One Nation Under God?

"Article Seven mentions, "the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred eighty seven..." "

The use of the therm "in the year of our lord" was standard legal boilerplate text that ALL legal and constitutional scholars acknowledge had lost ALL religious meaning (and therefore can NOT be used to imply that the country was intended to be a religious nation.) It was simply a carryover form English legal text.


"that eleven of the thirteen original colonies gave religious tests for public office. They required faith in Jesus Christ and the Bible as a basic qualification for holding public office. "

As for the state requiring religious tests for office it has been determined that ALL of those requirements are superceded by Article VI Section 3 of the US Constitution which clearly and unequivocally states that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Therefore the founding fathers clearly intended that religion was NOT to be considered.

It was a dating system that was standard in important documents of the time, and these men were educated and raised in very religious systems that were tied to education. It was a formality, the fact that it is the only place in the entire constitution where lord or god or any of that shows up should have a little more importance! A strong document that our nation is based on, and you pick out the date to point out??? That is a weak argument!!

There is a problem with showing your faith in "citizenship and politics". Whatever public policies are passed based on your religious beliefs and values everyone has to live with, including people with different religious beliefs and values than yours. For example, many Christians believe that homosexuality is wrong and thus oppose gay marriage. Homosexuals who do not believe homosexuality is wrong have to live with this. Unfortunately, there are a substantial enough Christians who can still support and pass laws based on their Judeo-Christians values and those who do not fully share these values are a minority who can have our rights to our lifestyle and beliefs infringed upon. Moreover, there are a number of fanatical Christians who do not adequately respect people of different beliefs and overtly want there religion put into public policy. Us non-Christians would greatly appreciate it if the Christians kept their religious beliefs and values out of public policies that effect all of us. We do not wish to be mandated to believe in Christianity or Christian values.

This doesn't mean you can't practice your religion or make it a part of being how you go about being a citizen. If you want to pray for the well-being of our country, that's fine. But keep your personal religion and values out of public policy.

In fact, to support what I said to you memyselfni, in your 04/08/2009 3:50:03 PM post you complained

"How rude of the religious right to insert thier ideals into the rest of our lives. ... I did not raise my children to interrupt other's lives by going door to door to BEG people to see the supposed light."

and later in the same post you say

"I may, however, reconsider going door to door to bother eveyrone on Sunday's to interrupt thier day of worship to explain how fruitless thier persuit of truth is if it is only to HOPE for a better day."

This is inconsiderate and an hypocritical. You should really think about how religious people will see this and how it will impact how they view atheists, including myself.

Memyselfni, atheists should not be going door to door. I personally feel that I am an atheist not only because I don't believe in god (though strictly speaking this is all it means to be an atheist) but because I object in some ways to organized religion. To be precise, I don't think organized religion is for me and I don't like religious fanaticism. NOTE that I do not object to other people practicing their religious beliefs in general (I only object others being fanatics). I think a lot of atheists feel the same way. Even Dawkins and Hitchens express openly that they don't believe there is a god, but that some have committed atrocities in the name of religion.

If we start going door to door and lecturing people, we are no better the religious people we complain about. Proselytizing and imposing their beliefs on others is something religious people do. We can not expect other to respect our beliefs if we do not respect their religious beliefs. We can not complain about fanaticism and then act like a bunch of militant fanatics. While we should lead by example, showing the own can live a virtuous life based on self restraint and no religion, we should not ask everyone else to do the same. To push our beliefs onto others is hypocritical and simply stupid and is harmful to atheism and we are treated by others.

NOTE to the religious people reading this: this is not intended to offend you. I am only establishing that some (not all or even most) religious people overstep, atheists complain about this, and that for atheists to overstep is hypocritical and self-defeating. I have no complaints with the average religious person practicing their faith.