Question for the Atheists and Agnostics

[_Sethbag]

I'm not speaking of specific forms of atheism and I don't think you were either. I just find it interesting that your statement appeared to propose that the populous might lean more toward atheism in general if the government never mentioned God. If that is not a possibility in your mind, then you may recant your statement. If it is a possibility, then we need to ask the question, "Can the government ever really be neutral?"

Back to Who Knows' proposition, what do you think of the United States Government's bias toward atheism with respect to Zeus? Is the US Government biased towards atheism in the matter of Odin, as manifest by their lack of any reference to Odin?

I'm curious about this, because the US Government doesn't say anything at all about probably dozens or even hundreds of various gods from around the world. Are they just biased in favor of atheism toward these gods?

How is not mentioning the Christian God going to be any different than the US Government not mentioning Poseidon or Baal?

[_Who Knows]

I personally think the government should be neutral in religious matters.

Do you think they are neutral now? If so, how so (given the items discussed in the OP). If not, what do you propose?

In reality, the amount of sway the government has in this topic is probably very little.

I'm not sure I agree. But if if it were so, 'very little' is still too much.

The government would be promoting atheism if two items were true, 1) it never mentioned God, and 2) that people in general thought the government should have a stance on the existence/non-existence of God. If a lot of people thought it should have a stance, then you may be able to say that it is promoting atheism by not mentioning God. As to whether people actually do think this way, I don't know.

Even with your example here, I still fail to see it.

Please explain, in general, how the lack of mentioning something, indicates an antagonistic view of it.

[_The Dude]

Back to Who Knows' proposition, what do you think of the United States Government's bias toward atheism with respect to Zeus? Is the US Government biased towards atheism in the matter of Odin, as manifest by their lack of any reference to Odin?

I'm curious about this, because the US Government doesn't say anything at all about probably dozens or even hundreds of various gods from around the world. Are they just biased in favor of atheism toward these gods?

How is not mentioning the Christian God going to be any different than the US Government not mentioning Poseidon or Baal?

Saying "In God We Trust" or "One Nation Under God" doesn't imply the Christian God unless you consider the history of this nation -- then maybe it implies that, or at least some people want it to. Aside from that, these little phrases could be seen as quite generic. A devout Baal worshiper might think they mean Baal.

I mean, at least there's nothing specifically promoting Jesus Christ, is there? The Ten Commandments is Biblical, but it is not specifically Christian.

[_Gorman]

I'm not speaking of specific forms of atheism and I don't think you were either. I just find it interesting that your statement appeared to propose that the populous might lean more toward atheism in general if the government never mentioned God. If that is not a possibility in your mind, then you may recant your statement. If it is a possibility, then we need to ask the question, "Can the government ever really be neutral?"

Back to Who Knows' proposition, what do you think of the United States Government's bias toward atheism with respect to Zeus? Is the US Government biased towards atheism in the matter of Odin, as manifest by their lack of any reference to Odin?

I'm curious about this, because the US Government doesn't say anything at all about probably dozens or even hundreds of various gods from around the world. Are they just biased in favor of atheism toward these gods?

How is not mentioning the Christian God going to be any different than the US Government not mentioning Poseidon or Baal?

I think the answer lies in my second point of my previous post. The population does not expect the US Government to have a stance on Poseidon or Baal. It may expect the US government to have a stance on the Christian God.

[_Gorman]

I personally think the government should be neutral in religious matters.

Do you think they are neutral now? If so, how so (given the items discussed in the OP). If not, what do you propose?

I would agree that they are not neutral at this point. Whether it is possible to be entirely neutral, I'm not sure. I think I agree with The Dude in that the items mentioned in the OP aren't a big deal, but that if the government continues down a religious path, that would be something I would oppose.

In reality, the amount of sway the government has in this topic is probably very little.

I'm not sure I agree. But if if it were so, 'very little' is still too much.

Yeah, but I think you can get too nit picky if you require absolute neutrality from the perspective of each 'world view'. I think we just have to realize that in the little things (like the items in the OP), the government is probably not going to be neutral, but it should be neutral in the things that affect us more heavily.

The government would be promoting atheism if two items were true, 1) it never mentioned God, and 2) that people in general thought the government should have a stance on the existence/non-existence of God. If a lot of people thought it should have a stance, then you may be able to say that it is promoting atheism by not mentioning God. As to whether people actually do think this way, I don't know.

Even with your example here, I still fail to see it.

Please explain, in general, how the lack of mentioning something, indicates an antagonistic view of it.

If my sons Biology teachers throughout his education were to never mention Evolution, that would be promoting something other than Evolution. He expects his Biology teachers to have a stance on Evolution, and by not mentioning it, they would be giving him an antagonistic view of it. This is of course an extreme example, but it still give you the general idea. If people feel like the government should have a stance on God, and they don't mention the topic, then that would be a similar case. The question is whether people feel this way or not.

[_Sethbag]

I think the answer lies in my second point of my previous post. The population does not expect the US Government to have a stance on Poseidon or Baal. It may expect the US government to have a stance on the Christian God.

Well then I'm curious what theory of government you believe should predict that people would look to the government for answers about the existence, or non-existence, of God. Unless you think the US should be a theocracy, I'm really at a loss here.

[_grayskull]

The mere fact that "in god we trust" exists on coins, however it came about or however misguided, establishes it as part of our culture in a broad and noticable, even if it's something most people (religious included) probably take for granted or really don't care about. I mean, do most religious people REALLY have a vested interest in linking God to money, something that could even be argued as heresy from a biblical standpoint? Even though removing the phrase doesn't technically put a pro-atheist message on coins, for atheists to push for and succeed in such a battle would clearly be a victory for atheism. So while I can imagine why some atheists feel the message should be discarded (myself not caring about it one way or another), I can also understand why religious people - even ones who wouldn't have cared or even prefered God not be mentioned on money in the first place - would object.

[_Sethbag]

If my sons Biology teachers throughout his education were to never mention Evolution, that would be promoting something other than Evolution. He expects his Biology teachers to have a stance on Evolution, and by not mentioning it, they would be giving him an antagonistic view of it. This is of course an extreme example, but it still give you the general idea. If people feel like the government should have a stance on God, and they don't mention the topic, then that would be a similar case. The question is whether people feel this way or not.

A biology class specifically addresses the topics that evolution deals with. What aspect of government addresses the existence or non-existence of God? Why should anyone feel that a liberal democratic form of government should actually address the existence or non-existence of God in the first place? Ought that not to be the domain, for those interested in it, of the churches?

[_The Dude]

Okay, science should have a stance on evolution, since scientists thought it up to explain biology.

Now why should government have a stance on god? The religionists thought it up -- it's their business. The notion that government should have a stance on god is idiotic (where is PhysicsGuy getting this argument?), and also, detrimental to both government and religion in the long run. Or so the founding fathers thought....

Likewise, I'm fine if government has no stance on evolution. It's none of their business. However, it is their business to promote good science education for their citizens, and currently that includes evolution.

[_Seven]

I haven't had time to read the responses but wanted to add my feelings as a believer in Christ/God.

Seperation of church and state is more important to me now than it ever was. When you see the harmful effects and human suffering religion has caused those countries where there is no seperation of faith and government, I see dangers in allowing Christians to mix the two here in America. "God" is not a universal term that applies to all faiths. Each religion has it's own version of the nature of God and his words, leaders, morals, commandments....

If President Bush was Muslim, American "believers" would understand why atheists/agnostics have issues with leaders using their faith in office. Can you imagine Americans supporting a Muslim President who prays in public or for inspiration from "Allah" on matters of law, war, etc.?

The use of "God" should not be allowed anywhere in our government. It wasn't even a part of the items listed by the OP until 50 years ago, if I recall. It doesn't stop anybody from worshiping God how and where they choose. It only serves to protect our freedom of religion and the democracy that so much blood has been shed for.