Atheist Billboard Vandalized

[Opsa]

I just saw this.

Apparently an American atheist group made a billboard reading "One Nation Indivisible", which is how the US Pledge of Allegiance originally read. The Knights of Columbus (a Catholic Group) somehow managed to have the words "under God" installed between "nation" and "indivisible" in 1954. Some are trying to have that reversed, and personally I'm with them, since I support the separation of church and state.

Well, someone defaced the sign by adding the new line "under God". I'm sorry to say I'll bet they're not doing anything to catch the offenders.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

North Carolina is slowly moving forward but it will take a while, therefore it isn't surprising, not the incident nor the attitude from the police.

Logic suggests that cameras should be guarding the billboards so that the next time there is evidence of the defacement and the police will be forced to act.

Hey, it could be worse, it could be South Carolina...

[Aggie]

How about "One Nation Under the Invisible"?

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

[Ageis]

One nation indivisible?

So was that written before or after the civil war?

Attempts to divide state and religion never seems to prove very effective. I guess because politicians love to use religious dogma to futher support for their campaigns and priests love to use political policy to futher their religious dogmas

[Griffin NoName]

Attempts to divide state and religion never seems to prove very effective.

We've done it pretty well in the UK. Enough to annoy the Pope on his recent visit.

Our politicians never bring G-d into anything. The most they do is attend religious ceremonies to mourn the famous dead or Royal marriages etc.

The fact that other countries aren't like this bemuses me.

[Sibling DavidH]

Yes - on atheist forums I've seen Americans condemn the UK for having bishops in the House of Lords and for having an established church.  I've always pointed out that this is little more than redundant tradition.  The USA has In God We Trust as a motto and on its coins - the vaunted separation of religion and state has been greatly weakened since independence.

To my mind, the acid test is this: in England few politicians mention religion, and those that do take a lot of flak for it, whereas  in the USA it is virtually impossible for a declared atheist to be elected to any public office.

[Opsa]

You're quite right about this.

We have a lot of atheists in the USA, but the struggle is with the middle states, where most people are farmers, an occupation that relies on the mercy of nature, which makes for more of a religious attitude, I think. We are reluctant to mess with the fierce beliefs of these people because what they do feeds the rest of us. Even though most see it as a little old-fashioned, I think we are trying to respect their way of life. I don't know whether they respect ours, but that's something we all need to work on.

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

I suspect it has more to do with them outnumbering nonbelievers and the fact that they will scream if religion isn't mentioned in every third paragraph. Or, at least in many cases.

To my mind, the acid test is this: in England few politicians mention religion, and those that do take a lot of flak for it, whereas  in the USA it is virtually impossible for a declared atheist to be elected to any public office.

Yep. There was an Elizabeth Dole ad a few years ago, castigating her opponent for consorting with and receiving support from atheists.

[Bluenose]

Well our recently elected Prime Minister is a declared atheist and thatfact did not figure at all that I could see in the election campaign.  No doubt some in the looney end of the ultra consevative right worked themselves into a lather about it, but they were never going to vote for her anyway since she is in the Labor party.  Also they would not have gotten any traction amongst average Aussies since most of us have a major distrust of those who seek to mix religion and politics.

BTW, I didn't vote for her, but that had nothing to do with her being a fellow atheist.  It astonishes me when people who avow a credo of liberty then turn around and deny what may well be the mosy important freedom, that of freedom of personal belief.  I am dismayed at the demonisation of atheists, muslims and any one else who does not subscribe to the prevailing orthodoxy.

I do not have a solution for this problem.  I wish I did because it seems to be the cause of much of the evil we see in the world.  How do we deal with these people without destroying the very freedoms these  people abuse?

It seems to me that education is the only solution.  Perhaps we need to ensure the all schools are acredited and teach an approved curiculum, with a greater emphasis on science, logic and rational argument.  It scares me how poorly so many people understand some of the most basic scientific principles and how pervasive some of the pseudo "science" is becoming - just look at the so-called Intelligent Design movement.

Well, I suppose it's time to get off my soap box...

[Swatopluk]

Kennedy had to permanently apologize for being a Roman Catholic and assure everyone that he was no the pope's serf and lickspittle.
Kerry (unsuccessfully) had to fight off attacks that he was unsufficiently Catholic because of his pro-choice views (there were US bishops that declared voting for him a sin that had to be confessed before communion).
Obama is a target of constant (mutually exclusive*) attacks for his faith (atheist, Muslim, wrong type of Christian, the Anti-Christ, the Anti-Christ's herald/precursor, iirc even Hindu).

*well unless one believes that Islam is no religion. Then atheist Muslim fake Christian could make sense

[Sibling DavidH]

It's my belief that in a rational society the views of any person known to be religious should be discounted in any political discussion whatever.
Today on the BBC Radio4 'Today' programme (considered the most influential political program on radio here and maybe on all media) we had Christina Odone plugging her new book opposing assisted dying.  She never once mentioned religion, relying instead on the weak "thin end of the wedge" argument.  But we know she's a fervent Catholic - she was editor of the Catholic Herald - and it's therefore a fair assumption that her prejudices are based on her religion.  She kept quiet about that because it would have weakened her credibility on 'Today'.   Simply, rank dishonesty.
And this happens all the time here in debates on euthanasia, abortion, stem-cell research and so on.  The faith-heads know that in Europe their religious views will be mocked by many - probably by a good majority - so they keep stumm and rely on rational arguments alone in public.  We know what really motivates them and their media appearances should be accompanied by a kind of health warning.  Warning - this bloke is a god-botherer and anything he says should be considered in the light of his religious prejudice.
[/angry rant]

[Swatopluk]

I think that would/should be highly dependent on the type of 'religious' and on the topic at hand.
What I would consider legitimate is a mandated disclosure of interest.

[Aggie]

It's my belief that in a rational society the views of any person known to be religious should be discounted in any political discussion whatever.
Today on the BBC Radio4 'Today' programme (considered the most influential political program on radio here and maybe on all media) we had Christina Odone plugging her new book opposing assisted dying.  She never once mentioned religion, relying instead on the weak "thin end of the wedge" argument.  But we know she's a fervent Catholic - she was editor of the Catholic Herald - and it's therefore a fair assumption that her prejudices are based on her religion.  She kept quiet about that because it would have weakened her credibility on 'Today'.   Simply, rank dishonesty.
And this happens all the time here in debates on euthanasia, abortion, stem-cell research and so on.  The faith-heads know that in Europe their religious views will be mocked by many - probably by a good majority - so they keep stumm and rely on rational arguments alone in public.  We know what really motivates them and their media appearances should be accompanied by a kind of health warning.  Warning - this bloke is a god-botherer and anything he says should be considered in the light of his religious prejudice.
[/angry rant]

Likewise, militant atheists should be prefaced with: Warning - this bloke is an antigod-bulldog and anything he says should be considered in the light of his prejudice against religion.  I know we've had this discussion before...    ...but I'm still hot under the collar when I think of the irrationality of some of the capital-R Rationalists out there.

In addition, the views of any person known to be political should be discounted in any religious discussion whatsoever.

I'd rather have the beliefs-as-a-foundation-of-rational-thought laid out there (Swato's mandated disclosure of interest), and be allowed to weight it accordingly.   I'm fine with someone stating clearly that their position and motivation to promote that position is rooted in Belief A, and then providing objective evidence and rational arguments to support that position.  What I'm not OK with is someone basing a rational argument on Assumption B which is based on Belief A, without working within objective consensus reality*. The old chestnut of Assuming The Bible is the Literal Truth, The Earth is 4000 Years Old applies here; there is far too much hot air produced trying to find pseudoscientific explanations to why consensus science is 'wrong' amongst that crowd.

_{*I dabble outside of objective consensus reality at times, but I am well aware that anything in this sphere is miles away from rationality, and try to mix the two as little as possible - rational arguments likewise don't help to explain the irrational.}

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

It's my belief that in a rational society the views of any person known to be religious should be discounted in any political discussion whatever.
...

I agree:  we ought to extend Godwin's Law to include religious references, which would equate to an automatic fail.

In formal televised debate, the fail would equate to a loss of remaining time in that sequence-- the time either reverting to the moderator, or to the opponent, if there is but one.

What?

I can dream, can't I?