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!!!)

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.

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.

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.

“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.

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.

Please reread the post, and you will see that I point out very clearly the definition of religion.

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.

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.