Grassroots Atheism and Separation of Church and State

[EvolutionCalling]

I hear many (militant) Atheists chanting the same old 'separation of church and state' rhetoric without fully understanding the concept of it or bringing any useful dialog to the table in support of new legislation.  As most of you know, this term does NOT appear in the Constitution and is simply an interpretation derived from the First Amendment and is more or less the brainchild of Thomas Jefferson.

The complaints (whining) that always follows this are about "In God We Trust" found numerous places, "One Nation, Under God" in the pledge, and "So help me God" while swearing in.  Now, to me these are just words.  They don't define me, I don't believe in them, and I don't get offended by them.  In fact, you are even offered the opportunity to omit them if you so desire.  Now, when it's all said and done, I don't believe they should be there but I realistically don't see them going anywhere, anytime soon.

So how do we attack the task of pushing for solid, black and white, set in stone separation of church and state legislation?  Most surveys I have seen put the percentage of the population that believe in God between 84% and 95%, depending on the study you look at.  This means that we as Atheists are outnumbered, out funded, out resourced, and out 'fundamentalisted'.  So how can we combat this?  

I really feel that our best strategy would be multiple, small, grassroots campaigns around the country.  If we show up on Capital Hill and begin demanding this legislation, we are going to get bounced right off the steps and labeled as unpatriotic, God hating crazies.  Now, if we start this battle at the local level by petitioning municipalities, counties, and eventually state governments to remove religious references from their property, we can start building our case for the federal level.  

One thing we need to remember (aside from locking our militant counterparts in a closet somewhere) is we have to have all of our ducks in a row.  Any weakness, in any campaign will cause us to loose credibility; something we simply cannot afford.  We must know the Constitution through-and-through.  We need to know every document, letter, treaty, and reference to America NOT being founded on religious beliefs.  We need to have a working knowledge of religious texts so we can expect and counter any attacks from the fundamentalists.  We need to be able to quote crucial people in our Country's history that were anti-religion.  

In addition to all of these, we need to make it very clear we don't wish to infringe on anybody else's right to worship freely.  What people do on their private property or in their church is their business.  We aren't asking for people to take down the crosses in their lawns.  We aren't stopping people from praying in public, or even on government property, as long as they are respectful of other's wishes and not using government funds to accomplish their religious 'missions'.  We have to understand that can't deny people the same rights that we are trying to protect for ourselves.  

This can and has worked in the past.  Atheist groups have gotten religious symbols removed from government buildings (especially during the holiday season) before.  Florida did away with road-side crosses in favor of non-religious memorials.

Well, there is my idea on this issue.  Feel free to add to it, criticize it, pick it apart, or whatever.  I love that HAF is a place of open, honest discussion and welcome any comments.

Cheers  

[LARA]

I've always read that the phrase "separation of church and state" came from Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, specifically a "wall of separation'. (If only it were so!) So it has some precedent with the forefather's, but unfortunately they didn't see to completely and explicitly protect the rights of non-believers.  I've always thought the reference of "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God"  in the Declaration of Independence was a rather interesting one as it seems to exclude any supernatural Yawehisms  and magical creator people.  Not that anyone on the religious right I've read seems to want to interpret it this way as they only want it to mean the Christian God, which in my opinion seems to dislike nature and scientific law most intensely.

At any rate I don't have a lot of hope that grassroots rules of religious separation from government is going to work in the areas where it is really needed.  There seems to be a tone where I live that if people aren't allowed to inflict their religious beliefs on others at all times that they are being prevented from free speech.  Of course, it's only those who are supporting the Christian belief system that are being allowed to speak or pray at school functions, or put up monuments on state property.  It's really a weird, oppressive atmosphere at times to tell you the truth and if I had my druthers I'd be gone from the town I live in at 3.00 x 10^8 m/s rather than try to change it.

[weedoch]

Is it definitlely separation of religion and state you want, or is it a reduction in the christian monopoly? If you are most offended by christian symbols being used, why not invite groups from other religions to support your cause on the grounds that it's not about being anti-religion, but true freedom of expression. This could lend you credibility and give weight to the argument from the perspective that government buildings either represent all religions or, more sensibly, none. treat the christians as the bullies they are!

[pjkeeley]

Clearly if there are references to a single "God" then the state is pushing certain religions over others. After all, polytheism is still a dominant belief in the world today, as millions of Hindus will attest. Would it kill them to at least put an "s" in brackets?  :hmm:

[Asmodean]

It's tragic. America has "In God We Trust" on it's banknotes, the UK has a picture of Darwin

And it seems that Darvin money are doing it much better than the church-going American Dollars

[EvolutionCalling]

It isn't that I necessarily what a complete separation of church and state, but I don't wish to have our tax dollars pay for the sanctioning of one specific belief.  Then if we allow for the integration of multiple religions in our government, I think it would turn into a battle royale (which may or may not be bad thing  :brick:   So again, complete separation seems to be the most logical route.

[EvolutionCalling]

Is it definitlely separation of religion and state you want, or is it a reduction in the christian monopoly? If you are most offended by christian symbols being used, why not invite groups from other religions to support your cause on the grounds that it's not about being anti-religion, but true freedom of expression. This could lend you credibility and give weight to the argument from the perspective that government buildings either represent all religions or, more sensibly, none. treat the christians as the bullies they are!

I just reread this and realized what you are saying.  Yes, I would be more than happy to work with all religions for equal treatment and to ease Christianity's strangle hold on America.  And in the end, I think it would prove to be more sensible to not have any represented in government.

All in all, this is an issue that isn't going to be solved by attacking the federal government head on.  It is going to have to be worked from the ground up.

[karadan]

I wouldn't really mind if the UK bank notes had 'in god we trust' printed on them. I'd see it as the same kind of harmless god reference i've quoted the times i've sung our national anthem. In the times i have sung 'God save our gracious queen' i've never consciously thought 'i really hope god can keep her safe'... It is just something i sing every now and then (football matches, school events etc) and because i like England, i like to think I'm fairly patriotic. I have absolutely no qualm about singing it because it is more of a figure of speech than anything else. After all, i still say things like 'for gods sake!' and 'bloody hell!' as exclamations purely because those are the kinds of things i've conditioned myself to say when the appropriate situation arises. I guess I'm not so much of a purist to rid my life of every reference of god.

I do, however, get very scared when i hear the leader of a country thank god for a victory or if something goes well. I've always found that quite disturbing. On this point, i think that a government should act 100% independently from religion. They should defend peoples right to believe in what they want but should never pass laws for the sake of religious doctrine - ever.

However, If the full separation of church and state had the side effect of removing all religious symbolism/scripture from bank notes and government buildings, then i wouldn't bat an eye-lid.

Luckily there isn't really much call for religion in the UK government. I'm pretty sure most of our MP's have other things on their minds. That doesn't stop them from pandering to the whim of Islamic extremists and their unbelievably violent regime.... But that is another story, i guess.

[Evolved]

The complaints (whining) that always follows this are about "In God We Trust" found numerous places, "One Nation, Under God" in the pledge, and "So help me God" while swearing in.  Now, to me these are just words.  They don't define me, I don't believe in them, and I don't get offended by them.

I see these complaints as a reflection of the overall frustration that non-religious people have with the pervasiveness of Christianity within our government.  While the complaining is not particularly productive, I wouldn't call all of it whining.  It's great that it doesn't bother you.

I am much more disturbed and embarrassed that the 2008 presidential candidates were asked what their favorite bible verse is during a national debate (you can see a segment on YouTube).  I am also disturbed that the current Turd-In-Chief consulted the Pope regarding the issue of stem cell research.  Since I work in government, I am also tired of seeing how management will look the other way when religion is not kept out of the office.  I guess that my reaction to any religious influence now is pretty much knee-jerk.

So how do we attack the task of pushing for solid, black and white, set in stone separation of church and state legislation? Most surveys I have seen put the percentage of the population that believe in God between 84% and 95%, depending on the study you look at. This means that we as Atheists are outnumbered, out funded, out resourced, and out 'fundamentalisted'. So how can we combat this?

We are definitely outmanned and outgunned.  For now.

I don't think allowing religions to be taught in school is necessarily a bad thing either, provided certain stipulations are met. IE, religions receive equal treatment, they are offered as an elective only, and the teacher volunteers to teach that particular class, based on their own desire, for no compensation. I think it's just as unfair to force a Christian teach Evolution as it is for an Atheist to be forced to teach Creationism.

We dont' agree here.  Religion needs to be kept out of the public school system, unless it is to be confined to literature or mythology classes.  Impressionable children get enough of that crap at home; I don't want my tax dollars to go toward throwing it in their faces at school, too.  If a public school teacher is uncomfortable teaching about evolution, they need to find another job.

[Will]

Separation of church and state is simply a matter of maintaining secular government. I don't want governmental decisions based on religious doctrine. If you want to worship god or what have you, do so in your home or church.

As far as "In God We Trust", I really don't care. I don't take philosophical ques from $1 bills and people that do are welcome to do so. It strikes me as a "pick your battles" kinda thing when we really do have areas that require our collective attention.

If there were an organization of atheists and agnostics in the US, it'd be a better use of their time simply to remove religious influence from government. We need to get creationism out of public science classrooms as soon as possible. That would be a great place to start.

[EvolutionCalling]

I see these complaints as a reflection of the overall frustration that non-religious people have with the pervasiveness of Christianity within our government.  While the complaining is not particularly productive, I wouldn't call all of it whining.  It's great that it doesn't bother you.

I guess I didn't mean whining, so much as the whiny tone the complaints manage to take on.  The tone in which something is communicated makes all the difference, IMHO.

We dont' agree here.  Religion needs to be kept out of the public school system, unless it is to be confined to literature or mythology classes.  Impressionable children get enough of that crap at home; I don't want my tax dollars to go toward throwing it in their faces at school, too.  If a public school teacher is uncomfortable teaching about evolution, they need to find another job.

Well, I am not proposing we use tax dollars.  Again, I think the teacher should teach this class voluntarily with no compensation.  I am also not suggesting it should be a bible study either, but an informative look into the religion (at a high school level).  I know it's far-fetched, the bias of the teacher would most certainly turn the class into a sermon rather than a educational lecture.

[EvolutionCalling]

Separation of church and state is simply a matter of maintaining secular government. I don't want governmental decisions based on religious doctrine. If you want to worship god or what have you, do so in your home or church.

As far as "In God We Trust", I really don't care. I don't take philosophical ques from $1 bills and people that do are welcome to do so. It strikes me as a "pick your battles" kinda thing when we really do have areas that require our collective attention.

If there were an organization of atheists and agnostics in the US, it'd be a better use of their time simply to remove religious influence from government. We need to get creationism out of public science classrooms as soon as possible. That would be a great place to start.

I absolutely agree with your points.  I may not have been clear in my original post.  While I don't agree with the aforementioned phrases, the don't particularly bother me.  I guess what I was trying to say was, how can Atheists (as a whole) expect to get something as seemingly trivial (never mind larger issues) as these phrases removed without first having solid separation of church and state legislation; not just the current interpretations.

I agree 100% that religion has no place in public science classrooms, but without set-in-stone laws, can we seriously accomplish this?

[afreethinker30]

I remember awhile back in Indianapolis there was a court case over a church not paying taxes.I thought it was brilliant!A church is a business you come,recieve a product (faith,hope),pay then go home to shop again the next Sunday.

Reuters/February 13, 2001

Indianapolis -- Federal agents seized an Indianapolis church for millions of dollars in back taxes on Tuesday and carried out five members who refused to leave.

The Indianapolis Baptist Temple had been involved in a years-long dispute with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, refusing to withhold employee income, Social Security and other taxes, the government agency said. It claimed the church owed more than $6 million in back taxes and penalties.

The agency got a court order in 2000 allowing it to seize the property but members staged sit-ins and other protests. On Tuesday U.S. Marshals moved on the building, carrying out five church members who refused to budge.

A U.S. Marshal's Service spokesman said the operation took place without incident.

[Will]

I absolutely agree with your points.  I may not have been clear in my original post.  While I don't agree with the aforementioned phrases, the don't particularly bother me.  I guess what I was trying to say was, how can Atheists (as a whole) expect to get something as seemingly trivial (never mind larger issues) as these phrases removed without first having solid separation of church and state legislation; not just the current interpretations.

I agree 100% that religion has no place in public science classrooms, but without set-in-stone laws, can we seriously accomplish this?

How? Not voting for evangelicals. I'm safe and sound here in California, but those in Kentucky need to take their own destiny into their hands and remove evangelicals from power by voting for someone else or running against them.