Should there be a separation of atheism and state?

Question

Why should one philosphy be allowed to be control or exert any more influence than any other? Why should one we settle for one dogmatic point of view to replace another?

For those who say they is no atheistic dogmatism. You should check into this. How do you explain how communists slew millions of people. In case you were anaware they are officially athiestic. I am not suggesting all athiests are communists however this os one form of dogmatism. Another is you are not even allowed to question any of the false aspects of evolution in school. Nothing to do with religion just the stuff that is being sold as evolution even though it has long been known to be false at the least or problematic at best. Check out the book Evolution a theory in crisis by Michael Denton (agnostic) or The icons of evolution by Jonathan Wells. The second is informative on how some have hijacked science to present thier narrow point of view while using sleazy tactics to phobit any poimt of view but their own from being heard.

I am not really sure why it is that atheists don't like being reminded about the communists. Seems in the spirit of honesty if can say some relgious people have misused their religion to harm others that they can own up to this.

My point is not that relgious people should run things but rather what is being taught in our schools. You are not even allowed to question the known falsehoods that are being taught in science class. If you study this issue you out you will find this is no exaduration and some of you will be shocked to know that these are admitted falsehoods that are continually being rehashed as science.

I have to wonder what China you have seen. They were responsible for the deaths of 30,000,000 million people. On top of that they flooded tibet with Chinese countrymen and give the peole there no rights or have you so soon forgotte Tianmen square?

Then try looking at the attrocities of Cambodia under Col. Potts and look to the current regime in North Korea. And if in doubt ask yourself why any communist country when given the opportunity has rejected it. Proven by the former soviet block countries who have reverted back from communism when given the opportunity.

As for Robethmans suggestion that you can question evolution in class, I can provide examples of documented incidents when people did question evoution in class. Danny Phillips a 15 year old who was given an assignment to watch a Nova Program on evolution then write about it. As he saw that there were some obvious erronous concepts being taught he criticized it effectively which lead the school to drop this from their curriculum. Whe the Darwininsts got old of this they flooded the local newspapers (THe denver Post) with venemous attacks which left the editor's liberal faith shaken. She wrote that these defenders of intellectual freedom behaved like a bunch of "conservative Chritians'. In the end the Denver School board decided against Danny. see Sue O'Briens zealots rage from the left too The Denver Post, August 18, 1996 p. F1

In Burlington Washinton biology teacher Roger Dehart submitted for approval several articles that appeared from mainstream science publications that questioned some elements of evolution. I May 2000 under pressure from the ACLU. Burlington school officials prohibited Dehart from using these articles. Again these articles had nothing to do with religion but were scinetific articles featured in well known magazines that exposed problems with certain aspects of evolution. Seems in this case the ACLU wasn't interested in protecting free speech but more interested in shielding Darwinian Orthodoxy.

Answer 1

Good question!!!!!!!!! evolutionism is just as much a faith as Christianity. All people want is to prove that there is no GOd and its impossible because well there is one and yeah so you cant 86 him out! lol I Think that evolution should either be taught as either a theory and have there be other choices by which this earth was started or not be taught at ALL!!!!!!!!!
may God bless you and everyone you love!

Answer 2

One philosophy should not be allowed to control or exert any more influence than any other. That's why religion should be taken out of government completely, be it atheism, Christianity, Islam, Scientology, etc. The ten commandments don't mean anything to someone that doesn't believe in the Bible, so why should our courts display them? Why should someone swear on a Bible if they're Muslim? Government would do well to get rid of everything. It would be cheaper than trying to please everybody by supplying their holy traditions of choice. Getting rid of everything is not favoring atheism. The government is not replacing the Ten Commandments with Origin of the Species. Taking God out of the equation is not atheistic. It's objective.

EDIT: In response to your addtional details...

You are allowed to question evolution in your classes. It's possible that the teacher does not know the answer to your questions or that you have not had enough of an education in evolution for them to give you an answer you would understand. Either way, asking questions is what makes the school system work. Saying that you're not allowed to ask questions on any subject, evolution or otherwise, is simply untrue.

As for communist countries being atheist, you're right. I don't think there has been an established communist state that has not been atheist. However, they aren't all bad. Leftover mindsets from the McCarthy era would have you believe that all communist countries are inherantly evil, but that's not true either. The USSR was a good example of an evil dictator in an atheistic society. On the other hand, China is a great example of a functioning communist atheistic society which the United States has an established relationship with. Just because a country is atheist does not make them evil. I could point towards middle ages England and claim that all Christian societies are evil. That's the same logic that you're using, but applied in the opposite case.

Answer 3

If you examine your question it can only suggest that a state should be run by a religion. Would you want to be ruled by Islam, Christianity or some other religion?

You make the same mistake as all the other followers of religion of treating atheism as a belief system when all the word means is that they do not believe in a God. The Christian religion has been responsible for many millions of deaths in the history of this world and no other religion comes remotely near to it.

Politicians are elected to represent all their electorate and provide good education, welfare and political relations. Not- Definitely Not - religious ideals.

Religion in politics leads to war, deprivation and total bias against other religions. Peace cannot exist in such an environment.

Religion must not be allowed into politics.

Answer 4

Athiesm is not dogmatic. There are athiests who are domatic about thier athiesm, but they are in the few.

It is ******** to have laws that say "[X] is wrong becuase it says so in the Bible, therefore it must be against the law." If one does not believe in a certain holy book or a certain diety, on need not follow its laws.

Answer 5

The government cannot fund any religious devotion, make people attend it, or host it. All religious groups (and irreligious groups) are under the governments protection, but none can be supported financially by the government.

Answer 6

What? If you mean the government should not behave rationally, pragmatically and with he best interest of the entire representative population?
How is the government influenced by atheism? Apparently you are one of those fools that think atheism is some type of religion.

Answer 7

grrrr... look, the only thing Atheists want is for the religious to keep their religion to themselves. You can't do that in a religious state.

You want to see the world end up like what you see in V for Vendetta? Because thats where its headed if religion has control.

Atheism MUST have control because thats the only way equal treatment of all peoples and religions will EVER happen.

Answer 8

Imagine a world without seperation of church and state:

"I'm sorry, Mr. Jones, but we can't approve the building permits you've requested. Jesus doesn't like movie stores that rent violent and sexually suggestive material."

Yeah, that'd work out REAL nicely. Thank GOD for athiestic government!

Answer 9

Our money doesn't say, In God we Don't Trust. If Jesus is angry he can contact me. Why does he always talk to Pat Robertson. That guy is such a toolbox.

Answer 10

Well, considering the fact that atheist regimes murdered 180,000,000 theists in the name of 'no religion' this last century, maybe a separation of atheism and state is a good idea.