Newdow seeks injuction to prevent P.E. Obama from saying

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Meili,

[quote name='Meili' post='1644379' date='Jan 11 2009, 02.00']I fucking loathe them. They are a plauge on this planet and I despise them. Soooo, nice to meet you.[/quote]

Do you desire others to share this view?

[TerraPrime]

[quote name='TheKassi' post='1644419' date='Jan 11 2009, 03.21']If you do not like me using Pat Robertson as the prime example of bat shit craziness that is fine. Perhaps there are other evangelicals crazier, and I shouldn't give him such a title. It is a fair criticism.[/quote]

Ever heard of Reverend Fred Phelps from Topeka, Kansas? If not, try googling him. There are any number of home-bred local pastors that are every bit as batshit crazy as Robertson, sometimes more. They typically have a small but core following. I know this because my Mother-in-Law likes to quote from some of them from time to time. They're out there, in small numbers, and they do not have any national profile.


[quote]But perhaps you can show me who these people that believe The United States Constitution prohibits atheists from accepting the highest office of the land are? I am sure there are a lot of people who have let some ridiculously stupid stuff fall our of their mouths, but no one is actually trying to bring the force of law against Atheists who wish to try their hand in DC as far as I know.[/quote]

Polls showing people's refusal to vote for a known atheist is evidence enough that the general populaton does not trust an atheist to be the president. The force of custom and social mores can be as strong as the force of law. For instance, doubt you that despite the absence of any written laws prohibiting a Muslim from becoming the President, that we shall see one elected in the next 40 years? When Lieberman was the running mate in 2000, and when Romney was vying for the nomination in 2008, their non-Protetstant faiths were part of the sticking point for some people. And they're religious. Your argument on the technicality of the the law is a bit feeble, given the known cultural forces at work that has been demonstrated.

To relate back to the Newdow case: Many of the battles that atheists now choose to fight are more symbolic than substantive. After all, a word is just a word. But what those words symbolize is a trenchant bias against non-religious people backed by the force of culture and social norm. The cultural outlook is amorphous and undefined, so it is hard to push against it. Instead, we choose symbolic fights to raise the issue, to bring this hidden conflict to light. The Pledge issue, this oath, setting up monuments to the 10 Commandments in court houses, the words on our printed currency, calling the tree in our capital the "Christmas" tree, etc. The complaint that these are trivial issues is missing the point, imo, because these "trivial" issues are the only ones where concrete actions can be taken against since the larger force of bias is well-permeated into our culture. My honest view is that in the U.S., atheists will forever be a minority and suffer certain types of mistrust. That's just the nature of this country, imo. We'll never achieve parity with the religious folks. That doesn't mean that we ought not to raise awareness of the issue, or to keep at the fights.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

TP,

How long ago were the majority of whites in the US saying they'd never vote for a black man for President? Yet in two weeks PE Obama will be in the Oval Office. Change takes time. Sometimes less time than people imagine.

[IheartTesla]

[quote name='Other-in-law' post='1644369' date='Jan 11 2009, 01.37'][quote]Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?

Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.[/quote]
[/quote]

Where is that quote from? Just when I thought Bush couldnt be a bigger numbnut than he currently is....

Edit: Googling tells me it is Bush [i]pere[/i], not the current Chimp in Chief. And it seems to be a he said-he said issue since there are no recordings of that conversation. Still, the general point that atheists are treated with suspicion is a valid one.

[Tempra]

[quote name='cyrano' post='1644721' date='Jan 11 2009, 14.59']Where is that quote from? Just when I thought Bush couldnt be a bigger numbnut than he currently is....[/quote]


I believe that is GHWB's and not GWB's quote. Though, i wouldn't be surprised if GWB made a similar statement.

[TerraPrime]

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1644706' date='Jan 11 2009, 13.52']TP,

How long ago were the majority of whites in the US saying they'd never vote for a black man for President? Yet in two weeks PE Obama will be in the Oval Office. Change takes time. Sometimes less time than people imagine.[/quote]

I'm glad you appear to be more optimistic about it than I am. I think the sheer low number of atheists makes progress a lot more challenging. Also, I'll note that Obama didn't triumph over racism in 6 months' worth of campaigning - it was a culmination of decades of struggle that bore this fruit, with not too little help from a badgered economy. Comparatively, atheists have not had that kind of organization or mobilization to draw upon. But let it not be me to dash someone's optimism on this issue.

[Tempra]

What is the difference between atheists and theists viewing each other with suspicion and capitalists/socialists, creationists/evolutionists, etc view each other with suspicion? Does the Constitution now mandate that society is to find all beliefs to be equally acceptable?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Tempra,

[quote name='Tempra' post='1644740' date='Jan 11 2009, 15.13']What is the difference between atheists and theists viewing each other with suspicion and capitalists/socialists, creationists/evolutionists, etc view each other with suspicion? Does the Constitution now mandate that society is to find all beliefs to be equally acceptable?[/quote]

Yes, people can be bigots about who they give their vote. However, the fact that they can be bigots does not mean they should be bigots.

[Tempra]

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1644777' date='Jan 11 2009, 15.40']Tempra,



Yes, people can be bigots about who they give their vote. However, the fact that they can be bigots does not mean they should be bigots.[/quote]

So if i refuse to vote for a candidate becuase that candidate does not share the same world view as me, I am a bigot? Then every voter is a bigot.

If I refuse to vote for a monarchist, i am a bigot? Then so be it.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Tempra,

No. Not all discrimination is invidious. But using something like race, religious affiliation, or the lack of religious affiliation is invidious because it bears no relation to comptence for the office.

I'm saying that there's nothing to stop people from using this type of catagorization to rationalize their electoral choices but that sort of rationalization is bigoted and I hope people would avoid it.

[Lord Mord]

TheKassi,


[quote name='TheKassi' post='1644344' date='Jan 10 2009, 21.59']Because you argued that the Chief Justice would have been prohibited by The Constitution from accepting Obama's hypothetical request.. Unless you amend The Constitution, The Constitution says what the Founding Fathers intended it to say.[/quote]


Did the Founding Fathers intend there to be a protection of privacy? It may be inferred, but it is not explicit. The inference, however, has been expanded to cover a great many things which it can hardly be said the FF directly intended should have been included in such a protection.

I'm sure that Roe v Wade is only the tip of the iceberg.


[quote]If you want to argue that we should change things so that bringing up god in public ceremonies would be punishable, that is fine. It is your right to attempt to remove the protections for religious freedom that were included in The Constitution. The Constitutional duty crack is however BS.[/quote]


Your opinion is already noted.


[quote]Sorry, but even the most crazed evangelical doesn't believe the Government requires that you must believe in god to get into office. It doesn't suggest any sort of connection to god is necessary to do anything.[/quote]


If it doesn't suggest it at all, then it serves no purpose in being there. So why not take it out?

[Lord Mord]

Ser Scot,

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1644706' date='Jan 11 2009, 11.52']TP,

How long ago were the majority of whites in the US saying they'd never vote for a black man for President? Yet in two weeks PE Obama will be in the Oval Office. Change takes time. Sometimes less time than people imagine.[/quote]


OTOH, is it fair to say that it takes time only? Wouldn't it be better to say that it takes both time [i]and[/i] the tireless of devotion of those moved to the cause?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

lc,

[quote name='lordcaspen' post='1644890' date='Jan 11 2009, 16.57']Ser Scot,




OTOH, is it fair to say that it takes time only? Wouldn't it be better to say that it takes both time [i]and[/i] the tireless of devotion of those moved to the cause?[/quote]

How does eliminating public references to "God" by public officals further the cause to which Mr. Newdow appears to be devoted?

[Tempra]

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1644824' date='Jan 11 2009, 16.15']Tempra,

No. Not all discrimination is invidious. But using something like race, religious affiliation, or the lack of religious affiliation is invidious because it bears no relation to comptence for the office.

I'm saying that there's nothing to stop people from using this type of catagorization to rationalize their electoral choices but that sort of rationalization is bigoted and I hope people would avoid it.[/quote]


Race and Religious affiliation are very, very different. One is innate and the other is not. A person's religion or lack thereof tells a lot about how the person looks at the world. I would hope that in the course of a two year election period that a person's religion would become irrelevant because so much information about the true character of a candidate is unearthed. But a person's religion is a quick barometer on how they see the world. A bigot, IMO, is a person who lets their biases override facts. If a person refuses to correct his beliefs when faced with facts that counter his beliefs, that would make him a bigot.

It should not be surprising to anyone that in polls that ask "Who do you trust more? 1) A Christian, 2) Atheist, 3) Jewish, 4) Muslim" that a Christian will likely trust another Christian more than members of other religions and that a Jewish person trusts another Jewish person more than members of other religions. Is it shocking that Atheists are the lowest? Not really, they are the odd ones out for not believing in a diety and they, at first blush, share the least with any other group. Of course people polled will vote them the lowest when there is nothing else to go on.

[Meili]

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1644611' date='Jan 11 2009, 12.15']Meili,



Do you desire others to share this view?[/quote]

Yes. I am delicate about it and never insult the person but I think we have evolved enough to stop believing in magic and miracles and stop killing for who is the right god. The bible and the Koran are the two most bloodthisty books that for some reason think are holy on a scale of billions. I don't suscribe to the word 'atheist as I mentioned, but anti-theist is one I happily use to describe me.

I never understood why my mother wouldn't let me watch He-Man because it was evil but it was fine to read about Lot fucking his two daughters drunk. [b]And THEY were the good guys [/b]of a sinful town. Go morals.

We'll just have to disagree Scot, because you seem a nice enough fellow

[Guest Other-in-law]

[quote name='cyrano' post='1644721' date='Jan 11 2009, 14.59']Where is that quote from? Just when I thought Bush couldnt be a bigger numbnut than he currently is....[/quote]
Ahh, sorry about that. Bad form to have left out a [url="http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm"]link[/url].
[quote]Edit: Googling tells me it is Bush [i]pere[/i], not the current Chimp in Chief. And it seems to be a he said-he said issue since there are no recordings of that conversation. Still, the general point that atheists are treated with suspicion is a valid one.[/quote]
Yes, it was Bush senior (I did say [i]former[/i] President). It looks like there may be hard [url="http://www.robsherman.com/information/liberalnews/2004/0204.htm"]evidence[/url] for it in the Bush presidential library, though.

Obviously, a quasi-legal claim like that is bullshit and would never hold up in any court (much like all the bullshit stories about Obama being born overseas, even thought that wouldn't disqualify him from the presidency anyway since he'd still be a citizen). That's beside the point. It's that these stupefyingly wrong-headed ideas are widely held by the public, and even someone as prominent as a vice-president can spout them (and then backpedal) and score points with the troglodyte part of his base who thinks that's how it [i]should[/i] be...even if the professionals would never let it get anywhere.

Looking back at theKassi's original post, I see that it's rather sneakily worded. Technically correct that the craziest evangelical doesn't feel that way, [i]if [/i]you accept that Robertson's the craziest (which we shouldn't; Terra Prime has already debunked that), though not actually commenting on what the second, third, fourth, etc craziest evangelicals think. But it was phrased so that it sounded like [i]nobody[/i] felt that atheist were or should be excluded from public office, which is plainly untrue.

Ser Scot,
[quote]How does eliminating public references to "God" by public officals further the cause to which Mr. Newdow appears to be devoted?[/quote]
By cutting the legs out from under intolerance-inciting politicians who drum up votes by going on about how the US is "a Christian Nation". By forcefully demonstrating that it is, in fact, a secular nation.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

OiL,

That's the thing we aren't a purely secular nation nor are we a "christian" or "religious" nation. We are something in between religious and secular. Therefore, I think it is wrong to completely ban God from the public sphere.

[Guest Other-in-law]

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1645025' date='Jan 11 2009, 18.55']OiL,

That's the thing we aren't a purely secular nation nor are we a "christian" or "religious" nation. We are something in between religious and secular.[/quote]
What? What is this something in-between? Elaborate.

Let me clarify that by saying that the US is a secular nation, I don't mean that the American people aren't allowed to be as religious as they want, merely that the government is not to get entangled in religion or elevate one religious stance above another. Proclaiming god on the coinage does exactly that; it's saying that Atheists (and polytheists for that matter) are wrong. It should do no such thing, just be neutral on the issue.

How would you feel if the currency your government issued had [i]"the Roman Catholic Church is the One True Faith, all others are false creeds"[/i] written on it, say? Any objections to that?

[Lord Mord]

Ser Scot,

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1645025' date='Jan 11 2009, 15.55']OiL,

That's the thing we aren't a purely secular nation nor are we a "christian" or "religious" nation. We are something in between religious and secular. Therefore, I think it is wrong to completely ban God from the public sphere.[/quote]


I find it hard to believe, given your record, that you don't think we'd all be better off if everything to do with governance were limited to the sphere of what could be proved or which could rely on effective secular arguments.

The more completely God is removed from the over public sphere, the more totally the message sinks in: we will not be fooled or placated or stalled, and your objectives and methods will no longer be obfuscated under the heading of what God wants.


If there were any indication the faithful could give up such narrow, elitist pretensions, then God would really become a mostly toothless thing in politics, and the argument would be much the further scaled-down in scope. As long as people [i]use[/i] such expressions as "one nation under God" as a defense for advocating a Christian agenda, then, yes, I think the maintenance of such phrases in our public administration is a detriment to effective governance.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

OiL,

[quote name='Other-in-law' post='1645043' date='Jan 11 2009, 19.08']What? What is this something in-between? Elaborate.[/quote]

That's very hard to do. Put as simply as possible making no mention of God, from my perspective, appears to by implication endorse the postion the God does not exist. As such a purely secular State is not neutral regarding religion.

[quote]Let me clarify that by saying that the US is a secular nation, I don't mean that the American people aren't allowed to be as religious as they want, merely that the government is not to get entangled in religion or elevate one religious stance above another. Proclaiming god on the coinage does exactly that; it's saying that Atheists (and polytheists for that matter) are wrong. It should do no such thing, just be neutral on the issue.[/quote]

As I said above that's not a neutral postion in my view.

[quote]How would you feel if the currency your government issued had [i]"the Roman Catholic Church is the One True Faith, all others are false creeds"[/i] written on it, say? Any objections to that?[/quote]

Yes. That's coming mighty close to establishing Roman Catholism as the US "faith" an act barred by the Establishment Clause. That said your position for neutrality is not neutral for the same reasons I outline above.