But let us see. The Patrick Henry quotation dated to May, 1765, would have no relevance because it predates both the American revolution and the Constitution with the Bill of Rights. Perhaps Henry was referring to the British monarchy. But of course, all the colonists could easily remember the English wars, the numerous beheadings, the persecutions arising from religious controversy—it would have been as recent in their collective and personal memories as the beginning of the 20th century is in ours (the Wright brothers, San Francisco earthquake, the Titanic, etc.)

It would have been MORE recent than the memory of our own Civil War . . . which is still quite lively. And just as there continue to be some public figures who would like to return to the ante-bellum status quo of plantation days, certainly there were public figures both before and after our revolution—and continuing to our present times—who wish they could revert to the glorious era of Oliver Cromwell and the religious dictatorship, or to the splendid privilege of the Established, tax-supported church of bishops and “stinks and clinks.” Or maybe both at the same time.

As for the allegation that President Obama is a communist—wow! What hallucinogenic substance has Kyle been consuming??? A communist who bails out the big banks and Wall Street brokerages, while letting ordinary citizens (i.e, the workers) lose their homes to foreclosure and their jobs to outsourcing multinational conglomerates? A communist who refuses to provide government-sponsored alternatives to private insurance rackets? Why, even the so-called Communist Chinese at least still provide health care for their benighted citizens! Mr. Obama is so far from being a Communist that he makes Dwight Eisenhower look like a liberal.

To restate the obvious—the obvious, that is, to persons who WANT to look honestly at the evidence—atheists in America merely want the persons who hold positions of governmental authority and responsibility to do their jobs AS THEY PROMISED when they took their oath to uphold the Constitution. If they cannot adhere to the provisions of the Constitution—and the language is pretty plain so that only lawyers and religious fanatics can fail to understand it—then let these people either retire to the private sector or else proceed as they have threatened to do since the 19th century and amend the Constitution to insert their God delusions and claim the power of state coercion without the hypocritical and absurd bandying of words as practiced here by this semi-anonymous “Kyle.”

You see, “Kyle,” the U.S. Constitution forbids establishment of religion, i.e. in common sense of the word, both practices and beliefs; and forbids interference with the free exercise “thereof,” which would leave citizens unmolested in their sectarian divisions. The Minnesota constitution, which Mr. Pawlenty has also sworn to enforce and uphold, goes even further in some respects—explicitly forbidding use of taxes to support religious education, for instance.

Another part of the Constitutional protection against religious tyranny is the prohibition against RELIGIOUS TESTS being applied to persons holding office. This provision has been often overlooked, but the approach taken in recent years has been glaringly at odds with it. Under Republican administrations there has been a de-facto religious test disqualifying anyone except reactionary Christians and reactionary Jews. Under Democratic administrations, the test has been applied with the so-called “affirmative action” method—namely, find at least a token Muslim somewhere to provide “balance.”

Either approach violates the spirit and probably the letter of the Constitution.
But any historian will affirm that they are both strains which recur throughout our political history. This is not an ideal world. The Constitution is in many ways an ideal framework, for its purposes, and atheists are to be commended for trying with the voice of reason and the nonviolent methods of litigation and argument, to restrain public servants from violating their oaths (or affirmations!) to uphold it.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech

The unequivocally states that a person can use his moral or religious reasoning in regards to government. No interpretation needed You stated:

“A Catholic legislator may oppose abortion in his personal life and behavior and speak out as an individual on it, but as a legislator proposing government policy, he cannot put his views into law. That violates his constituents freedom of religion.”

Opposition to abortion is not a religious argument. When I was an avowed agnostic, I opposed abortion with no theistic grounding. In regards to the Catholic Legislator, It is fully within thier constitutional rights to oppose abortion due to his or her religious conviction. It is also your right to use your Athiest Worldview to support abortion.

Free dialouge and exchange of ideas are good things. Religious people, athiests, agnostics, peagans, muslims, etc should all be able to debate issues and express themselves freely. As long as there is tact, respect, and common courtesy it can be a VERY good thing.

Lets move on. Here are some considerations: According to your logic, Should we delete parts of the Declaration of Independence because they refer to a Creator? Should we rip down the Washington Monument because it has a thiestic inscription on its peak? Should we remove the Lincoln Memorial for having a bible verse on the grounds? Should prisons be able to employ Chaplains? I could go on…. But when you flesh out the FFR Foundations ideas, they lead to a wierd area (I’m not saying the viewpoint is right or wrong, just that it would be rather bizarre given our history as a nation)

Douglas, you wrote: “What is it about Atheists asserting that they would like to be treated with the respect and deference that theists are accorded that have theists jumping up and shouting that we’re”forcing our beliefs” on others?”

Well, first of all I believe all worldviews should be treated with respect and deference. I believe that no one should silence another’s viewpoint and everyone should have courtesy and mutual respect.

However, one of athiests main complaints is that “religious people” are pushing their beliefs on others. A logical person can’t help but notice that the athiest/secular movement is doing that itself. It is a double standard that is strickingly obvious to anyone with an objective analysis.

Another example. Some religious people think it was right for government to make “In God We Trust” our national motto. No it was no more right than if atheists wanted to make “No Gods, No Masters” the slogan. No atheist has ever suggested it and it would surely be soundly opposed by every atheist organization. Why? It violates the First Amendment guarantee of religious freedom by imposing one particular view on everyone. It’s not fair. It’s arrogant. It’s totally unAmerican. Someone took a survey of believers and nonbelievers a while back and on the question of how willing they would be to impose their views on everyone, the answers ranged from religious-right fundamentalists about 85% willing down to moderately religious around 40% willing, to agnostics only a few percent willing, to atheists at absolute zero willing.

Now, I have a question for Kyle. What is it about Atheists asserting that they would like to be treated with the respect and deference that theists are accorded that have theists jumping up and shouting that we’re”forcing our beliefs” on others? It is because that by merely accepting it as a valid the viewpoint that there is no god, theist are asked to think the unthinkable, and by their own definition, a blasphemy and a sin?

Atheists aren’t requiring that theists abandon their faiths, just allow us to do without, thank you, and not have our character called into question by employers, divorce lawyers, presidents, etc. Unfortunately, this seems to put some in an uncomfortable situation, one that many react to with resentfulness, if not open hostility. If by allowing us that courtesy it calls into question the very foundation of your beliefs, perhaps then these are questions you should seek to answer yourself, and not throw back on us. We’ve dealt with the questions, and have answered them (or not, as some questions can not be an answered immediately, or conveniently) to our personal satisfaction.

Your crusade against theistic believers is in itself “pushing your beliefs on others”

Just because your beliefs lack a diety, they are theological in nature…So I ask, Why are you pushing them on others?

In contrast to the present confusion about separation, the First Amendment is startling in its clarity, offering no limit to the impact of religious and moral conviction of individual citizens on public policy. It is worth reading often. Here it is:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Please forgive me for stating the obvious: The First Amendment restricts the government, not the people. Jefferson’s wall is a one-way wall. Any religious person, any religious organization, any religious conviction has its place in the public debate. It’s called pluralism in the classic sense.

Notice there are not two distinct provisions here, but one. Non-establishment has no purpose by itself. Freedom of religion is the goal, and non-establishment is the means. The only way to have true freedom of religion is to keep government out of religion’s affairs. This provides for what Steven Monsma calls “positive neutrality.” This view “defines religious freedom in terms of a governmental neutrality toward religion in which no religion is favored over any other, and neither religion nor secularism is favored over each other.”

The First Amendment was rewritten twelve times to make clear its intent. The concept set forth in the Bill of Rights is “non-establishment,” not isolation. We should strike the “separation” language from our vocabulary.

God Bless you!

Kyle

Ps. Enjoy the site. I like to hear different points of view.