Letters: Atheists interfere with others' beliefs

Feb 28, 2012 Full story: WisInfo 253

Massachusetts parents are suing their school district because their children's rights to be atheists is being violated because they have to say the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Full Story
First Prev
of 13
Next Last
redneck

Glendale, OR

#1 Feb 28, 2012
Idiots, like the author of this article,refuse to understand that atheism is NOT a religion or faith. When that is used as an arguement, you may as well go home. This person can not be argued with.He(or she) is an idiot.
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#2 Feb 28, 2012
Entirely Agree Redneck,(if a foreigner may be permitted to comment :-)

Quote: The real problem here is the atheist's faith is taking precedent over the majority's faith. Unquote.

The letter is signed, "Mary Svitavsky" and she seems to reject the definition of atheism..
'One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods'- hardly a religion and certainly no act of faith.

This is why some atheists don't believe in calling ourselves 'atheist'. Even that confuses religionists!:-) We are all 'Pixeists' too, since we don't believe in Pixies, but that is no more of a religion than atheism.

Since: Sep 10

Earth

#3 Mar 1, 2012
Atheists are "interfering with others' beliefs" in the same way that laws against rape prevent men from having sex.

The only people being "prevented" from their practices are those trying to force themselves upon others. Forcing religion onto adults is akin to rape, and forcing religion upon children is akin to pedophilia. Just look at catholic priest kiddy fiddlers.

Those who want to religion or sex in private, and only with willing participants, aren't in any way affected or prevented from doing it. Only the dishonest claim otherwise.

.
Amused

Lowell, MA

#4 Mar 1, 2012
Atheists interfere with christians and muslims imposing their beliefs on others.

There, fixed it for you.

You're welcome.

Since: Dec 09

Falls of Rough, Kentucky

#5 Mar 1, 2012
redneck wrote:
Idiots, like the author of this article,refuse to understand that atheism is NOT a religion or faith. When that is used as an arguement, you may as well go home. This person can not be argued with.He(or she) is an idiot.
That would be valid argument if it wasn't for the atheist churches both online and brick / mortar now. Many atheists are admitting and taking advantage of (taxes and so on) of being a religion. The supreme court also agrees with the atheists because they have declared them a religion with the same freedom of speech and worship as any other religion. The atheists have finally came out of the closet and are admitting to being a religion. Next thing we need to work on is the atheist dogma of evolution, that religious teaching needs to removed from the schools, just like all other religious dogma. Remember separation of church and state?
Amused

Lowell, MA

#6 Mar 1, 2012
deray wrote:
<quoted text>
That would be valid argument if it wasn't for the atheist churches both online and brick / mortar now. Many atheists are admitting and taking advantage of (taxes and so on) of being a religion. The supreme court also agrees with the atheists because they have declared them a religion with the same freedom of speech and worship as any other religion. The atheists have finally came out of the closet and are admitting to being a religion. Next thing we need to work on is the atheist dogma of evolution, that religious teaching needs to removed from the schools, just like all other religious dogma. Remember separation of church and state?
So, if atheists believe in gravity, you'll demand that teaching about gravity be removed from schools?

Evolution isn't a religious belief, it is a scientific theory, supported by substantial evidence. Thinking a magical being poofed the universe into existence exactly as it exists today is a religious belief, wholly unsupported by evidence. Schools do, and should teach science. The fact that science directly contradicts the beliefs handed down from ancient goatherds which still have a substantial following among the ignorati in bucolic parts of America is irrelevant. Science stands on its own merits, and does not require faith or belief in talking snakes, talking donkeys or murderous deities who are also homophobic and misogynistic.

Since: Dec 09

Falls of Rough, Kentucky

#7 Mar 1, 2012
Amused wrote:
<quoted text>
So, if atheists believe in gravity, you'll demand that teaching about gravity be removed from schools?
Evolution isn't a religious belief, it is a scientific theory, supported by substantial evidence. Thinking a magical being poofed the universe into existence exactly as it exists today is a religious belief, wholly unsupported by evidence. Schools do, and should teach science. The fact that science directly contradicts the beliefs handed down from ancient goatherds which still have a substantial following among the ignorati in bucolic parts of America is irrelevant. Science stands on its own merits, and does not require faith or belief in talking snakes, talking donkeys or murderous deities who are also homophobic and misogynistic.
Nope, evolution is not science, it is a theory, unrepeatable and goes against all logic. It can not be supported with evidence, much of the so called evidence has been proven frauds, fakes through the years. Science is in full support of what is explained in the Bible. Homophobic, no one I know of is afraid of atheist homosexuals, nor is the people in the Bible.

The atheistic dogma of evolution is blind faith, because evolution can not be proven by any scientific method, never has been, never will. Now even your hero Dawkins admits to that and that belief in evolution is blind faith. With all the atheist churches poping up we can clearly see what atheist beleif has been all along. A state supported religion none the less, for shame, for shame. You have gone against your own sermons separation of church and state.

Since: Dec 10

Orefield, PA

#8 Mar 1, 2012
deray wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, evolution is not science, it is a theory, unrepeatable and goes against all logic. It can not be supported with evidence, much of the so called evidence has been proven frauds, fakes through the years. Science is in full support of what is explained in the Bible. Homophobic, no one I know of is afraid of atheist homosexuals, nor is the people in the Bible.
The atheistic dogma of evolution is blind faith, because evolution can not be proven by any scientific method, never has been, never will. Now even your hero Dawkins admits to that and that belief in evolution is blind faith. With all the atheist churches poping up we can clearly see what atheist beleif has been all along. A state supported religion none the less, for shame, for shame. You have gone against your own sermons separation of church and state.
see first post
Joe Fortuna

Eureka, CA

#9 Mar 9, 2012
deray wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, evolution is not science, it is a theory, unrepeatable and goes against all logic. It can not be supported with evidence, much of the so called evidence has been proven frauds, fakes through the years. Science is in full support of what is explained in the Bible. Homophobic, no one I know of is afraid of atheist homosexuals, nor is the people in the Bible.
The atheistic dogma of evolution is blind faith, because evolution can not be proven by any scientific method, never has been, never will. Now even your hero Dawkins admits to that and that belief in evolution is blind faith. With all the atheist churches poping up we can clearly see what atheist beleif has been all along. A state supported religion none the less, for shame, for shame. You have gone against your own sermons separation of church and state.
Why would a deity give each living thing the ability to evolve, if they don't?
According to the stories in the bible, there were only two humans that populated the earth. Without them being able to evolve, where did the different skin colors come from?

Here is some repeatable evidence that evolution takes place.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolu...
Joe Fortuna

Eureka, CA

#10 Mar 9, 2012
deray wrote:
<quoted text>
That would be valid argument if it wasn't for the atheist churches both online and brick / mortar now. Many atheists are admitting and taking advantage of (taxes and so on) of being a religion. The supreme court also agrees with the atheists because they have declared them a religion with the same freedom of speech and worship as any other religion. The atheists have finally came out of the closet and are admitting to being a religion. Next thing we need to work on is the atheist dogma of evolution, that religious teaching needs to removed from the schools, just like all other religious dogma. Remember separation of church and state?
There are a lot more book god believers that know the theory of evolution is true, than there are atheist.

Since: Dec 09

Falls of Rough, Kentucky

#11 Mar 9, 2012
Joe Fortuna wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would a deity give each living thing the ability to evolve, if they don't?
According to the stories in the bible, there were only two humans that populated the earth. Without them being able to evolve, where did the different skin colors come from?
Here is some repeatable evidence that evolution takes place.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolu...
That is easy enough, the variations of men, skin color is just one example, color of the eyes, texture of the hair, we can go on and on. These differences in variation of mankind are there from the very beginning and are even written about in the Bible by many of the family names an descriptions of the people.

Variation within types of creation is not evolution. Variations within types, variations in genes, occurs both within and among populations of the same animal for example, the finches of Galapagos Islands, a finch with different types of beaks, but still birds, still finches. We find no intermediates of the bird kingdom for example that is half bird and reptile such does not exist. No repeatable evidence in evolution theory, just somethings imagined or misinterpreted, sometimes completely faked or fraudulent.

Since: Dec 09

Falls of Rough, Kentucky

#12 Mar 9, 2012
Joe Fortuna wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would a deity give each living thing the ability to evolve, if they don't?
According to the stories in the bible, there were only two humans that populated the earth. Without them being able to evolve, where did the different skin colors come from?
Here is some repeatable evidence that evolution takes place.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolu...
Nothing has changed into a different creature here, it is the same Escherichia coli that has shown variation to its environment but it is still E. Coli, back to birds and the beak, still birds and the same bird at that.

Since: Dec 09

Falls of Rough, Kentucky

#13 Mar 9, 2012
LAW OF THE LAND
COURT RULES ATHEISM A RELIGION
Decides 1st Amendment protects prison inmate's right to start study group
Published: 08/20/2005 at 1:00 AM

A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate’s rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion.

“Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being,” the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said.

The court decided the inmate’s First Amendment rights were violated because the prison refused to allow him to create a study group for atheists.

Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, called the court’s ruling “a sort of Alice in Wonderland jurisprudence.”

“Up is down, and atheism, the antithesis of religion, is religion,” said Fahling.

The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described “secular humanism” as a religion.

Fahling said today’s ruling was “further evidence of the incoherence of Establishment Clause jurisprudence.”

“It is difficult not to be somewhat jaundiced about our courts when they take clauses especially designed to protect religion from the state and turn them on their head by giving protective cover to a belief system, that, by every known definition other than the courts’ is not a religion, while simultaneously declaring public expressions of true religious faith to be prohibited,” Fahling said.

http://www.wnd.com/2005/08/31895/

Since: Dec 09

Falls of Rough, Kentucky

#14 Mar 9, 2012
Torcaso, an atheist, refused to make such a statement, and his appointment was consequently revoked. Torcaso, believing his constitutional rights to freedom of religious expression had been infringed, filed suit in a Maryland Circuit Court.

The US Supreme courts have ruled in favor of atheism over and over again in regard to being a religion, with religious rights.

Since: Dec 09

Falls of Rough, Kentucky

#15 Mar 9, 2012
Is "Atheism, Secular Humanism" a "Religion

YES

http://vftonline.org/Patriarchy/definitions/h...

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#16 Mar 9, 2012
Dear deranged godbot,
two things become immediately apparent from your posts:-

1. You are scientifically illiterate, so you should refrain from commenting on such matters.
2. You have an extreme problem with reading with reading comprehension. That judgment said that atheists were to be given the same rights as a religion, not that atheists were a religious group.

So before you go shooting your mouth of get the facts straight.

Since: Dec 10

Orefield, PA

#17 Mar 10, 2012
deray wrote:
LAW OF THE LAND
COURT RULES ATHEISM A RELIGION
Decides 1st Amendment protects prison inmate's right to start study group
Published: 08/20/2005 at 1:00 AM
A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate’s rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion.
“Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being,” the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said.
The court decided the inmate’s First Amendment rights were violated because the prison refused to allow him to create a study group for atheists.
Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, called the court’s ruling “a sort of Alice in Wonderland jurisprudence.”
“Up is down, and atheism, the antithesis of religion, is religion,” said Fahling.
The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described “secular humanism” as a religion.
Fahling said today’s ruling was “further evidence of the incoherence of Establishment Clause jurisprudence.”
“It is difficult not to be somewhat jaundiced about our courts when they take clauses especially designed to protect religion from the state and turn them on their head by giving protective cover to a belief system, that, by every known definition other than the courts’ is not a religion, while simultaneously declaring public expressions of true religious faith to be prohibited,” Fahling said.
http://www.wnd.com/2005/08/31895/
What the court said, is that they must treat atheism AS a religion(In that particular case). The court did not decree that atheism IS a religion.

Since: Dec 10

Orefield, PA

#18 Mar 10, 2012
deray wrote:
Is "Atheism, Secular Humanism" a "Religion
YES
http://vftonline.org/Patriarchy/definitions/h...
Actually, your post included the word "atheism", which isn't in the link you provided. That's called "dishonesty" and is a common trait of you religious folks.

As for the link.... It says that a very few folks consider secularism a religion. They are the exception, not the rule. Are these "atheist churches" that you are so hung up on tax exempt?
NO
They are not recognized as a religion.

Since: Dec 09

Falls of Rough, Kentucky

#19 Mar 10, 2012
Richardfs wrote:
Dear deranged godbot,
two things become immediately apparent from your posts:-
1. You are scientifically illiterate, so you should refrain from commenting on such matters.
2. You have an extreme problem with reading with reading comprehension. That judgment said that atheists were to be given the same rights as a religion, not that atheists were a religious group.
So before you go shooting your mouth of get the facts straight.
Definitely said atheism is a religion, your in denial. All the court cases was based on religion. Facts is facts is facts...

Since: Dec 09

Falls of Rough, Kentucky

#20 Mar 10, 2012
The serpent was right wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, your post included the word "atheism", which isn't in the link you provided. That's called "dishonesty" and is a common trait of you religious folks.
As for the link.... It says that a very few folks consider secularism a religion. They are the exception, not the rule. Are these "atheist churches" that you are so hung up on tax exempt?
NO
They are not recognized as a religion.
No that's calling a spade a spade, secularism (atheism) has been declared a religion by the supreme court. Two atheist churches that have applied to the IRS and received tax exempt status as a religion...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 13
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 32 min polymath257 232,793
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 38 min Eagle 12 2,275
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 44 min EXPERT 23,181
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 3 hr _Bad Company 120
Islam is the Enemy (Sep '12) 6 hr Thinking 28
God' existence 7 hr Thinking 57
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 8 hr thetruth 1,442
More from around the web