The state would not be able to promote any religion, nor would the state be able to promote the absence of religion. Would this be fair to all?
2007-03-19 15:09:28 · 12 answers · asked by ignoramus_the_great 7 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Good point. So then should the state be prohibited from choosing atheism over religion, or vice versa?
2007-03-19 15:16:24 · update #1
Than what would it promote,agnosticism? There will never be concrete answers for anything and everyone would be in a limbo. Anyways, atheism isnt really involved in the state anyways. Atheism just shares the view that church should be separated from state in order to be fair to all religions.
2007-03-19 15:15:56 · answer #1 · answered by Maikeru 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Religion should not be apart of anything in the political areas. Be it Atheism, Monotheism, or polytheism. The problem is, that one of the three consistently refuses equal representation to the other two.
I have never seen not heard of a Wiccan, Pagan, Asatru, Atheist, etc., to open any Senate, House, or national or state function with a prayer or statement.
A church can be a building of an organized religion, or in a person's heart and character.
2007-03-19 15:21:33 · answer #2 · answered by Terry 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes: but I suspect you have a very different view of what would constitute "promoting atheism" than I would.
The idea here is that religious questions (including the question of God's existence) belong in the private, not the public sphere. I would consider this to be what is meant by the separation of Church and State, but others would consider *that* to be promoting atheism. Others would say (wrongly in my view) that teaching evolutionary theory is promoting atheism. They would argue that Creationism should be taught alongside evolutionary theory in order to keep "atheism" out of schools. And this is nonsense.
So those who seize upon 'atheism' as a synonym for 'secular' are often disingenuous in their motives for doing so.
2007-03-19 15:14:53 · answer #3 · answered by surroundedbyimbeciles 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
There is not a separation of church and state in the constitution; what you see is a prohibition against the state choosing one religion over another one. It is the duty of the state to make sure religious freedoms are not denied.
2007-03-19 15:12:59 · answer #4 · answered by supertop 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
You are merely twisting words around. The constitution clearly protects all people to worship (or not) as they choose. It also precludes the State from endorsing or sponsoring any one religion.
In a way, this requires our government to be "atheist". But it also requires the government to respect the religious beliefs of all of our citizens. In short, it cannot interfere with religion.
Of course, that is not good enough for Right-Wing Christians in America. They will not be happy until not only Christianity, but Conservative Fundamentalist Christianity, is the official religion of the United States and the basis for all our laws.
2007-03-19 15:15:03 · answer #5 · answered by Skippy 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The separation of church and state includes the idea that the state cannot legislate against any religion.
2007-03-19 15:13:17 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Atheism is NOT a religion.
Atheism is a religion to the same degree that the "OFF" button is a TV Channel.
Get over yourselves.
2007-03-19 15:21:25 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Being that atheism IS a religion it is covered ay the separation of religion and state
2007-03-19 15:17:30 · answer #8 · answered by geezerrex 5 · 1⤊ 4⤋
That is how it is now. The catch it that if science is in conflict with one religious doctrine or another, that is not atheism.
2007-03-19 15:28:21 · answer #9 · answered by novangelis 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
If it doesn't allow or disallow religion, then what do you propose? That's just silly.
2007-03-19 15:14:17 · answer #10 · answered by Jensenfan 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋