Blogsnark: Imposing Atheism?

Many Christians believe that when the government fails to endorse or promote their religion, then the government is therefore promoting atheism. That's about as logical as saying that a failure to endorse Christianity means that the government is endorsing Hinduism or Taoism.

Craig, a Shred of Sanity, writes:

Religious men generally possess good hearts and there is never anything wrong with that.

Really? More so than irreligious men? I wonder why, then, the percentage of irreligious atheists is lower in American prisons than in the general population? I wonder why the Czech Republic, which is the most atheist nation of Europe, has lower rates of crimes like murder and rape than the very religious nations of Poland and America? Perhaps it's because there is no connection between being religious and being good?

They [the ACLU] want a freedom from religion, not a freedom of religion in the public sphere.

Well, insofar as "public sphere" means "government funded, endorsed, led, etc.," then that's indeed what they want and it's what many religious people want as well — Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and so forth. Why? Because both theists and atheists, religious and irreligious citizens, agree that the government doesn't have the authority to fund, endorse, promote, or otherwise get involved in religion. For people to have real freedom of their religion, they have to be free from the government endorsing, funding, or promoting other people's religion. That's what "freedom from religion" means.

By trying to impose atheism on us they are in fact imposing a religion on us, that of atheism.

Leaving aside the fact that atheism, the mere disbelief in gods, can't possibly be a religion, it's absolutely untrue that a failure of the government to promote a single theistic religion (like Christianity) therefore means that the government is promoting atheism (or any atheistic religion). That's utter nonsense without a shred of logic or reason behind it.

To promote atheism, the government would have to specifically tell people that atheism is preferable, that theism is ridiculous, or something similar. The absence of reference to atheism is the same as the absence of references to Christianity, Islam, or Hinduism: neutrality. This is the government's proper role and place when it comes to such issues.

That they are using the courts to impose their agenda is even more despicable.

Organizations like the ACLU go to court to defend people's religious liberties when people contact them and the ACLU agrees that a genuine violation of their constitutional rights has occurred. The ACLU defends atheists, humanists, Christians, Muslims, Jews... people of any, all, or no religious persuasion. Is it really "despicable" that the ACLU will challenge state power in defense of religious minorities? Only if you have no respect for those minorities.

 

Want to Comment on this? Post in the Forum
What is Blogsnark?

 

Read More:

• Separation of Church and State 101
• Church and State News
• Secularism 101