Atheism, religious freedom and language?

Question

How far should the US population go in insisting on our constitutional protection from the governmental establishment of religion? To be clear where I stand, I think that even our day to day language has to be very careful in this cause. For instance, referring to an animal as a "creature" implies it had a creator, which should have to be avoided in public school settings. I also think that we should do everything within our power to fight against things like private school vouchers being provided by the government, so that they cannot allow the religious right to simply sidestep the intellectual progress we have made at taxpayers expense. Any thoughts from the un(brain)washed masses?

Who said a washd brain was bad?

Theism does exclude Buddhism, Taoism and Advaita Vedanta, so it doe establish one religious concept over another.

Answer 1

Hmm the creature/creator thing is very interesting... hadn't thought of that. I have to agree about the private school vouchers- putting government money into the hands of the church is not exactly consistent with separation of church and state. You could make the argument for the fact that public school students get Christian holidays off, that High-stakes testing is almost exclusively during Jewish holidays, and that no other religions, even though there are several represented in this country, get the same consideration as the Christian religion does. It's not just that church and state are co-mingling, it's that it's a certain church/religion.

I think the government has already become a part of the church, and vice versa. There's nothing the religious right would like to see more than to have NCLB ruin the public school system so that we can move to a privatized school voucher system which rewards those with a religious preference, and punishes those who don't, by requiring them to send their students to a school that does not share their values and beliefs. Why do you think NCLB is so grossly underfunded, and has standards that are nearly impossible for public schools to meet?

This is a power we've allowed to go unchecked for too long. It's time to break it up.

And by the way, could people work on developing an argument and not just flashing insults when they post a response? You're not helping your cause, AT ALL.

Answer 2

As to the church / school separation I completely agree with you. The government has a responsibility to educate children, not to indoctrinate them, and also not to surreptitiously encourage the indoctrination of children. I think that constitutional separation should be sacrosanct.

I think taking the word creature out is too far though. I'm fascinated by language, and words have evolved to be the way they are over hundreds of years. Because the "god hypothesis" was in the distant past considered to be the best explanation for the origin of life, the word creature came about. But I do not see that we should abandon the word creature for this reason. Or avoid saying "Bless you" when someone sneezes etc. My use of the word sacrosanct above was to further illustrate the point I am making.

Answer 3

I agree with the school voucher thing. We shouldn't subsidize religious schools. However, I don't agree with changing verbiage. Like "herstory" and all of her uberfeminist friends, an atheistic vocabulary would be more cumbersome than helpful. English is already arguably the most difficult language to use, we don't need to complicate it farther.

As for those with the "under God" and "in God we trust" answers, most of that was added in 1953. The Pledge of Allegiance was written for Boy Scout magazine as a patriotic project for a Columbus Day celebration in the 1920's. Post-offices have Sundays off as a concession to the Evangelicals only AFTER Sunday wasn't necessary to have continuous and effective mail service. This country was built by Agnostics and Freemasons. The Evangelicals were more about staying with England than secession. (And without the laws to keep church and state separate, the Evangelicals would still run the country, lumping the Catholics, Jews, and Atheists all in the same 'outsider' category!)

Answer 4

>>> For instance, referring to an animal as a "creature" implies it had a creator, which should have to be avoided in public school settings.<<<

It sounds like you want to restrict people's freedom of speech and freedom of religion within public-school walls.

Tell me, what religious denomination is being established by allowing kids to say "creature" in a public school? Catholicism? Presbyterianism? Lutheranism? Mormonism?

Establishing a particular religious denomination as a state religion is what the Constitution prohibits. Nothing more, nothing less. Allowing kids in public school to voice ideas regarding faith concepts does nothing to violate that prohibition.

>>>I also think that we should do everything within our power to fight against things like private school vouchers being provided by the government,<<<

Yes, this is what Bill and Hillary did when they lived at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. -- while hypocritically sending Chelsea to a private religious school rather than one of the DC public schools.

>>>so that they cannot allow the religious right to simply sidestep the intellectual progress we have made at taxpayers expense.<<<

Even Bill and Hillary know that this comment of yours is a load of bollocks -- that's why they sent Chelsea to a private religious school instead of a public school one.

When it comes to education and achievement, private religious schools -- particularly Catholic schools -- blow the public schools out of the water.

And, no religious denomination is being established as the official state religion by the use of school vouchers.

Using school vouchers doesn't establish Catholicism as the land's official religion. Or the Methodist faith. Or the Presbyterian. Or the Baptist. Or anything else.

The Constitution prohibits the establishment of a particular denomination as the state religion -- and that's it.

Issuing school vouchers does nothing at all to violate this prohibition.

Your comments are a classic example of taking the First Amendment way, way overboard -- to the point of trampling on people's religious freedoms and educational opportunities.

Answer 5

The first part of the Bill of Rights both protects religion and protects us from religion. It's wrong for religious schools to cheat the government, but let's face it: Banning the use of religious terms in public school is going a bit too far. Banning teaching Christianity makes sense. Making it illegal to mention Christianity is going too far. By the way, words can have 2 meanings. Creature also means organism.

Answer 6

If I refer to an animal as a "creature," I am not acting as a government agent and so the "establishment of religion" clause does not apply. Besides, the belief in God is not a religion; a religion is an organized form of worship such as Christianity or Buddhism. "Establishment of religion" is a technical term that refers to the govenment sponsoring religion. Germany, if I'm not mistaken, sponsors several religions financially, which is kind of weird to us in the U.S. Talking about God, even by a government official, does not constitute establishment of religion.
It seems to me that even school vouchers, which can be used at any qualified school, would not constitute establishment, since the money comes from taxpayers and is spent by the individual taxpayer at his/her discretion.

Answer 7

You have a good point, we need to make sure this doesn't go too far. As far as the language though, languages evolve over time and words take on different meanings as popular consensus changes about the words in question. I don't think anyone really thinks of a creator when they hear creature, or if they do, its probably because they think of a creator no matter what. Lets just stay active in our government and the political process and hope that people stay informed and don't let a minority of people strong arm the rest of us.

Answer 8

You have to be very careful to steer away from a new episode of "politically correct" speech. If you insist on following the etymological roots of every word in the English language to discover its possible theistic origins, you're going to drive crazy the very people whose life you're trying to simplify.

And I do mean simplify. Inserting religion into governmental life complicates it enormously: Which religion (or branch of religion)? How do you stay fair? How do you avoid riots from the minority religions?

The establishment of religion is really simple. Religion is a cultural phenomenon that is allowed to function in the free market, but it has no place in government. I honestly think it should be taxed in the same way as McDonald's is taxed, but I'm willing to religious organizations out of the government fund-raising game so long as they stay out of trying to influence the government. However, if they continue down their path of trying to restrict human rights, then all tax benefits should be removed.

Answer 9

A serious rational point can be made that Atheism is a religion as well, It is an exercise in faith that makes you an atheist, for you can no more prove that there isn't a God, In as much as I can't prove with full certainty that he does. The believe so fervently that they will ignore fact to strain at fiction. So keep the Insults down, because they don't serve your cause and only propel the thought that you lack intelligence.

Answer 10

Private school vouchers don't make a lot of sense. If free education is provided, why support a system that goes outside the public system. It just promotes elitism, on whatever grounds you choose.
The US constitution guards the rights of the religions, but I think you are going too far with 'creature' (and likely a whole list of pet words you would like to have banished from the language). Wasn't there something about "One nation, indivisible, under God.....?"