the SCOTUS ruling is the constitutional right to free religious expression held by *all* Americans — even those whose “god” isn’t omnipotent or is merely some other earthly object of worship (even the religious proponent himself.
However, special cases do not extend to general cases — otherwise I could label every Christian a murderous homophobic retarded windbag thanks to the efforts of idiots like Pat Robertson.
In simplest terms, a lack of belief in a god, to include the active rejection of any one sect’s god concept, does not in itself constitute a religion any more than a failure on your part to join a fantasy football league constitutes either a hatred for fotball or an alternative form of gridiron worship. If it did, I and a lot of others would be exempt from paying property taxes.
“the ACLU takes up a fight AGAINST a Christian religious symbol or cultural tradition (nativity scenes for you libs reading this) it is almost never fighting an ACTUAL LAW!!!!”
http://www.msu.edu/course/prr/485/word/aclu_9102002.doc
It took me less than 5 minutes to search on Google and find a case where the ACLU fought against a law that limited constitutionally protected religious speech.
wej, please take note of the disclaimer atthe top of my post.
Now, this was NOT a LAW that the ACLU was fighting. It was a POLICY of a STATE agency.
BTW, I wrote “…almost never fighting an ACTUAL LAW!!!! I say “almost never” here because there may be one case of it and some lib will come harp on that one point incessantly,…”
A) It was NOT an ACTUAL LAW & B) Thanks for stopping by lib-boy.
Have a nice day. BooYah.
I think wej’s point was that it can’t be “almost never” if it took them less than 5 minutes to find on Google.
Also, a belief as defined by dictionary.com is “an opinion or conviction”. Should all beliefs be considered religions? I believe that if I flip a light switch the light will turn on. That’s not a religion. I think that if you wish to make an argument, you should define your terms simply for the reason that “belief” can mean many different things and debating over something so foggy is pointless.
Atheism is not the belief in NO God or gods, it is the LACK of belief in a god. But what DO atheists believe? That would be their “so-called” religion. For instance, if I were to say I was an atheist, but I believe in karma, that would be my belief system: I believe in karma. If a few more people believed with me, we would be a cult. And, if enough people believed in the same thing, together we would have a religion.
Call me a fool, but I don’t know much about Newdow, (I do intend to study up, if need be). However, should his arguments be completely ignored simply because of WHO he is? That is called “ad hominem”. Think about it. Since atheists don’t HAVE a religion, its not that we want to say “We Trust in No God” or “Under No God”, we simply don’t want to mention God whatsoever. Wasn’t our Country motto, “E Pluribus Unum” or “All become One”? No religion at all. Take for comparison: What if Christianity were a minority religion? Only 10% of Americans believed it. And 80% were… Holidayism (just for example). The pledge said, “Under Santa” and the coins said “In Santa We Trust”. Wouldn’t you want to fight to get it off? I know it seems silly, but work with me. You don’t BELIEVE in Santa (I assume). You’re an Aholidayist. Your religion isn’t the lack of belief in Santa. It’s Christianity (in this example). Wouldn’t it be better not to have any religion mentioned in out government at all? Our founding father’s PURPOSE was to separate Church and State. Separate Religion and Government. In fact, they specifically stated in the Treaty of Tripoli that we are NOT a Christian Nation. “Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.” (Found at http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html).
I have no grudge or hatred toward Christianity at all. However, I do believe that ALL religions should have no part in government whatsoever, though.
(If the Santa thing doesn’t make sense, replace it with other, more offensive things [because many people find God offensive] that affect you such as Allah, Zeus, the Flying Spagetti Monster, Satan, Peanut Butter and Jelly, the Great Mother Goddess, Jupiter, YHWH, Hatred, Love, my cat, ME, Democrats, Republicans, Buddha, Krishna, Ra, the Sandman, Ysandir, Ainur, ETC!!!)