Atheist!
- Thread starter NoJo
- Start date
ungenderless
Slave to my muse
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2006
- Posts
- 1,236
Yes. It's all about the money.
Roxanne Appleby
Masterpiece
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2005
- Posts
- 11,231
The very idea of non-belief is a threat to those whose belief lacks any empirical basis.
There are two kinds of people who participate in mystical belief systems, including organized religion. Those who geniunely believe, and those who believe in belief. There are more of the latter (because their numbers include all of the former
.)
There are two kinds of people who participate in mystical belief systems, including organized religion. Those who geniunely believe, and those who believe in belief. There are more of the latter (because their numbers include all of the former
.)
3113
Hello Summer!
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2005
- Posts
- 13,823
True. And would you like to know when and why the pledge came about?izabella said:
It was all thanks to the Chicago's World's Fair of 1892. Toward the end of October, Chicago dedicated (but did not open) it's world's fair and Francis J. Bellamy, editor of Youths Companion magazine thought it would be nice if on that day, all school children offered something to their nation. So he mailed out the pledge to just about every school in the country.
It began: "I pledge allegiance, to my flag and to the Republic for which it stands...."
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
note to Joe
the founding fathers recognized the dangers of atheism, which is why they left states the power and authority to keep their laws against atheists holding office. at the federal level, there is no law, only custom.
incidentally, Joe, England and France were not much different; you must go a long way toward the present day when someone labels himself 'atheist' (Meslier, 17th cen, though it was a secret). Indeed Voltaire declined the label. i don't think an atheist could be King of England (?).
the reason atheists cannot be trusted--except for Objectivists who endorse the Pope's stand on most issues-- is because there is no moral sanction, ultimately, without God.
Here's what the David Roylance,director of a play about Meslier said:
Jean Meslier (1664-1729) was a Catholic priest in the poor country parish of Etripigny in the Ardennes, where he remained until his death. He was a dutiful priest, beloved by his flock, living in virtual poverty through his entire working life - and secretly was the most ardent atheist.
He did not believe a word of the book he preached from. He wrote his own book, a Testament that he left us on his deathbed, having hastened his own death after finishing his work. His Testament is a vicious and uncompromising attack on all forms of organised religion and the divine right of kings and the aristocracy.
By his own admission, within the Testament, Meslier was a coward. Since the punishment for preaching atheism was burning alive at the stake this is perhaps something we can understand and empathise with. As the director of the play I find it interesting that we are bringing this story to Edinburgh, the home of Thomas Aikenhead, the last man in the United Kingdom to be hanged for preaching atheism.
Meslier died so his Testament could live. He spoke to us from beyond the grave, despite not believing in any afterlife at all. Eventually his work reached Voltaire, who was very impressed with its passionate fervour and sentiment (despite his criticism of the writing style). Voltaire bowdlerised Meslier's Testament, turning it into a deist document rather than an atheist one
the founding fathers recognized the dangers of atheism, which is why they left states the power and authority to keep their laws against atheists holding office. at the federal level, there is no law, only custom.
incidentally, Joe, England and France were not much different; you must go a long way toward the present day when someone labels himself 'atheist' (Meslier, 17th cen, though it was a secret). Indeed Voltaire declined the label. i don't think an atheist could be King of England (?).
the reason atheists cannot be trusted--except for Objectivists who endorse the Pope's stand on most issues-- is because there is no moral sanction, ultimately, without God.
Here's what the David Roylance,director of a play about Meslier said:
Jean Meslier (1664-1729) was a Catholic priest in the poor country parish of Etripigny in the Ardennes, where he remained until his death. He was a dutiful priest, beloved by his flock, living in virtual poverty through his entire working life - and secretly was the most ardent atheist.
He did not believe a word of the book he preached from. He wrote his own book, a Testament that he left us on his deathbed, having hastened his own death after finishing his work. His Testament is a vicious and uncompromising attack on all forms of organised religion and the divine right of kings and the aristocracy.
By his own admission, within the Testament, Meslier was a coward. Since the punishment for preaching atheism was burning alive at the stake this is perhaps something we can understand and empathise with. As the director of the play I find it interesting that we are bringing this story to Edinburgh, the home of Thomas Aikenhead, the last man in the United Kingdom to be hanged for preaching atheism.
Meslier died so his Testament could live. He spoke to us from beyond the grave, despite not believing in any afterlife at all. Eventually his work reached Voltaire, who was very impressed with its passionate fervour and sentiment (despite his criticism of the writing style). Voltaire bowdlerised Meslier's Testament, turning it into a deist document rather than an atheist one
Last edited:
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
although 'under God' was a recent addition to the slightly less recent Pledge, the connection of the US government and the Xtian church is historic,
witness this, on the first Chaplain to the US Senate:
answers.com
Provoost, Samuel (prō'vōst) , 1742–1815, first Episcopal bishop of New York, b. New York City, grad. King's College (now Columbia Univ.), 1758. He studied at Cambridge and in 1766 was ordained. He was appointed assistant minister of Trinity parish in New York City. Because of his sympathy with the colonial cause, Provoost was forced (1771) to resign from Trinity but returned as rector in 1784. Created bishop of New York (1786), he was consecrated (1787) in England. He served as chaplain to the Continental Congress (1785) and to the U.S. Senate (1789).
from famousamericans.net
On his return [from England, in 1787], Bishop Provoost resumed his duties as rector of Trinity [Church, NY], the two positions being then filled by the same person. He was one of the trustees of Columbia college, and under the present constitution was elected chaplain of the United States senate. After his inauguration as president, Washington, with many other distinguished men proceeded on foot to St. Paul's church (see illustration), where Bishop Provoost read prayers suited to the occasion.
witness this, on the first Chaplain to the US Senate:
answers.com
Provoost, Samuel (prō'vōst) , 1742–1815, first Episcopal bishop of New York, b. New York City, grad. King's College (now Columbia Univ.), 1758. He studied at Cambridge and in 1766 was ordained. He was appointed assistant minister of Trinity parish in New York City. Because of his sympathy with the colonial cause, Provoost was forced (1771) to resign from Trinity but returned as rector in 1784. Created bishop of New York (1786), he was consecrated (1787) in England. He served as chaplain to the Continental Congress (1785) and to the U.S. Senate (1789).
from famousamericans.net
On his return [from England, in 1787], Bishop Provoost resumed his duties as rector of Trinity [Church, NY], the two positions being then filled by the same person. He was one of the trustees of Columbia college, and under the present constitution was elected chaplain of the United States senate. After his inauguration as president, Washington, with many other distinguished men proceeded on foot to St. Paul's church (see illustration), where Bishop Provoost read prayers suited to the occasion.
shereads
Sloganless
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Posts
- 19,242
For the same reason 'heretic' wasn't something to print on your business cards during the Inquisition, Joe. Athiesm is a denial of more than God's existence; it's a challenge to the mythology that supports the power structure: America was founded by believers seeking religious freedom; whatever else we are, we are because it's God's will.
With God's name on our currency, it's implicit that God sanctions our use of money and power. With Him directing our course, we can do all kinds of crazy things and not feel an ounce of remorse. Taking God out of the equation suggests that there ought to be a more rational, reasonable explanation for our actions as a nation than, "The Lord works in mysterious ways."
I read surveys that show Americans are almost universally religious, and I wonder how many people just parrot the answer that's socially acceptable. Either that, or a lot of us are hedging our bets. Growing up in a religioius household, some of us never outgrow the suspicion that God just might be the jealous persnikkity old coot whose wrath we were threatened with in Sunday School. Why risk answering, "No, I don't believe," when the consequence of being wrong is eternal damnation?
I suspect there are many church-going Americans for whom religion is more of a habit and a social structure than a spiritual experience. Ask them if they beieve in God, and they answer yes automatically, as if you'd asked if they love their wives and Support Our Troops. It only means something when you have to back up your answer by doing something you'd rather not do.
With God's name on our currency, it's implicit that God sanctions our use of money and power. With Him directing our course, we can do all kinds of crazy things and not feel an ounce of remorse. Taking God out of the equation suggests that there ought to be a more rational, reasonable explanation for our actions as a nation than, "The Lord works in mysterious ways."
I read surveys that show Americans are almost universally religious, and I wonder how many people just parrot the answer that's socially acceptable. Either that, or a lot of us are hedging our bets. Growing up in a religioius household, some of us never outgrow the suspicion that God just might be the jealous persnikkity old coot whose wrath we were threatened with in Sunday School. Why risk answering, "No, I don't believe," when the consequence of being wrong is eternal damnation?
I suspect there are many church-going Americans for whom religion is more of a habit and a social structure than a spiritual experience. Ask them if they beieve in God, and they answer yes automatically, as if you'd asked if they love their wives and Support Our Troops. It only means something when you have to back up your answer by doing something you'd rather not do.
Last edited:
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
here's a little bon-bon for S Joe
Thomas Aikenhead (baptised March 28, 1676-January 8, 1697),
--a young Edinburgh medical student who allegedly railed against the Holy Trinity, was judicially hanged for his offence on January 8, 1697. His execution, which raised considerable concern, was the last execution for blasphemy in Britain.
Thomas Aikenhead (baptised March 28, 1676-January 8, 1697),
--a young Edinburgh medical student who allegedly railed against the Holy Trinity, was judicially hanged for his offence on January 8, 1697. His execution, which raised considerable concern, was the last execution for blasphemy in Britain.
shereads
Sloganless
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Posts
- 19,242
Sub Joe said:
I did too. Go figure.
Recently, my sister found her teenaged son looking at porn. In an attempt to calm her before she traumatized the kid for life or had "bad boy" tattooed on his penis, I tried to come up with some positive aspects of pornography. "Denmark legalized porn," I invented, "and reduced the number of sex crimes."
She hissed, "Denmark is a secular country."
Oh. Allrighty, then.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
US was founded as having a DISestablished church, as far as FEDERAL LAW is concerned. Established churches (tax supported), existed in some states, legally, past the adoption of the Constitution.
Further, here is a little bit about 'blasphemy law' which is relevant, since "I deny God" counts as blasphemy. Note that the SC decision marking the elimination of blasphemy law is dated 1952
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy
In the United States, the First Amendment guarantees a relatively unlimited right of free speech, although some US states still have blasphemy laws on the books. Chapter 272 of the Massachusetts General Laws states, for example:
Section 36. Whoever wilfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior.
The history of Maryland's blasphemy statutes suggests that even into the 1930s, the First Amendment was not recognized as preventing states from passing such laws. An 1879 codification of Maryland statutes prohibited blasphemy:
Art. 72, sec. 189If any person, by writing or speaking, shall blaspheme or curse God, or shall write or utter any profane words of and concerning our Saviour, Jesus Christ, or of and concerning the Trinity, or any of the persons thereof, he shall, on conviction, be fined not more than one hundred dollars, or imprisoned not more than six months, or both fined and imprisoned as aforesaid, at the discretion of the court.
According to the marginalia, this statute was adopted in 1819, and a similar law dates back to 1723. In 1904, the statute was still on the books at Art. 27, sec. 20, unaltered in text.[1]. As late as 1939, this statute was still the law of Maryland.[2] It is unclear from the statutes and notes when Maryland's blasphemy statute was last prosecuted.
However, the US Supreme Court in Joseph Burstyn, Inc v Wilson 1952 held that the New York State blasphemy law was an unconstitutional prior restraint on freedom of speech. The court stated that "It is not the business of government in our nation to suppress real or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine, whether they appear in publications, speeches or motion pictures."
The last person to be jailed in the United States for blasphemy was Abner Kneeland in 1838, as decided by the Massachusetts case Commonwealth v. Kneeland.
Further, here is a little bit about 'blasphemy law' which is relevant, since "I deny God" counts as blasphemy. Note that the SC decision marking the elimination of blasphemy law is dated 1952
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy
In the United States, the First Amendment guarantees a relatively unlimited right of free speech, although some US states still have blasphemy laws on the books. Chapter 272 of the Massachusetts General Laws states, for example:
Section 36. Whoever wilfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior.
The history of Maryland's blasphemy statutes suggests that even into the 1930s, the First Amendment was not recognized as preventing states from passing such laws. An 1879 codification of Maryland statutes prohibited blasphemy:
Art. 72, sec. 189If any person, by writing or speaking, shall blaspheme or curse God, or shall write or utter any profane words of and concerning our Saviour, Jesus Christ, or of and concerning the Trinity, or any of the persons thereof, he shall, on conviction, be fined not more than one hundred dollars, or imprisoned not more than six months, or both fined and imprisoned as aforesaid, at the discretion of the court.
According to the marginalia, this statute was adopted in 1819, and a similar law dates back to 1723. In 1904, the statute was still on the books at Art. 27, sec. 20, unaltered in text.[1]. As late as 1939, this statute was still the law of Maryland.[2] It is unclear from the statutes and notes when Maryland's blasphemy statute was last prosecuted.
However, the US Supreme Court in Joseph Burstyn, Inc v Wilson 1952 held that the New York State blasphemy law was an unconstitutional prior restraint on freedom of speech. The court stated that "It is not the business of government in our nation to suppress real or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine, whether they appear in publications, speeches or motion pictures."
The last person to be jailed in the United States for blasphemy was Abner Kneeland in 1838, as decided by the Massachusetts case Commonwealth v. Kneeland.
shereads
Sloganless
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Posts
- 19,242
izabella said:
Don't mess with me, iz. My distant-but-not-distant-enough ancestor is Cotton Mather, the baddest bad-ass Puritan in the Massachusetts Colony, famous for his fire-and-brimstone sermons, his cheerleading for the Salem witch trials, his hair-raising suggestions on child-raising, and his green bean casserole.
