Thou Shalt Not Pray - Does the Constitution hate God? By Dahlia Lithwick
This was a pretty interesting and thought-provoking article by Dahlia Lithwick on Slate today - I agree with most of the article, but this passage seemed to leap out at me -
… Because we live in a zero-sum constitutional world. In order to be “neutral” toward all religions, including atheism, the courts have had to erect equal barriers to all. In order to privilege no religion (or even non-religion) the courts have elected to privilege none. This includes the vague “Judeo-Christian” theism that most Americans would probably like to see more of in the public square.But then isn’t atheism vs. religion of any kind a zero-sum game too? How do you put barriers against some thing like atheism, that stands on non-belief as opposed to religion? If you put too many barriers against religion, you are inherently in favor of atheism and making it an atheist’s world - on the other hand, if you allow too much religion to encroach in public venues, you are endorsing anti-atheism implicitly and thus making them feel uncomfortable and run over - what is a fair balance? Posted by shanti at August 22, 2003 10:34 AM
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.realwomenonline.com/scgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/2768
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Religion or Atheism?:
it’s even more confused than that-some religions are atheistic! (variants of hinduism, like jainism, and you can interpret buddhism in such a fashion, confucianism too, etc.)
Posted by: razib at August 22, 2003 6:06 PM
Neither the Alabama nor the Federal Constitution prohibits display of what may be religious texts or symbols by a government, but they do both outlaw giving blatant preference to a particular religion (or atheism, which is a sort of religion). As I have posted elsewhere, Judge Moore could have included some other tradition (I amuse myself by saying he could have used a statue of Ganesha appearing to read the text) and been on somewhat better ground [this is, by the way, also a response to those who point to a display of the Ten Commandments in the building of SCOTUS - it is not only unobtrusive, but surrounded by figures and texts from other traditions].
Or, of course, he could have used a better example of the basis of our system of law, one that probably pre-dates Judaism - The Code Of Hammurabi, the first known publishing of law for all and also the first known abided-by declaration that the law of the land will be applied to all, from princes to collectors of nightsoil.
Posted by: John Anderson at August 24, 2003 12:14 PM
The Raving Atheist has answered your question, I think.
Posted by: MadMan at August 25, 2003 11:15 PM
I don’t think he does, MadMan - at least the analogy he picked is totally wrong - let’s say we look at the same situation from a Hindu point-of-view - the Gita says do all you can do help a situation, just don’t expect anything in return. That means that we should add another option to the list of options he has presented, which would be take as good care of her as possible and she might live or die, but you are not guilty of anything, since you tried your best to save her.
In short, that is what the State would do under ideal circumstances - does that mean Hinduism is being endorsed? Just because God is not being invoked officially doesn’t necessarily make the law atheistic, for if it were, we wouldn’t be swearing oaths in court on our holy books.
Posted by: Shanti at August 26, 2003 7:21 AM
Just because God is not being invoked officially doesn’t necessarily make the law atheistic, for if it were, we wouldn’t be swearing oaths in court on our holy books
Just to clarify: swearing on holy books is completely optional. If you don’t believe in a god, you can simply choose an “affirmation” instead of an “oath”.
Reply to the rest will be in the morning when I’m not so doggone tired.
Posted by: MadMan at August 26, 2003 2:26 PM
True, MadMan - but the very fact that it is “optional” and not completely “rejected” beats down the very basis of an atheistic law, since atheists don’t consider God as “optional” - they reject the very concept of God.
Posted by: Shanti at August 27, 2003 9:13 AM
i hate you
Posted by: Raven at October 21, 2004 5:47 PM
Thanks, Raven - you should still learn how to punctuate, though…
Posted by: Shanti at October 22, 2004 7:54 AM