Another atheism thread (sorry)

[Upchurch]

Okay, I know the subject has been played to death by just about everyone, but I stumbled across something I want to share.

For a totally unrelated matter, I was referenceing something in John R. Vile's A Companion To The United States Constitution And Its Ammedments when I came across the following passage:

[Chief Justice William] Rehnquist, whose views on church and state are accommodationistic, has argued that the establishment clause is violated only when the government officially establishes a national religion or when it favors one religion over another; he does not think it should preclude either general government benefits to religion or require state neutrality between religion and irreligion.

A couple of things popped out at me from this rather long sentince. First of all, the word "irreligion". I wasn't familiar with it, so I looked it up here. Not terribly helpful, but this was.

irreligious
1 : neglectful of religion : lacking religious emotions, doctrines, or practices [so irreligious that they exploit popular religion for professional purposes -- G. B. Shaw]
2 : indicating lack of religion

I came to realize that not only is atheism not a religion, it is, in fact, an irreligion.

However, once I made that revelation, I went back and reread what that passage said: "he does not think it should preclude either general government benefits to religion or require state neutrality between religion and irreligion."

Maybe I should ask this over in Politics, but what does that mean? Is he saying that Rehnquist thinks that States should be allowed to legally treat theists and atheists differently? And in terms of what, exactly?

 

[arcticpenguin]

Maybe I should ask this over in Politics, but what does that mean? Is he saying that Rehnquist thinks that States should be allowed to legally treat theists and atheists differently? And in terms of what, exactly?

That seems to be what he is saying. I guess you would have to ask Rehnquist what he had in mind.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Okay, I know the subject has been played to death by just about everyone, but I stumbled across something I want to share.

For a totally unrelated matter, I was referenceing something in John R. Vile's A Companion To The United States Constitution And Its Ammedments when I came across the following passage:
A couple of things popped out at me from this rather long sentince. First of all, the word "irreligion". I wasn't familiar with it, so I looked it up here. Not terribly helpful, but this was.
I came to realize that not only is atheism not a religion, it is, in fact, an irreligion.

However, once I made that revelation, I went back and reread what that passage said: "he does not think it should preclude either general government benefits to religion or require state neutrality between religion and irreligion."

Maybe I should ask this over in Politics, but what does that mean? Is he saying that Rehnquist thinks that States should be allowed to legally treat theists and atheists differently? And in terms of what, exactly?

Well, I see

... to not " require state neutrality between religion and irreligion .. "

... as a green light to favor one over the other.. It does seem to bear clarification, in the absense of which, I would conclude, violates the First Amendmant..




(... Trying to avoid short incorrect sentences. How am I doing?)

 

[Fade]

Re: Re: Another atheism thread (sorry)

That seems to be what he is saying. I guess you would have to ask Rehnquist what he had in mind.

That would require actually listening to him. He's painfully awful.

 

[Upchurch]

Re: Re: Another atheism thread (sorry)

as a green light to favor one over the other.. It does seem to bear clarification, in the absense of which, I would conclude, violates the First Amendmant..

I'm sure you're aware of this but the passage above was in relation to this part of the first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

(... Trying to avoid short incorrect sentences. How am I doing?)

Fine except you've missed the sentence fragments

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Okay, so let's get the states in on the atheism thing! They can support atheists in all sorts of great ways. And there won't be a separation of church and state issue, because irreligion is not religion.

~~ Paul

 

[Fun2BFree]

If the state could only be neutral!!!! THis is such a hard concept for people...they act like taking IN GOD WE TRUST off the money somehow is taking sides...What if we put on the money _THERE IS NO GOD...according to Rehnquist that would not be a violation of the Constitution --it does not prohibit the free exercise of religion --it is no more a prohibition of the free exercise than the current motto is an establishment of a national religion...

AGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

BTW-polls show that more Canadians are atheistic in belief than ever before ---yet their Constitution starts by invoking God, mentionig HIM as the source of all liberty or some such...any body have the exact quote...?

 

[Yahweh]

Is he saying that Rehnquist thinks that States should be allowed to legally treat theists and atheists differently?

It doesnt sound like it.

Its always been my assumption that we treat all people no better, no worse than anyone else. Not for the color of a persons skin, not for a persons ancestory, not for a persons sexual orientation, no reason at all. If this person thinks that atheists should be treated differently from theists, then perhaps he has misplaced morality.

If the time comes to when atheists are treated differently than theists, surely we will have no hard time saying that black people should be treated differently than white people (not meant as an analogy).

 

[TexasBEAST]

Rehnquist supports the pro-religion-in-general, "nonpreferentialist" interpretation of the nonestablishment clause. That interpretation says it's OK to support religion in general, as long as no one religion is preferred or favored. Such a policy would invariably favor religionists, and not irreligionists. So, yeah, seems like Rehnquist is advocating different treatment for religionists versus irreligionists. He would personally approve of laws that were more representative of the will of religious people than of nonreligious people, and would find it acceptable if nonreligionists found themselves thus disenfranchised.

 

[Darwin]

Upchurch

But atheists can,by definition,be religious (while it probably is not usual)

 

[arcticpenguin]

It doesnt sound like it.

Its always been my assumption that we treat all people no better, no worse than anyone else. Not for the color of a persons skin, not for a persons ancestory, not for a persons sexual orientation, no reason at all. If this person thinks that atheists should be treated differently from theists, then perhaps he has misplaced morality.

If the time comes to when atheists are treated differently than theists, surely we will have no hard time saying that black people should be treated differently than white people (not meant as an analogy).

Careful. The question wasn't "What is right?" or "What is constitutional?", but "What does Supreme Court justice Rehnquist believe?"

 

[Upchurch]

Re: Upchurch

But atheists can,by definition,be religious (while it probably is not usual)

religiously irreligious?

You know, I used to think that too, but now I'm not so sure that's really the proper word for an atheists who does not question their atheism. Instead of a "religious atheist" would it be an "irreligious atheist"?<hr>

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
Careful. The question wasn't "What is right?" or "What is constitutional?", but "What does Supreme Court justice Rehnquist believe?"

Actually, I think the question was more of an almagam like, "Is what Supreme Court Justice Rehnquist believes constitutional or right?"

 

[Dancing David]

Oook, more revisionism here, the statement is meant for future Justices to ponders and state. "It is okay to have the bussiness laws of the USA abrogated because R. said so in this footnote".

This is the judicial legislation that conservatives decry so heavily. We have a long standing history of seperating chuch and state. They are trying to open the door to other things.
1. religous organizations can practise descrimination.
2. religous oraganizations can recieve government money but be excluded from all equality obligations.
3. government expression of religion will no longer be banned.

But there is an inherent dichotomy of thought, religous organizations can descriminate based upon religions , priviledged status. But religion will be not longer excleded. So they get eat the cake and keep it too.

Tax the Churches!

 

[ntech]

I often describe myself as a devote atheist.

You should see the looks.

 

[BobM]

"Devout" is the word you were looking for. No wonder you get strange looks.

 

[ntech]

"Devout" is the word you were looking for. No wonder you get strange looks.

oops!

 

[Ricomise]

Is he saying that Rehnquist thinks that States should be allowed to legally treat theists and atheists differently?

This is exactly what he is saying. Mr. Chief Justice Rehnquist has long been on record as believing that the "establishment clause" only means that the government may not favor one religion over another. He, along with Scalia (and by extension, I must assume , Thomas), are of the opinion that the "Lemon Test" that is ostensibly used to answer "establishment clause" questions, is misguided. (In fact, Scalia wrote a somewhat humorous dissent in a case I don't recall the name of likening the "Lemon Test" to a horror movie zombie or ghoul.)

While not wanting to put words in their mouths, I would not hesitate to put them in the "freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion" crowd.

In my opinion, this view is not supported either from the text of the Constitution or from an analysis of the history surrounding the enactment of the 1st Amendment.