Separation of Church and State

One of the big lies that theocrats are spouting these days is that "separation of church and state" isn't in the U.S. Constitution.  This is akin to creationism because such a statement can only be based on willful ignorance and stupidity.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states:

      "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."

See, http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights

The First Amendment clearly provides for separation of church and state.  To say that it doesn't simply because it doesn't literally say "separation of church and state" is dishonest sophistry of the worst sort.  If it actually said "separation of church and state", there would be no real way to apply what it said, because that isn't a legal rule, it's a description.

The First Amendment is written, for lack of a better term, in legalese.  Meaning, in this instance, that its phrasing is meant to provide a rule that judges and other Government officials can apply when handling matters before them.  "Separation of church and state" sounds like an overly vague zoning ordinance if you try to actually apply it as if it were a legal rule.

As I explained in my post on prayer in public schools:

The very first thing the First Amendment says is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."  This means quite clearly that the Government cannot adopt an official state religion.  The word "respecting" means that the Government can't even enact laws that amount to less than official establishment if those laws might be part of such official establishment.

Thus, "no law" that could be part of an official establishment of religion can be enacted.  It is difficult to imagine how a rule of law separating church and state could be more clearly written.

Flat Earth, Anyone?

Aside from the numerous references to earth having four corners and a
foundation, apparently of pillars, the story in Mathew and Luke about
the devil taking Jesus to a very high mountain and showing him all the
kingdoms of the earth could only be true if the earth were flat.  If the
writer knew it were round, then surely the story would have been that
the devil flew Jesus around the globe to show him all those kingdoms.
Revelations makes it clear the four corners description is not mere
poetic license by saying in 7:1

    "And after these things I saw four angels standing
   on the four corners of the earth, holding the four
   winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on
   the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree." 

If something is described as being upon a foundation of pillars, having
four corners, and being entirely visible from one high vantage point,
(which is situated upon the thing and not at a distance), then the thing
described is flat.  It is obviously not spherical.  To the best of my
knowledge, the Greeks had determined that the earth was probably round in the third century B.C.  Frankly, I have found very little of use in any religious writing from that period, whether it be pagan, Jewish or Christian.  I find them all unconvincing because of their scientific illiteracy.

I suppose some would chalk it all up to poetic license.  But many believers say that they believe that every word in the bible is
literally true.  It can't be literally true and the product of poetic license at the same time.

Believers who say that they believe the bible to be literally true are claiming to put their faith in a book written by a "god" who thought the Earth was flat.  Those who claim poetic license are trying to have their cake and eat it too, because they do not claim that the entire bible is poetic.  Only the parts they can't defend are poetic.  It's an intellectually dishonest dodge.  You can tell believers who refer to the bible for authority:

"Either you believe that the bible is the word of god, who happens to be ignorant of the fact that the world is round, or you're intellectually dishonest."

Religion and Morality IV; In-Group Morality

One often hears from believers and non-believers alike that worldwide atheism would not make humans better or more moral.  That it is our nature to divide ourselves into groups who compete with each other violently.  I think there is some truth to this criticism.  (I highly recommend reading "The Blank Slate" by Stephen Pinker in which he catalogs the research showing that there is such a thing as innate human nature regarding various topics including this one.)

The weak and excessively needy will always seek to manipulate others to do their bidding, and one of the quickest ways to do that is to try to form one's own little flock of birds of afeather.  A group of like minded people will tend to coalesce into a pack separate from the rest, and their very similarity of thought, feeling and psychology will not only make them easier to control, it will make their behavior more extreme because of a lack of dissenting voices.

Religion makes it much easier for the unscrupulous to divide and control others because it divides people into separate groups artificially and allows leaders of those groups to tell the flock what and how to think.  It may be impossible to prevent people from dividing themselves into groups, but worldwide atheism would limit the phenomenon by removing dividing lines that are factually nonexistent.  If people must divide themselves into groups, let them at least be limited to differences that are based on facts.

The problem, of course with dividing ourselves into groups is that the members of the separate groups then don't feel nearly as much, if any, moral duty toward those in the groups to which they don't belong.  This notion, known as "in-group morality" or sometimes as "in-group/out-group morality" is probably one of the most insightful and revealing ideas concerning human behavior and morality to come along.  The evidence for this aspect of human behavior is overwhelming, and it's predictive power is absolute.  Yet many are reluctant to accept it because of its implications regarding humanity.

I highly recommend reading the paper at this link because it includes not only references to a great deal of scientific research regarding this phenomenon, but also analyzes biblical text to show that this same in-group/out-group morality was inherent in the Abrahamic religions.  Contrary to what the members of those religions would have us believe, they are indeed members of hostile groups who feel virtually no moral duty to those who aren't members of their particular group.

Atheism Is Not Nihilism

One of the many frustrating falsehoods we hear from the religious is that "atheists don't believe in anything".  Frankly, this is another one of those things that make it nearly impossible to respect the intelligence of believers.  A person who doesn't believe in anything is called a "nihilist".  An atheist on the other hand is someone who doesn't believe in one particular type of thing:  gods.  So, first and foremost, your response should be to point this out:

"A person who doesn't believe in anything is called a 'nihilist' not an atheist.  Do you not know that word?  You do know the difference, don't you?"

Then explain the difference.

This is another case where believers deliberately obfuscate the difference between the various definitions applicable to a word.  Belief, like many other words, can mean many things.  It can mean an opinion or conviction, confidence in the truth of something without proof, or simply confidence in a person, thing, or idea.  But, what the religious are disingenuously doing in this instance is twisting our unwillingness to believe without evidence into a lack of belief in all things, which of course includes morals and other values.  This is just an example of bigotry out in the open--just another way of calling atheists evil.

Call them on this point as well.

"You are deliberately confusing the different definitions of 'belief' in order to express and justify your bigotry."

You can add:

"You're trying to insult us, but you're just making yourself look bad because now everyone knows that you don't know the difference between an atheist and a nihilist."

You Can Never Say It Often Enough

"An agnostic is someone who has implicitly accepted the notion that he has the burden of proof regarding the non-existence of gods."

"The lack of evidence for gods (or any other supernatural phenomenon) meets whatever burden of proof non-believers may have."

The Pledge of Allegiance Is Un-Constitutional

The current version of the pledge of allegiance to the U.S. flag is the single most un-Constitutional law currently in existence in the U.S.

Given the context, the phrase "under god" clearly means "ruled by god" or "ruled in accordance with god's wishes".

We are talking about a pledge of allegiance. Pledging allegiance is a decidedly political act--it is an oath of obedience and loyalty.  Furthermore, it is an oath of obedience to a nation, which is a decidedly political construct. 

The phrase is used to describe the nation to which the person saying the pledge is swearing his loyalty and obedience. The pledge is not a verbal map or star chart; its purpose is not to describe relative physical positions.  If it were, then the appropriate phrase would be "under Canada".  Or, maybe, "under the starry skies".

Rather, the purpose of a pledge of allegiance is to describe political positions--who is loyal to whom, who is to obey whom. 

Thus, the American pledge, as currently written, is descriptive of a theocracy and describes clearly the theocratic viewpoint:  that the U.S. is ruled by god.  It is such a stunningly obvious violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that I can scarce believe anyone could defend it with a straight face--unless he were a theocrat bent on undermining the U.S Constitution.

 

The theocrats will apparently stop at nothing.  Lying in the service of god is not a sin apparently (in spite of all that talk about the importance of honoring the ten commandments). They try to mislead the public about the nature and purpose of the pledge and say that the inclusion of that phrase is just "ceremonial deism".  

In essence, the argument is that these are unimportant ceremonies, which is to say "meaningless". Well, these are not unimportant or meaningless ceremonies. Pledging allegiance is a serious political act. If you pledge allegiance to another country's flag, you could, in some circumstance, find yourself being threatened with loss of citizenship or even being charged with treason.  

The theocrats also argue that it's just an expression of national identity that just happens to mention god.  That's another way of saying it's an expression of who and what we are as a nation  As such, including a reference to god and his dominion over us means that we are expressing an identity that is synonymous with a theocracy. That is not, in any way, consistent with the Constitution.

The pledge was amended in 1954 to add the phrase "under god" right after the words "one nation".  The clear intent of that change based both on the wording of the act and the legislative history was to endorse a religious viewpoint.  That viewpoint is that god exists and he rules us.  The mere mention of god to endorse a religious viewpoint would render the amended pledge un-Constitutional.  The fact that it is a clear expression of the theocratic viewpoint renders in not only un-Constitutional but also completely and affirmatively hostile to the U.S. Constitution and the principles of democracy and freedom enshrined therein. 

Worst of all, the current version of the pledge of allegiance isn't just a statement of theocracy.  It is proof that the theocrats are intent on subverting all forms of democracy.

A Graphic Example of the Evil of Religion

A Christian woman was recently sentenced to death in Pakistan for allegedly making derogatory remarks about Islam.  Her accusers: the women she worked with.  Putting aside the absolute obscenity of sentencing someone to death for mere opinions, there is the more ominous possibility that this is nothing more than a legal lynching.

The story indicates that her presence was resented by her Muslim co-workers--so much so that she was considered too "unclean" to even bring them water.  Those same co-workers apparently are the ones who accused her and testified against her.

Buried in the story is a sentence that briefly mentions one of the nasty little secrets of religion:

     "Human rights activists want the blasphemy law repealed as 

   they say it is often exploited by Islamist extremists or those 

   harbouring personal grudges."

There are cases where it is fairly clear that a blasphemy accusation has been trumped up simply to settle personal scores.  Such as this example where Christian parents were sentenced to 25 years in prison because their kids got into a squabble with some Muslim kids and this example in which the extremist Muslims couldn't wait for the legal lynching and shot the accused on the street.

The death sentence given to this woman seems most likely to be a similar case.

Another article about this case also mentions that the law is used most frequently against religious minorities, which is not surprising given that their very religion is an implicit insult to Islam.  By adopting another religion they are implicitly saying that they found it to be better than Islam.  Furthermore, religious minorities are most likely to be targeted successfully because the majority is ready to believe that the religious minority would insult their religion.

What is telling is the combination of these two observations.  Religious minorities are most likely to be targeted and prosecutions are often based on false evidence offered by those with a grudge against the accused or someone connected to him. 

To that you may say "whew, I am glad that doesn't happen here".  To which I reply "yes, it does".  Our system, thankfully, doesn't provide the mechanism for a pure legal lynching such as can occur in countries with blasphemy laws, but there is more than one way to use the extreme egotism and intolerance of the religious against those who are unpopular or who anger the wrong people.

There are many people in the U.S. who believe that there should be blasphemy laws and it is those people who represent the danger.  They are ready, eager and willing to "do something" about "bad people"--even if it requires illegal, even criminal, actions.  To such people it doesn't take much for a person to be seen as a "bad person".  Mostly, all a person has to do is be different, especially with regard to religious belief.

I have already mentioned how religion often seems to be simply a form of Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) and how it can become especially dangerous when a believer has NPD independent of his or her religion.  One of the symptoms of NPD is a psychological phenomenon called "splitting" in which the sufferer splits the world into good and evil.  In this phenomenon the "evil ones" are seen as completely evil and their every action, word, or thought is interpreted in light of this pre-conceived conclusion.  Things that others could do or say without criticism or condemnation from the NPD sufferer will be seen as completely evil, confirming everything the NPD sufferer thinks about that person.

This, essentially, is what happens to members of religious minorities--especially atheists.  If an atheist doesn't seem completely sympathetic to the gay rights movement, he will be labeled a bigoted homophobe, yet the same atheist can later be labeled a moral reprobate who supports the "homosexual agenda" (and shouldn't be allowed to have kids because they will "turn out gay") if he says things that support gay rights.  Atheists are in a no-win situation; no matter what we say, it's not just wrong, it's evil.

It has been my experience that words and behaviors that would be considered disturbed or disturbing coming from an atheist will be completely unnoticed coming from a believer.  Believers can talk about being eager for death, the end of the world, or the extermination of the "godless" etc., and none of the other believers feels the slightest disapproval, much less the need to take action.  But, let an atheist express anger over the way he is treated and he will be labeled as an "extremely disturbed" person that "someone should do something about".