It appears to me that there is a conceptual framework based on the excesses of medieval Christianity that still defines current Christianity for some. I do not see any evidence of "deceit and murder, abuse of human rights and usurpation of Constitutional norms" in modern Christianity.
In fact, Christianity has suffered from the usurpation of Constitutional norms, as it has been chased from the public square it once shared with atheists. Sure, atheists were out numbered in that earlier shared public square, but the various interested parties had on the whole a voice commensurate with their numbers.
Today, as Christianity is physically chased from the lawns of town halls, as court rooms are cleared of the 10 commandments in towns unable to defend their right to such expression, and students fight to lead prayer at school, we increasingly see an atheistic minority in our public square with a voice far in excess of the minority position they hold. This silencing in the public square of the religious majority, I would argue, is the genesis of an atheocratic state within the US.
In fact, Christianity has suffered from the usurpation of Constitutional norms, as it has been chased from the public square it once shared with atheists. Sure, atheists were out numbered in that earlier shared public square, but the various interested parties had on the whole a voice commensurate with their numbers.
Today, as Christianity is physically chased from the lawns of town halls, as court rooms are cleared of the 10 commandments in towns unable to defend their right to such expression, and students fight to lead prayer at school, we increasingly see an atheistic minority in our public square with a voice far in excess of the minority position they hold. This silencing in the public square of the religious majority, I would argue, is the genesis of an atheocratic state within the US.
When we leave a single religion in the public square after having silenced all other religions, atheism included, we create a theocracy. But when we silence all religions leaving only atheism in the public square we create a greater evil, an atheocracy.
During the 20th century we have seen atheocratic states from the Soviet Union, to China, to North Korea, to WWII Germany and we have witnessed the extreme horrors soulless men are capable of levying against humanity. There is no example of the atheocratic state's counterpart, the theocratic state, exceeding the atrocities of man unleashed through atheism.
To be clear, I do not argue for a theocratic state, only to scale it against the athocratic state in terms of abuse toward humanity. What I do argue for, is the inclusion of religion in all its forms (as well as non religion, athesim) in the public square.
There is a strength in such diversity. It was evident among the various beliefs of the founders of our nation and reflected when crafting the Constitution (even today atheists and the religious each point to aspects of the Constitution that reflect their thinking) and it was a strength the US was able draw upon until the mid 20th century when it began to fade due growth in government and the growth of government's natural lust for an atheocratic state. In fact, it was this diversity in which no single religion or non religion (atheism) had the public square to itself that added to what we think of as American exceptionalism today, for in what other nation can we find such respect and tolerance for our fellow man that men allow each their voice regardless of the group with which they identify.
One can argue for the atheocratic state if they wish, but the morality of such an argument is sorely lacking considering modern evidence.
One can argue for the atheocratic state if they wish, but the morality of such an argument is sorely lacking considering modern evidence.
out
"One can argue for the atheocratic state if they wish, but the morality of such an argument is sorely lacking considering modern evidence."
ReplyDeleteNot in the minds of certain people whose worldviews allow them to rationalize anything that's convenient to advance their cause.
plenty of ranting, but zero examples of all this "atheism" in the public square, or how it's supposedly keeping out everyone else.
ReplyDeleteIt seems self evident every Christmas. It seems self evident in every courtroom. It seems self evident when students in school fight for the right to lead prayer.
ReplyDeleteBut you are correct, I will add examples to my post.
Thanks.
Added. It was an egregious omission. Again, thanks.
ReplyDeleteWell, now I disagree with your examples:
ReplyDelete"Christianity chased from the lawns of town halls" --
Are atheists allowed to decorate town halls, and Christians not given the same opportunity?
No, neither atheists nor Christians get to do that. This isn't an example of atheists at an advantage at all. It's treating both equally.
"Court rooms cleared of 10 commandments" --
Again, are atheists putting things up on courtroom walls while Christians are prevented?
No, neither atheists nor Christians get to do that. This isn't an example of atheists at an advantage at all. It's treating both equally.
"Students fight to lead prayer at school" --
Do atheists get to lead students in chanting "gods are myths"? No.
No, neither atheists nor Christians get to do that. This isn't an example of atheists at an advantage at all. It's treating both equally.
Christians can pray at school if they want to, of course.
Sorry, none of your examples are valid.
None of the examples you give are examples of atheism.
ReplyDeleteAccording to most Atheists, atheism is the absence of religion, therefore the absence of their decoration is itself atheist decoration.
The examples of atheism you provide are in reality atheism as defined against religion.
Interestingly, I have made the case previously on this blog that atheism is a religion based on the argument that atheism and religion are at opposite ends of the same continuum of faith.Just as one relies on faith that there is a God, the other relies on faith that there is no God, the commonality being that with neither being more provable that the other they are each faith based.
If, you are prepared to declare atheism a religion which you seem to do when you suggest atheists are equally prohibited from public displays of belief as the religious, then you should realize that as a religion atheists would be treated no differently from other religious. Additionally you should be prepared for the fact that atheists generally do not partake in public displays of faith and just because they do not choose to do so does not imply others should be barred from their displays of faith.
Really, it is a fool's errand to argue that barring expression equally among all participants is moral because it is based on equal opportunity restrictions.
There should be no expectation that we all partake in life equally.
"According to most Atheists, atheism is the absence of religion, therefore the absence of their decoration is itself atheist decoration."
ReplyDeleteUh, no. A blank wall is not advocating atheism.
"Really, it is a fool's errand to argue that barring expression equally among all participants is moral because it is based on equal opportunity restrictions."
I didn't say it was moral; I was pointing out that it was an even playing field.
"There should be no expectation that we all partake in life equally."
But what if an atheist and a Christian both want to partake in, say, putting stuff up at town hall, but only one is allowed to do so? Is it OK with you if the government decides to treat them differently?
"Uh, no. A blank wall is not advocating atheism."
ReplyDeleteBut we are not discussing just any blank wall. We are discussing a wall once adorned with perhaps the Ten Commandments. When that wall has been rendered mute through the force of governance then that government is acting in an atheocratic manner thus the blank wall becomes atheism advocated.
"I didn't say it was moral; I was pointing out that it was an even playing field."
Sorry, I read "even playing field" as "morality". But what you call an equal playing field of equal opportunity restrictions is not an equal playing field. It is one in which the blank wall of an atheocratic government advocates atheism while the religious are silenced.
The problem as I see it is that there are two types of atheist.
The first and more pure is the atheist that sees religion as a nothing. They do not believe, therefore the Ten Commandments on a courtroom wall means nothing to them.
The second and less pure atheist is the one that defines atheism against religion. Theirs is a faith in no God as defined against those who believe in God. These are the atheists who despite their claims that they do not believe in God are actively anti-religion and view God (that which does not exist) as a threat to their beliefs. This is the atheism that has expelled all other religions from the public square. This is the atheism of intolerance. This is atheism -- the religion.
Of course, the second type of atheist claims that they fall in the first category so as to claim the mantle of objectivity. Of course, they are not objective, for if they were they would not be forcing religion from the public square. Unfortunately, the more prevalent type of atheism is the second, thus atheism has devolved into something ugly and intolerant.
"But what if an atheist and a Christian both want to partake in, say, putting stuff up at town hall, but only one is allowed to do so? Is it OK with you if the government decides to treat them differently?"
No. Just as the Constitution is festooned with both atheism and religious references so too should our modern expressions of national self be festooned across our public squares.
"We are discussing a wall once adorned with perhaps the Ten Commandments."
ReplyDeleteYes, but the courts have ruled that illegal. Christians/Jews don't get to promote their religion by posting religious laws on courtroom walls that are for ALL people. Removing them is the proper solution.
"Just as the Constitution is festooned with both atheism and religious references so too should our modern expressions of national self be festooned across our public squares."
So does this mean if the 10 commandments go up on some courtroom wall, atheists get to put up a sign saying "gods are myths"?