Church and State

[LoveALL]

"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." That's the 1st Amendment... now I'd like to debate our interpretations

[100%atheist]

Of course Muslims should be allowed prayer in public schools, I'm for free practice as extended to everyone but I also think that sometimes atheists take the establishment clause (or whatever other countries have in its place) much too far

Would you agree that Muslims should be allowed to pray on board of airplanes?

[McCulloch]

The first problem we have is defining what a religion is. Does everyone agree with the courts definition? The Supreme Court has interpreted religion to mean a sincere and meaningful belief that occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to the place held by God in the lives of other persons. The religion or religious concept need not include belief in the existence of God or a supreme being to be within the scope of the First Amendment.

In addition, a belief does not need to be stated in traditional terms to fall within First Amendment protection. For example, Scientology"a system of beliefs that a human being is essentially a free and immortal spirit who merely inhabits a body"does not propound the existence of a supreme being, but it qualifies as a religion under the broad definition propounded by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has deliberately avoided establishing an exact or a narrow definition of religion because freedom of religion is a dynamic guarantee that was written in a manner to ensure flexibility and responsiveness to the passage of time and the development of the United States. Thus, religion is not limited to traditional denominations.

Thus atheism is also religion.

I was with you up to the last statement. Atheism is not religion. But then again, neither is theism. Most religions are theist, but a few are not. Theism and atheism are philosophic positions, relevant to religion, but neither are religions per se.

So, should any religion be given any special treatment?

No, that is part of the whole point of secularism, particularly as it is expressed in the US first amendment.

Does everyone agree that if Christians are allowed to pray in public schools that Muslims should be allowed the use of pray rugs and pray also?

I agree. If the children of Christians are allowed a private time to pray in public schools, so should the children of Jews, Sikhs, Hindus and Muslims. No one religion should get special treatment, the employees of the public schools should not be seen as leading or promoting any form of prayer, nor should any group be given any form of exclusivity.

Of course Muslims should be allowed prayer in public schools, I'm for free practice as extended to everyone but I also think that sometimes atheists take the establishment clause (or whatever other countries have in its place) much too far.

But they should not be granted an exclusive place for their prayers, nor should the time required for their prayers be such that it unreasonably disrupts the school schedule. I agree that some atheists do take secularism too far, but many rather vocal Christians do not take it far enough. Prayer should not be an activity sponsored by, led by or promoted by our public school systems.

[LoveALL]

yes, I see what you're getting at but there's a big difference between a prayer and a bomb

[McCulloch]

yes, I see what you're getting at but there's a big difference between a prayer and a bomb

You are ahead of me there. I have no idea what you are getting at. However, I certainly am glad that you realize that there is a difference between a bomb and a prayer. Prayer might be quite dangerous if you did not.

[Donray]

I was with you up to the last statement. Atheism is not religion. But then again, neither is theism. Most religions are theist, but a few are not. Theism and atheism are philosophic positions, relevant to religion, but neither are religions per se.

So, how is that Scientology is deemed a religion by the courts and yet atheism is not? United States Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that Atheism warrants the same protection as all other religions. A federal court, in an effort to help atheists, ruled in 2005 that atheism is a form of religion that deserves the same protections as beliefs more commonly recognized as religion (Kaufman v. McCaughtry). The Supreme Court of the United States has treated secular humanism as a religion, granting the Fellowship of Humanity religious tax exemption because it's philosophy is analogous to religion (Torcaso v. Watkins). Religion at its root is belief, which means it has everything in common with atheism and secular humanism. No theological position - "there is a god," "there isn't a god," or "it doesn't matter" - serves as common ground upon which the state can reside in order to avoid establishment and prohibition of free exercise. The only way to maintain religious freedom - avoiding de facto establishment, while providing equal protection and protecting free exercise - is to allow religious chaos.

[Filthy Tugboat]

The first problem we have is defining what a religion is. Does everyone agree with the courts definition? The Supreme Court has interpreted religion to mean a sincere and meaningful belief that occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to the place held by God in the lives of other persons. The religion or religious concept need not include belief in the existence of God or a supreme being to be within the scope of the First Amendment.

In addition, a belief does not need to be stated in traditional terms to fall within First Amendment protection. For example, Scientology"a system of beliefs that a human being is essentially a free and immortal spirit who merely inhabits a body"does not propound the existence of a supreme being, but it qualifies as a religion under the broad definition propounded by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has deliberately avoided establishing an exact or a narrow definition of religion because freedom of religion is a dynamic guarantee that was written in a manner to ensure flexibility and responsiveness to the passage of time and the development of the United States. Thus, religion is not limited to traditional denominations.

Thus atheism is also religion.

I can't say I understand how you reached this conclusion. The Supreme court's ruling on the definition of religion is not authoritative and that decision was made with specific intentions of including atheism as a religion in order to offer the first amendment rights to everyone.

So, should any religion be given any special treatment?

Imo, no.

Does everyone agree that if Christians are allowed to pray in public schools that Muslims should be allowed the use of pray rugs and pray also?

Yes as long as it does not interrupt the schooling process. This goes for all religious practices, at school the religious practice is secondary to the education system.

[Filthy Tugboat]

Of course Muslims should be allowed prayer in public schools, I'm for free practice as extended to everyone but I also think that sometimes atheists take the establishment clause (or whatever other countries have in its place) much too far

You have no objection to four hours of pray by different groups in school? Nothing wrong with Witches doing their thing in school

As long as their religious practices do not interfere with the education system it should not be a problem.

or calling God a murderer during the atheists allotted pray time?

Alloted pray time? Where the hell did that come from? How is atheists calling God a murderer a religious practice? I suppose they could say it anyway if they really want to but it is kind of irrelevant.

Could you explain what taking the establishment clause to far means?

I think it means that the government should not promote any religion. For example when the government added under God to the pledge that should have been unconstitutional in that Christianity is being promoted. If we use the lower case god it might be OK.

No, it should not have been added at all, the government should not promote any religion or religious concept, the government should be secular and stay the hell away from all religious matters.

[Crazee]

Of course Muslims should be allowed prayer in public schools, I'm for free practice as extended to everyone but I also think that sometimes atheists take the establishment clause (or whatever other countries have in its place) much too far

Would you agree that Muslims should be allowed to pray on board of airplanes?

That is kind of a loaded question. Muslims, should be allowed to pray on planes, same as in school (as long as they aren't forcing others to pray), I think the question is more whether or not there would be enough space for them to feel they were adequately prostrating, also it is unfortunate but probable that someone in the plane would be panicked by seeing a muslim praying.

So that's what I think. They should be, but the news and government has trashed muslims so much that it would be dangerous to the individuals' safety to for them to pray on a plane.

[McCulloch]

Atheism is not religion. But then again, neither is theism. Most religions are theist, but a few are not. Theism and atheism are philosophic positions, relevant to religion, but neither are religions per se.

So, how is that Scientology is deemed a religion by the courts and yet atheism is not?

Scientology is a specific set of teachings with an organization, rituals and practices to back them up.

United States Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that Atheism warrants the same protection as all other religions.

Could it be that the Supreme Court is slightly mistaken? Or could it be that they have extended those protections to atheistic organizations which are analogous to religions such as Secular Humanism rather than to atheism itself?

The only way to maintain religious freedom - avoiding de facto establishment, while providing equal protection and protecting free exercise - is to allow religious chaos.

To this I must add a hearty Amen. Governments (all three branches) have to get out of the business of defining and regulating religion.