Question for the Atheists and Agnostics

[_JAK]

How do you feel about the use of 'God' in our government - specifically:

The pledge of allegiance - one nation, under god
Money - 'in god we trust'
The 10 commandments on public property
The national anthem
etc.

3 years ago, I couldn't believe there were people who tried to have 'god' removed - specifically I remember the guy who sued the gov. because his daughter was being required to say the pledge, and he objected because it mentioned god.

Now however, I can see where he's coming from. Most of the 'god stuff' in government is a relatively new phenomenon (in the last 50 years).

Anyhow, how does this affect you Atheists, Agnostics, etc.? Does it bug you? Is it something you'd like to see changed? What are you willing to do about it? Or are you not bothered at all by it?

In more recent time, religion has become essential for political candidates in the USA. G.with.Bush has sharpened this as have his right-wing conservative religious supporters.

The reporters will make religion an issue in the debates.

The trick for a candidate is to appear [i]religious[i]. At the same time he/she must avoid being too specific. Keep it sufficiently vague for universal appeal.

However, for the right-wing conservative religious ideologues, that’s a difficult assignment. Generally, Americans want their politicians to have their religion. But that’s not practical or possible. There is such diversity of religion today that politicians are walking a tough line. John F. Kennedy was successful as he handled questions of religion. While a Roman Catholic officially, he was very likely an agnostic if not atheist in fact. But, he successfully navigated the religious quagmire.

That navigation today is far more difficult as a result of the control now enjoyed by Christians fundamentalist.

JAK

[_Loquacious Lurker]

I don't care one way or another to direct references to God, UNLESS the Fundies start pointing to those references as clear indications that the United States was founded upon Christian principles. (Anyone who entertains that delusion needs to review the founding fathers' clearly Deist statements).

However, regarding the posting of the Ten Commandments, I fail to see how antiquated Bronze Age thinking should be influencing our modern courtroom proceedures. Are we to expect that punishing adultery by stoning is tacitly approved by champions of this movement? How about breaking the Sabbath? Taking the Lord's name in vain? Coveting? I cannot understand why they wish to post a law code that is entirely outdated and which they themselves have no interest in enforcing.

[_Tommy]

I know this is an extreme example, but would you have a problem if the government decided to substitute 'god' with 'allah'? How about 'santa'? how about 'FSM'?

My dear brothers and sisters, trouble ye not over the diverse names of deity. In the missionary discussions we used to teach that most people believe in a supreme being, even though we might call him by different names. Alma did not at all flinch at King Lamoni's belief in a "Great Spirit" and pronounced the "Great Spirit" as in fact, God. Allah or the Flying Speghetti Monster are yet merely other names for God. Knowing this, I would not be bothered by their appearence on our currency.

How does this mystery of the gospel work? It's rather simple. The Lord has provided a way for most of the names of deity to refer, in fact, to our father in heaven of flesh and bone. Many years ago, the Lord gave a revelation to the Israelite known as Saul Kripke which was later recorded in a book known as Naming and Necessity. In this wonderful revelation, brother Kripke tells us that names, such as "Elohim" or "The Flying Speghetti Monster" are what we should call rigid designators. That is, they refer to the same thing across all possible worlds. They are in a sense, trivial. Yet, these rigid designators can hold identity relationships that are more interesting. For instance, "Hesperus is Phosphorus" is an identity relationship unlike "God" and "Supreme being" in that the latter is known a prior and the former a posteriori. And here is where the miracle of God happens. A heathen only speaks in contradiction to revelation in primary intension. The secondary intension of, for instance, the word "Allah" designates the true God of Mormonism though this is unknown at the time of speaking. In the same way, "water" for the ancients can be said to truly designate the same thing as "water" for us even though they were unaware that water is "H20". And this reference holds by metaphysical necessity even prior to later discovery. So while the world does not yet know the true Father in Heaven, those of us with testimonies understand that alternative names for diety necessarily refer to him.

[_DonBradley]

I'm pretty atheistic and would much rather see these things changed and, to borrow a phrase from Tom Jefferson, "a wall of separation" erected between religion and government.

That said, I think this is such a minor issue in today's political landscape that it should come way down the list of priorities, even, if not especially, for atheists and agnostics. If these religious elements of the state are ever to be removed, it will only be when the nation is less religious. So, rather than wage political and litigious (un)holy war against the country's 275 million-odd believers in God, and thereby antagonizing them and burning bridges, atheists and agnostics might want to consider building on common ground to address the truly consequential, rather than symbolic, issues of our time.

Don

[_Gorman]

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.

I agree here that the government should not be expected to address religion (at least the US government). I was merely stating this to show how some people (who think differently than you or me) may see it as a promotion of atheism if the government never mentions God. Whether these types of people are common or not is another question.

[_Gorman]

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.

Again, I agree that government should not have a say on the existence/non-existence of God. I guess I was just trying to see if there is a way that the government could be classified as promoting atheism by not saying anything. For me, personally, it would not be the case, but it would be for the hypothetical person who thought that the government should say something about God. 'Who Knows' got me thinking about it with his statement about theism deteriorating if the government never mentioned God (I don't think he meant it to come across this way).

The Evolution example was not a perfect one, but it got the point across that saying nothing can actually be saying something.

[_Who Knows]

Again, I agree that government should not have a say on the existence/non-existence of God. I guess I was just trying to see if there is a way that the government could be classified as promoting atheism by not saying anything. For me, personally, it would not be the case, but it would be for the hypothetical person who thought that the government should say something about God. 'Who Knows' got me thinking about it with his statement about theism deteriorating if the government never mentioned God (I don't think he meant it to come across this way).

The Evolution example was not a perfect one, but it got the point across that saying nothing can actually be saying something.

Actually, I did mean it to come across that way. The less people hear about god (from any and all sources - government included), the less likely they are to believe it, in my opinion.

And I can see your point about people's expectations. However, this is something the government could easily clear up. In fact, it wasn't really even an issue until 50 years ago. Perhaps people's expectations are off BECAUSE of the government.

[_Sethbag]

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.

At the very least we might say that God here is implicitly singular, hence there is a bias toward monotheism as opposed to all of the polytheistic or animist religions. If I'm not mistaken, Baal is but one member of a pantheon of gods in areas where Baal was considered to be a god. Am I mistaken here? In that case, it would be hard to argue that someone who believed in Baal could see the God in "In God We Trust" as having been Baal.

How many monotheistic religions have their been actually? Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, as far as I know, and not a whole lot else, but then I'm not exactly an encyclopedia of every religion out there, and undoubtedly someone will name another one and I'll smack my head and say yeah, I knew that. Maybe Zoroastrianism or something like that.

At any rate, treating God as a singular is still a bias toward one very small subset of all the gods that are being or have been worshipped on Earth.

[_Gorman]

oops. I think I accidentally quoted an old post. hehehe.

My mistake

[_Gorman]

Actually, I did mean it to come across that way. The less people hear about god (from any and all sources - government included), the less likely they are to believe it, in my opinion.

Interesting. Do you think that the government should have a stance on the Christian God? If not, then you would be outside of the classification I made. I guess it could be that you merely think that the phrases like "In God We Trust" are equivalent to free pop-up advertising for religion.