Atheist Family Sues to Have ‘Under God’ Removed From Pledge of Allegiance
- Posted on February 15, 2012 at 8:31am by
Billy Hallowell
- Print »
- Email »
An atheist couple in Acton, Massachusetts, are suing a local school district and claiming that the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance with the words “under God” discriminates against their children. The parents, who wish to remain anonymous, are identified only as John and Jane Doe. They have three children in the Acton-Boxborough school system — one in high school and two others in middle school.
In Middlesex Superior Court on Monday, David Niosie, the family’s lawyer asked that the words be taken out of the expression of loyalty to America. According to the attorney, the term “under God” forces the children to engage in an activity that “defines patriotism according to a particular religious belief.”
“Every day these kids go to school and the pledge is recited declaring that the nation is in fact under God,” Niosie went on to tell a FOX25 reporter. “That marginalizes them and suggests that people who don’t believe in God are less patriotic.”
The school district, though, argues that the pledge is constitutional and that it is voluntary, thus the children are not being forced to participate. Dr. Stephen Mills, superintendent of the Acton-Boxborough school district, reiterated these views in commenting on the matter.
“This business that we’re marginalizing students. There’s absolutely no recrimination, no negative consequences ever against a child who chooses not to say the pledge, or in this particular case, simply say the pledge and not say the words under God,” he said.
Before even stepping foot in the courtroom on Monday, the school district had already spend $10,000 on legal fees — a sum Mills said would be better allocated to textbooks.
Interestingly, the complaint also lists the American Humanist Association (HA), a non-profit located in Washington, D.C, as a plaintiff. The group describes itself as an organization that strives “to bring about a progressive society where being good without gods is an accepted way to live life.” In a press release that The Blaze received on Tuesday, HA heralded the case, writing:
Yesterday afternoon the American Humanist Association argued in Massachusetts Superior Court that the state’s constitutional equal rights amendment should bar the practice of public schools conducting a daily flag-salute exercise that utilizes the version of the Pledge of Allegiance that includes the phrase “under God.”
This case, Jane Doe, et. als. v. Acton-Boxborough Regional School District et al, is particularly unique and important because the state’s constitutional equal protection guarantees are the basis of the suit, not the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment. This same strategy could be replicated in other jurisdictions.
The words “under God” were added to the Pledge by Congress in 1954 under then President Dwight D. Eisenhower. They were included as a response to Communism and the Cold War.
The judge has not indicated when a decision on the matter would be made, although it should be noted that atheists have previously lost this same battle in other parts of the country.
Popular Stories
MSNBC Host Snaps in Heated Segment: ‘What in the World Is Riskier Than Being a Poor Person in America?’ 687 Comments
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 657 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 524 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 361 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 321 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 197 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 220 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
In Case You Haven’t Heard, President Obama Issued a Major Executive Order Last Week Read More- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 147 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 300 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 197 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (396)
virgie morgan
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 8:58amnext they will be sueing to remove the words “endowed by our Creator” because that is what the real goal is…to make it appear that our rights are given to us by government and not God. Then they will be able to take our rights away. You have to look at the bigger goal.
Report Post »seanscythe
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 9:05amI want all the Socialist removed from the USA but guess what, it’s not going to happen.
Report Post »AOL_REFUGEE
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 9:07am“suggests that people who don’t believe in God are less patriotic.”
That’s only because they have an inferiority complex, which is THEIR problem. A ‘suggestion’ does not for a lawsuit make.
Report Post »lynnissmart
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 9:07amI agree with your thinking!
Report Post »lordjosh
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 9:07amI want to see the pledge banned. Thats right, I said it. It was born under the progressive movement as is evident by it’s oxymoron “..the republic for….[..] one nation…“ ”[I]ndivisable” because we’ll send in the troops and kill your family and friends if you try to leave.
We can’thave it both ways, my friends. Either you believe in the experiment implimented by our founding, or you don’t. It is time to choose.
SORRY BUT THIS SEEMS TO BE THE ONLY WAY TO GET A POST ON THE FIRST PAGE.
Report Post »gopowers
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 9:09amSince when do I have to be punished for your DISbelief in something? hold on, hold on, hold on…
Report Post »SecularConservative
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 9:16amIronically, Most of the laws that take away our rights are based on one religion or another’s laws…
Report Post »Stoic one
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 9:26amThis one comes from AA:
Good
Orderly
Direction
GOD
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 9:29amI strongly believe that when I’m asked to recite a pledge to the state, written by an avowed socialist at the height of the Progressive era, explicitly for the purposes of getting people used to subordinating themselves before the state, that it should contain references to God!
I absolutely refuse to recite a pledge to the state, written by a socialist at the height of the Progressive era, in order to get us used to considering ourselves less than the collective, if it doesn’t have a reference to God!
And of course, I’d never recite aforementioned “subordinate to the collective” pledge without the proper hand salute required by the pledge’s writer at the time. That would be going just *too far*! Because I’m patriotic!
Seriously though folks, really? The world is in flames, and this is where we focus. Really?
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 9:32am“Seriously though folks, really? The world is in flames, and this is where we focus. Really?”
yeah we can walk and chew gum at the same time….we won’t allow our rights to be stripped away without a fight…if we’re going to save our economy, whats the use if we end up with a fascist state?
Report Post »carbonyes
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 9:32amThe judge should dismiss the case on a Summary Judgement motion by the defendants and tell the complainants to go pound salt!
Report Post »Caniac Steve
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 9:34amunless both houses pass an amendment and we the pass it..the fears of changing the Bill of Rights,Dec.of Indepence/Constitution are pretty safe…un less all three are declasred null and void ..and our natiuon changes from a constitutional republic to something else..and if that day ever comes..i pray i am dead and gone..
Report Post »Wolf
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 9:38am“defines patriotism according to a particular religious belief.”
“That marginalizes them and suggests that people who don’t believe in God are less patriotic.”
The shoe seems to fit very well…
Report Post »4truth2all
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 9:42amHe should hand them the bill for ALL costs involved, and they can go pound their bank account.
Report Post »edcoil
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 9:59am“The parents, who wish to remain anonymous” – that should not be allowed. You sue anyone you have to put your name to it if legal age and proud of your actions.
Report Post »neffy812
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 10:05amLet’s change it to “under our great Dark Lord Satan” and see how the Christian hypocrites feel then.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 10:11am“Let’s change it to “under our great Dark Lord Satan” and see how the Christian hypocrites feel then.”
whats hypocritical about wanting to protect our freedom? hmmm??
you’re a fascist.
Report Post »2theADDLED
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 10:12amSomehow I believe that would violate copyright laws.
Report Post »GETLIFE
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 10:42amIt is more damaging to manipulate the vocabulary of the pledge than to just not be able to pronounce it. Changing the vocabulary but allowing the pledge corrupts its history and meaning. Let the athiests come up with their own pledge and insist it be pronounced. Taking out “under God” just forces their belief in no god on the rest of us.
Report Post »sWampy
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 10:47amThe liberal activist judges and uneducated liberals are really ******* me off. A church asks Thomas Jefferson to sponsor a bill to collect the tithe for churches from everyone as a tax and give it to the church, he writes back, and tells them we can’t do that there is a separation of church and state. Activists judges use that simple truth to become the government must outlaw God.
Report Post »SamIamTwo
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 10:51amChange it to what the founding father knew, “Under nature and God”…sheesh…what a bunch of literate babies. We know they too love the US and are patriotic, eh?
Well they certainly don’t appear to be working on the behalf of the whole by going to court…court is the last resort…it is when both parties can’t agree…so they are on the attack on all fronts…and that is NOT PATRIOTIC.
Report Post »Luke611
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 11:31amThey refuse to support the rights of the vast majority who define their nation as “under God”. That very act of protest declares a position of unpatriotism to indeed demonstrate unwillingness to sustain the rights of the many for the ideological desposition of the very few.
Report Post »American Soldier (Separated)
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 11:39amCreator. There is a reason they chose to use that word. They could have said Endowed by our Lord Jesus Christ. They chose creator because creator to any individual could mean anything that individual needs it to mean. For Christians, God is your creator. For other religions, they have their creator. For non-believers, we may believe we are endowed by the force of nature that created us. Creator can mean anything the individual needs it to mean.
Some people God gave them their rights, others believe these rights are natural rights.
Report Post »IntheKnowOG
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 11:41amAnonymous…probably obese, play WOW. I don’t like WOW, so I don’t play it. Dont like God, don’t bring it up. That’s what a FREE country does. You telling everyone else not to say it is the exact OPPOSITE of free.
Report Post »83plus
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 12:09pmProbably virgie, they’ve gotten praying out schools (what happened to the First Amendment there), they‘re going after displays and statues representing the Christian religion and there’s this.
I remember saying the pledge of allegiance in my elementary school, leave the Pledge alone.
Report Post »davienne
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 12:52pmif the athiest have get the right to freedom of speech… and get GOD out of the Pledge of alegance.. Wheres my right to say it
Report Post »TH30PH1LUS
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 1:15pmGeorge Washington also suggests that atheists are less patriotic:
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens.”
Report Post »pavepaws
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 1:36pmHere we go again. “Although it should be noted that atheists have previously lost this same battle in other parts of the country.” Give it up. Live with it. These lawsuits should be defended vigorously. In the end it is money well spent.
Report Post »NHwinter
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 2:09pmRemoving it discriminates against my child and against me. I’m going to sue if they remove it.
Report Post »StonyBurk
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 4:24pmWhoever is an avowed enemy of God,I scruple not to call him an enemy to his country….”The President of the College of NewJersey.Princeton) Rev. John Witherspoon May17,1776 Fast Day Sermon. I agree with him.
Report Post »mericus
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 4:30pmSocialists-Progressives-Fascists all really the same thing, I found that when you confront one they just shut their ears and say “la-la-la” a lot. I chose to stay seated the Socialist-communist got off the bus, I yelled after him what a parasite and coward he was. I stated I would use facts to his innuendo, (and a bibliography like Investor’s Business Daily in my argument to where he can look up my facts) and hear-say of the left. (Oh by the way different from ‘popular’ knowledge, Fascism is a socialist economic system – as per Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg. It is LEFT wing not right.)
Report Post »American Soldier (Separated)
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 5:07pm@NHWINTER
Now you’re just trying to be a jerk about it. How is removing the two words discriminating against you? You aren’t forced to say anything but are just removing a phrase to make the pledge neutral to everyone in America. I say, instead of removing under God, remove the requirement to making that pledge. Forced pledging is in and of itself anti-American.
I love my country and have served in the Army. I have already pledged my life in it’s defense. I was aware of what I did but to force school aged children to make this pledge is not American. You should choose to make that pledge not have it something you just said every morning at school because you had to.
Report Post »jb.kibs
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 5:15pmyou are 100% correct.
Report Post »lassew
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 5:22pmNotice that the COWARDS are suing anonymously. They know what they are doing is wrong!
Report Post »turkey13
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 6:23pmThese one or 2 people have the (ACLU) American Communiest Librel Union to go to bat for them. Why don’t we have (AFAU) Americans For America United to go to bat for the majority? I’m not wealthy but I will donate what I can.
Report Post »crashaxe
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 6:42pmAs soon as God is removed from this country, it will be completely doomed!
Report Post »WeDontNeedNoSteenkinBadges10
Posted on February 16, 2012 at 4:27am“An atheist couple in Acton, Massachusetts, are suing a local school district and claiming that the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance with the words “under God” discriminates against their children.”
Don’t be fooled by any appearance to the contrary — it’s a nationally coordinate effort:
Report Post »“NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER Now Under Attack In AMERICA! ** Mike Huckabee Exposes THE GOD HATERS!!”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrDefIuwZEo
DrFrost
Posted on February 16, 2012 at 4:05pm@secularconservative
What religion was Obamacare based on? The DMCA? The Patriot Act? NDAA? I see a lot of legislation eroding personal liberties that have no apparent tie to religion and I can’t think of one example that was.
Report Post »thepatriotdave
Posted on February 16, 2012 at 4:57pm1. Atheist Family Sues to Have ‘Under God’ Removed From Pledge of Allegiance
========================================================
2. God Loving Family Sues to Have ‘Atheist’s’ Removed From United States of America
========================================================
Which do you agree with? Obviously I go with #2.
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on February 16, 2012 at 6:51pmNEFFY812 says:
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 10:05am
“Let’s change it to “under our great Dark Lord Satan” and see how the Christian hypocrites feel then.”
Hey Neffy, that’s a fairly harsh statement coming from someone who just the other day, wrote this………
“Atheism is not about attacking other religions. In fact, I respect the beliefs of religious people, but I choose not to believe those things.”
Who are you calling hypocrites?
Report Post »amerigramma
Posted on February 16, 2012 at 11:03pmVery good point Vergie, most atheist are too busy thinking of themselves to think of that very reason. They should have to publish their names if they want to sue a public entity in a public court. What cowards to hide their names. They really should be counter-sued for the legal fees. Atheist need to remember that we have freedom of religion in this country and they have no right to try to take that away from me and every one else. Selfish jerks. They are welcome to move to Russia and China where they hate to let people practice religious freedom also.
Report Post »JESUS-IS-LORD
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 1:56amWho cares what these people want? Their needs are inferior compared to the needs of the soul. Look to the Lord and He will show you the way.
Report Post »Anamah
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 2:04amWhy in the world are all those atheist willing to bother and hurt everybody who seems to respect God whatever this one would be. They are obssesive haters more than atheist, so intolerant and fascist! I am not Christian but I am really offended for those repressive anti believers citizens. This is a kind of Inquisition of some kind? we are in XXI Century guys it’s time to stop this psychosis.
Report Post »Lotus4115
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 2:36pmYour god is not real BeckTards.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlnnWbkMlbg&list=PLA0C3C1D163BE880A&index=19&feature=plpp_video
Report Post »GollygeeMrwilson
Posted on February 17, 2012 at 6:32pmNiosie went on to tell a FOX25 reporter. “That marginalizes them and suggests that people who don’t believe in God are less patriotic.” You can keep your mouth shut and not say it, you can wear noise-cancelling headphones if you don’t want to hear it. BUT you have NO right to tell ME I CaN’T say it if I want!!!!! mmmmmmmm. yes,… they are less patriotic!
Report Post »sparcky
Posted on March 1, 2012 at 3:19pmPerhaps “Endowed by original amoeba in a pond” should replace it.
Report Post »mygreenhandy
Posted on April 14, 2012 at 2:04amRidiculous. Silly. How could our rights be taken away by removing the words “under God” in a saying??
What a bizarre, incoherent mental leap. It speaks of a complete lack of logic, and seems to arise from extreme, paranoiac fear.
Jeez, Obama must be an all-powerful wizard if you think he can rewrite the Constitution, burn the Declaration of Independence, call in his ***** Army (by the way, he IS half WHITE–REMEMBER???)
and “take over” by storming the capitol…
Uuuh, oh yeah–he lives there. Ahem…no need to storm it then.
But he could personally ride in a boat on the Delaware and pose for a renowned painter as his Dark Knights forcibly remove all guns from your NRA-blessed closets, cases, hip pockets, holsters (and those under beds so the toddlers can’t crawl up and shoot themselves)!
Then he can declare himself EMPEROR OF AMERICA, soon to be EMPEROR of THE WORLD!!! (Stealing that title from his rival, Kofi Annan.)
WHY should this pledge even be said in public schools??? It’s pretty Hitleresque, if you closely examine it. If our nation is sooooo great, why must we verbally bind our citizens, a la Chairman Mao, to an ideology and a government???
Oddly, it was composed in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, a Christian socialist opposed to capitalism. The words “under God” were only added in 1954. Wikipedia: “Christian socialists identify the cause of inequality to be associated with greed that they associate with capitalsim.”
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 8:57ammore proof, not that any is needed, that atheists are fascists.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 11:03amNice blanket statement.
But then, we are talking about a pledge written by a socialist at the height of the Progressive era, which was to be used (according to him) to get Americans used to the idea from birth forward, to being subordinate to the collective/state. He also had a neat hand salute that he wanted done during the pledge, you should look it up.
It really bothers me how little history, context or sadly, understanding people have of how far they’ve been led down the path of collectivism these days.
Report Post »Lucy Larue
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 1:26pm@GHOSTOFJEFFERSON,
Report Post »I know the history. I do.
I have always thought of the pledge of allegiance as one of the only positive things a Progressive ever did. In other words GHOST…,the plan backfired.
GhostOfJefferson
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 2:03pm@Lucy
Or, perhaps, it worked as intended.
Look how many will go to their last breath to defend it, even after knowing what it is and why it was written?
Nobody accepts things they think are bad, so you’ve come to accept this Jedi Mind Trick as good, and now you’ll defend it to the last. Just as planned.
Report Post »Nevermind
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 8:57amdemocritusoilder267
As someone who is neither a Christian nor an atheist I have looked up the history of the Pledge of Allegiance. Did you know from 1954 to today is the only time “God” is used in the Pledge of Allegiance? I would not care if you reference your faith in God during the Pledge. But I stand by history and will use one of the many incarnations without God. Here is an example: “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands; one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.”
Very valid point. So it would be safe to assume the founding fathers didnt recite the pledge since it was composed in 1892 but didnt make them any less patriotic.
Even more interesting is that all of the TEA/GOP folks hate socialism yet the pledge was actually writen by a socialist.
Report Post »democritusoilder267
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 9:07amThanks! I agreed! :)
Report Post »Jezreel
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 9:13amIt is going to be wonderfully interesting if the world last to see how their children will turn out growing up to be atheists. The parents are surely going to reap the whirlwind.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 11:25amI believe I’ve mentioned this point countless times on many “pledge” threads.
It never seems to penetrate.
Also mention anti-Constitutional undeclared “wars” as wrong, same response.
The Constitution (and our Founder’s intent) for the right, just as for the left, is only valid when it supports their positions, and is ignored when it doesn’t.
Report Post »Robert-CA
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 1:09pmWell since they’re @ it .
Maybe they should sue also The Star Spangled Banner too .
Then conquer we must, when our cause is just,
And this be our motto: “In GOD is our trust”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
OUCH !!!!!! it hurts doesn’t it atheists .
Report Post »FoxholeAtheist
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 3:24pmIt seems as though you all need to be constantly reminded of how much you love Jesus.
Report Post »alrunner58
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 8:55amI live in Ohio, and I’m not seeing this yet. I keep up with it. I have 3 grade school grandchildren in different cities in Ohio. They’re still putting their hand over heart and saying “under God”. The day one of them tells me its not happing anymore I’m ready. I also keep up with the “participation” awards. Told them never except one and always know the score, “Bring it on, all or nothing” attitude.
Report Post »noleftturn
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 8:55am…. when are the courts going to end this tyranny by the minority?
Report Post »Godfather.1
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 9:16amI know, who do these people think they are? Come on, do they really think the Constitution provides protection to those in the minority?
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 9:30am“, do they really think the Constitution provides protection to those in the minority”
this isn’t protection, this is a taking away of our rights by a fascist tyranny of the judiciary….
Report Post »Calm Voice of Reason
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 11:51am@ Rush is right: What right, specifically, is being taken way by removing “under god” from the pledge? For that matter, which Constitutional right is being threatened by anything atheists and other non-believers do?
Report Post »Lord_Frostwind
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 2:30pmOur ability to practice what we believe is under attack everywhere you look. People who disagree with homosexual activity are railroaded into compliance. Kids are now being taught all sorts of sexual activity are “normal” under mandatory programs in spite of what their religion teaches. And most people who hold any kind of religious conviction are scorned or kicked out of higher education for their beliefs. And the cherry on top, the fact that any kind of talk of religion is being pushed out of the public because it “offends” atheists.
I’m sorry, but I’m not a Chreaster Christian. Why is it so wrong for me to go out and say what I believe while MacFarlane and Maher pound their beliefs on the masses without a break? Why should I acquiesce to atheist beliefs? If they are so offended by the fact that someone mentions God around them, then they are nothing but pathetic miserable trolls.
Report Post »American Soldier (Separated)
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 5:11pmThe basis of a Constitutional Republic is explicitly meant to protect the minority!
Otherwise, they would have just created a standard Democracy to be ruled by the 51% majority. Our founding fathers were smart, they didn’t want a country to be ruled by the majority. They wanted a country ruled by law with equal protection for all, especially the minority.
Report Post »momrules
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 8:55amThe lawsuits from atheists are becoming almost a dailey occurance. This is a well organized, well funded Satanic attack on God in America.
Report Post »SFsuper49er
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 5:18pmThere little Atheists groups can get well organized but the majority of people that believe in God can’t ! That’s why we are loosing ….
Report Post »Lucifers Hammer
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 8:55amNot believing in God does not make you less patriotic.
SUING to change the Pledge most certainly makes you less patriotic, and perhaps implicates you as anti-American, anti-Constitution, and approaching sedition.
Report Post »troymac20
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 9:51amSo when it was changed in 1954 to add under god it would have also been anti-American and anti-Constitution as well.
Report Post »El Pistoffo
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 4:21pm“troymac20
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 9:51am
So when it was changed in 1954 to add under god it would have also been anti-American and anti-Constitution as well.”
In 1954, no lawsuit was brought up the change the Pledge. It was a Joint Resolution of Congress amending the Pledge to include “under God”. This phrase was inspired by Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. It set the USA apart from other nations.
That doesn’t sound anti-American or anti-Constitution to me.
Report Post »troymac20
Posted on February 16, 2012 at 3:54pmLawsuit or not the bottom line is it was changed. Doesn’t matter how it was changed if its anti-American and anti-Constitution one way it is the other as well.
Report Post »wboehmer
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 8:50amHey, family hiding your identity behind “John and Jane Doe:”
YOUR INTOLERANT ATTITUDE IS NOT WELCOME IN THIS ONE NATION UNDER GOD!
Report Post »FoxholeAtheist
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 3:28pmWell then, go to another country where they honor god in much of the way you would like to see it. Afghanistan, for example. Bye bye. Don’t let the secular door of science and reason hit you on the rear on the way out.
Report Post »Robert-CA
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 6:16pm@ ASSHOLEATHEIST
And this be our motto: “In GOD is our trust”
Report Post »& it’s gonna stay this way forever you like it or not .
One way ticket is waiting for you to China .
FoxholeAtheist
Posted on February 16, 2012 at 2:58pmYou first, Robert. By the way, are you a fruit or a nut?
Report Post »love the kids
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 8:50amThis makes me wonder, Can a religious family sue to have an Atheist family removed from a country that was founded under the notion of “One nation under God”?
Report Post »Our Constution guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
SoNick
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 8:59am@lovethe kids
Report Post »I see that empty proclamation all the time: “it’s freedom of religion, not freedom from religion”. What does it mean, really? That you can choose whatever religion you want (except Islam, of course!) but you can’t choose to have no religion at all? Please explain, because whenever somebody pulls that one out of a hat, it’s usually to discredit atheists by shutting them out of the debate completely.
jdondo
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 10:49am@SONICK
Report Post »Actually, that argument is used when aethists try to trample on religious freedoms. Aethists are given the freedom to not participate such as these children in this lawsuit do not have to use the phrase “Under God”. When we are allowed to worship or not to worship, without someone attacking you for it, that is when we are holding up the principles our country was founded on.
Lucy Larue
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 1:18pm@SONICK,
Everything that I have read recently seems to point to the fact that The Atheists who believe in NOTHING have elevated their belief in NOTHING to GOD status.
We now have a new religion…,the worship of NOTHING!
It is bizzarre. It is true.
Sadly, these loudmouthed worshippers of NOTHING have an agenda. They do.
Their goal is the first tenet of Marxism that goes…,first you take away their religion.
Think about it. These monstreux parents file suit under the cloak of “ANONYMOUS”! Non!
This should not be. They should be named! They pretend it is out of concern for their children.
That is the lie!
Their children are not being “MARGINALIZED”.They are not! Their children are not being made to feel less “PATRIOTIC”. They are not! The children of these “ANONYMOUS” cowards are being used as SCAPEGOATS ! Tres degouter!
Report Post »SoNick
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 4:51pm@Lucy Larue
Report Post »Atheists don’t worship “nothing”. They don’t “pray” to “the void”, they don’t consider Obama as a “God” and “marxism” is not their goal. As you might have realized here on The Blaze, a number of atheists are actually libertarian or old school conservatives. Also: secularism does not equal atheism. Here is the definition: “the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element.” simple, no?
Derek01
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 8:49amMaybe we should petition and vote for their removal from America. I’m sure they would be happier in some god-forsaken place
Report Post »skiz
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 8:48amThey are not forced to say the pledge! The parents, if they were raising their children correctly, could use this as a teachable moment and tell the kids that there were athiest that signed the constitution and they are an important part of the fabric of our nation. Instead they want to be cowards and hide behind a lawyer and our ever increasingly corrupt court system. I hope this school system will stand strong.
Report Post »The_Jerk
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 8:47amShould not be permitted to file a suit and remain anonymous.
Report Post »SoupSandwich
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 9:56amWhat if they were those dirty Zionist pigs you aways refer to? Just curious Jerky. Odd that you’de opine on something not about killing or eradicating all the Jews.
Report Post »geo01
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 8:47am.
Report Post »Hmmm, sounds to me like a SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE issue……
.
Just go away. We have bigger problems to worry about right now. We’ll get back to you later.
.
Lucifers Hammer
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 8:46amHmm. So these people are suing to advance the point of view of their religion, Atheism. It would appear that granting their removal of God would be imposing their religion upon the majority. This imposition is a violation of freedom of speech and by imposing their own very narrow religion, is clearly a draconian violation of the “separation of church and state.”
Report Post »democritusoilder267
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 8:53amAtheism is not a religion. Here is the definition of religion: “a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion…“ Atheism means ”without theist”. So, naturally Atheism will not be a religion.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 8:59am“Atheism is not a religion”
atheism IS a religion, it has its own worldview, its own gods, darwin and the person in the mirror…and its own creation myth, that racist fairy tale known as evolution.
Report Post »dezldummi
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 8:59amyou are absolutely right, atheism is certainly a religion, and it contains some of the most extreme fundamentalists you can find in any so called fundamentalist religion
Report Post »democritusoilder267
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 9:07am“atheism IS a religion, it has its own worldview, its own gods, darwin and the person in the mirror…and its own creation myth, that racist fairy tale known as evolution.”
This is why I cannot people of faith and religion seriously. As I already pointed out Atheism means “without theist”. So, where is the “Gods” in Atheism? This is a contradiction. I already posted the definition for religion. So, you can see Atheism is as far away from religion as possible. How is evolution a “racist” and a “fairy tale”? From what you wrote you do not understand Evolution science. Please pick up a book on biology.
Report Post »Mr._Proud_Conservative
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 9:19am@DEMOCRITUSOILDER267:
How you can prove the point that atheism is in fact a religion and state that it’s not in the same post is beyond me.
Religion: A specific set of fundamental “beliefs” and practices agreed upon by a set of persons.
Theism: “Belief” in the existence of a god or gods
Atheism by your definition is without theist or non theistic, therefore it’s the opposite of theism. Which would mean “belief” that there is no gods.
Also, I’m going to assume you got your definition for Religion here, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion , So I took the liberty of finding the definition for atheism at the same place, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion , your welcome.
Report Post »copatriots
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 9:21amDEM, you are defining “religion” as exclusively to beliefs and practices to a higher power. Here are two other definitions which certainly apply to atheism.
- a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
- a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.
Ardently believing in “no God” with the ancillary world viewpoints to support that belief qualifies as a religion.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 9:27am“This is why I cannot people of faith and religion seriously”
oh we take you atheists seriously…every time they get power they slaughter people…
you just can’t handle the truth…atheists all beleive the same things, parrot the same talking points…are basically mind-numbed democrats.
“So, you can see Atheism is as far away from religion as possible.”
no I don’t see that, you have your own worldview, etc…and even the supreme court has recognized it as a religion…sorry.
“How is evolution a “racist” and a “fairy tale”? From what you wrote you do not understand Evolution science. Please pick up a book on biology.”
ever see the full title of your bible?
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
favoured races? why don’t you list those favoured races for us? ever hear what watson said? you know the co-founder of DNA??
Watson is credited with discovering the double helix along with Maurice Wilkins and Francis Crick in 1962.
In the newspaper interview, he said there was no reason to think that races which had grown up in separate geographical locations should have evolved identically. He went on to say that although he hoped everyone was equal, “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true”.
pure evolutionary racism….
as far as a fairy tale…no evidence in the fossil record, nor the lab…junk dna is a myth, as is
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 9:29am“From what you wrote you do not understand Evolution science. Please pick up a book on biology.”
continued….the fossil record in fact shows just the opposite of evolution….creation…animals appearing suddenly…without precursors…
Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin’s original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution. The cases in point include the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds; major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla. In each of these pivotal nexuses in life’s history, the principal “types” seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate “grades” or intermediate forms between different types are detectable. Usually, this pattern is attributed to cladogenesis compressed in time, combined with the inevitable erosion of the phylogenetic signal.
http://www.biology-direct.com/content/2/1/21#IDA2DWZO
Report Post »democritusoilder267
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 9:32amSo by your logic defining faith in certain beliefs is proof that Atheism is a religion? Where do we start? Yes, that was the link I used. Very quick using Google. But Atheism just means “Without theist” or a non-belief in a God or deity. As someone who is a Deist I believe in a supreme deity. But I’m critical of all religion. Wikipedia does place Deism as a religious philosophy. I would say Atheism is more like Irreligion.
“Irreligion is the absence of religion. When characterized as hostility to religion, it includes antitheism, anticlericalism and antireligion. When characterized as indifference to religion, it includes apatheism. When characterized as the rejection of religious belief, it includes atheism and secular humanism. When characterized as the absence of religious belief, it may include agnosticism, ignosticism, nontheism, religious skepticism, and freethought.”
Wikipedia entry also includes Deism. I just cannot agree that because an atheist doesn’t believe in a God; doesn’t make it a religion. It’s just not!
Report Post »democritusoilder267
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 9:43amAs I sit here I wonder if you truly proof read what you have written as a response. My grammar might not always be the best but I do my best to respond with good answers. Where do we start?
“oh we take you atheists seriously…every time they get power they slaughter people…”
What atheist? There have been bad atheist in the past. Yes, I can say that. But that doesn’t mean all atheist or secular governments have killed people. Christians governments have done the same. Nobody is perfect. Can you agree?
” you just can’t handle the truth…atheists all beleive the same things, parrot the same talking points…are basically mind-numbed democrats.”
I’m not an atheist just my own person. I identify as a deist. In the past I identified as atheist; I’m still secular and critical of organized religion. When i registered to vote I registered as libertarian. We’re not all democratic!
“no I don’t see that, you have your own worldview, etc…and even the supreme court has recognized it as a religion…sorry.”
Really I didn’t get an email! I didn’t vote on this. lol. Joking aside who cares what the Supreme Court has to say what is what? Imagine having a favorite singer who has many, many fans. But has never won an award like a Grammy. Would that make the singer terrible? No, he or she just never won a Grammy before.
People who say evolution is racist has to ignore their view of creationism. I cannot count how many times certain races or people were
Report Post »democritusoilder267
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 9:48amI would like to share my favorite links to websites and videos on what is evolution and how science interprets how evolution works. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out how species adapt to their environments. I know you have loads of answers. But I would like to use humor. A user on Potholer54 is a great YouTubber in explaining different questions and controversies about evolution science. Since we’re talking about evolution being racist against people I would like share this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cjnq_XgePik
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_evolution
Report Post »http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIntro.shtml
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
rush_is_right
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 10:02am“What atheist? There have been bad atheist in the past. Yes, I can say that. But that doesn’t mean all atheist or secular governments have killed people. Christians governments have done the same. Nobody is perfect. Can you agree?”
really? name the good atheist government. tell us what christian governments have done that…and lets compare the body counts…oh you’ll name the inquisition….which killed a couple of HUNDRED people over a couple of centuries…and the crusades…which were a defensive reaction to the muslim invasion of europe…you atheist are SO predictable.
“As I sit here I wonder if you truly proof read what you have written as a response. My grammar might not always be the best but I do my best to respond with good answers”
ok post your proof about my grammar since you want to be anal about it.
“I’m not an atheist just my own person. I identify as a deist. In the past I identified as atheist; I’m still secular and critical of organized religion. When i registered to vote I registered as libertarian. We’re not all democratic! ”
liberatarians are liberals…please…so do you think lincoln was a tyrant too? hmmm? liberatarians want gay marriage, which strips the rights away from christians who disagree…libertarians only want liberty for those they agree with.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 10:05am“Really I didn’t get an email! I didn’t vote on this. lol. Joking aside who cares what the Supreme Court has to say what is what?”
so evidence doesn’t matter to you…obviously since you beleive in evolution.
“People who say evolution is racist has to ignore their view of creationism”
really? do you even read what you post? what a meaningless dodge that sentence is….laughable. evolution says that groups in isolation evolve differently…its what watson used as the basis for his racism….even your god and savior says…..
“The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilised races throughout the world.” (Darwin, Charles R. [English naturalist and founder of the modern theory of evolution], “The Life of Charles Darwin”, [1902], Senate: London, 1995, reprint, p.64).
racism is as much a part of evolution as eugenics is…
A direct line runs from Darwin, through the founder of the eugenics movement-Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton-to the extermination camps of Nazi Europe.” (Brookes, Martin.,”Ripe old age,“ Review of ”Of Flies, Mice and Men,” by Francois Jacob, Harvard University Press, 1999. New Scientist, Vol. 161, No. 2171, 30 January 1999, p.41).
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 10:09am“I would like to share my favorite links to websites and videos on what is evolution and how science interprets how evolution works”
laughable….I notice you couldn’t answer any of my points about evolution…no surprise….
here try this…list the mutations that led to the eye, in order….oh you can’t…no one else can either…yet you believe the eye evolved….its called faith….
why don’t you take a bacteria and evolve it into a multi-cellular animal? thus proving evolution…oh you can’t…no one else can either…
notice you post talking point web sites…I posted a peer-reviewed article….oh and evolution is useless to science….
(next post)
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 10:09amIn 1942, Nobel Laureate Ernst Chain wrote that his discovery of penicillin (with Howard Florey and Alexander Fleming) and the development of bacterial resistance to that antibiotic owed nothing to Darwin‘s and Alfred Russel Wallace’s evolutionary theories.
The same can be said about a variety of other 20th-century findings: the discovery of the structure of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; new surgeries; and other developments.
Additionally, I have queried biologists working in areas where one might have thought the Darwinian paradigm could guide research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I learned that evolutionary theory provides no guidance when it comes to choosing the experimental designs. Rather, after the breakthrough discoveries, it is brought in as a narrative gloss.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/23/evolution-creation-debate-biology-opinions-contributors_darwin.html
Report Post »democritusoilder267
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 10:18am“really? name the good atheist government. tell us what christian governments have done that…and lets compare the body counts…oh you’ll name the inquisition….which killed a couple of HUNDRED people over a couple of centuries…and the crusades…which were a defensive reaction to the muslim invasion of europe…you atheist are SO predictable.”
Alright the United States is consider a secular state. As well many more governments throughout the world. Wikipedia has a list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_state
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_violence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism
“liberatarians are liberals…please…so do you think lincoln was a tyrant too? hmmm? liberatarians want gay marriage, which strips the rights away from christians who disagree…libertarians only want liberty for those they agree with.”
You’re correct libertarians as liberals. We’re influenced by classical liberalism. Lincoln was vampire hunter. :p I’m not the biggest supporter of any form of marriage. I could careless what you do in the bedroom. You can say you’re stripping rights from same-sex couples who want to get married. Don‘t like it don’t get married to someone of the same-sex.
“so evidence doesn’t matter to you…obviously since you beleive in evolution.”
Yes, it does. I accept evolution because of all the evidence supporting evolution science.
View my links and the video I posted about so called evolution
Report Post »democritusoilder267
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 10:21amThere is no reason to sound ignorant. There are no winners or losers. I have gone over the controversies and so have many people who accept evolution. If you refuse to view the links I posted that have the answers and more to your question then I would refuse to continue to argue with you.
Report Post »Mr._Proud_Conservative
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 10:24am@DEMOCRITUSOILDER267 :
Your problem is that you are mixing up theism and religion. Religion does not rely on their being a God or gods like theism does, it is simply a group of people that all have a fundamental belief. Atheists believe as a whole that there are no gods, that is their belief.
Now the only way to break my argument is to either prove that atheists don’t believe in the absence of gods(A.K.A. change its definition) or prove that religion is not defined as “a group of people that have a fundamental belief(A.K.A. change its definition).
As for the article above, I believe that if they have a problem with the pledge they should take it up with the federal government, instead of attacking a small school that should be focusing on educating its students and not some stupid lawsuit.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 10:37am@DEMOCRITUSOILDER267
Lol, just don’t bother.
They can‘t comprehend that evolution isn’t atheism and atheism isn’t evolution.
Which is why there are religious people who accept evolution, like oh let’s say CATHOLICS(surely the Pope isn’t atheist?)….and other religious groups. There are Muslims, Jews, Christians, Mormons, Buddhists who accept evolution.
There are Muslims, Jews, Christians, Mormons, Buddhists and even some atheists, who don’t accept evolution.
Therefore, not all atheists accept evolution, and there are religious groups who DO accept evolution.
This fact escapes people and no matter how clear you make that point, they won’t accept it.
Report Post »democritusoilder267
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 10:45amThanks Moderationisbest. I like debating and this is why I have been putting so much effort in my post. But I think it will be fun to go for a bike ride while it is early in my area.
Anyone interested in emailing me with more information contact me at juanarguelles@yahoo.com
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 10:49am“Alright the United States is consider a secular state. As well many more governments throughout the world”
oh good, so the atheists are responsible for slavery and the treatment of native americans.
“Alright the United States is consider a secular state. As well many more governments throughout the world”
wikipedia? really? LOL
“You’re correct libertarians as liberals. We’re influenced by classical liberalism”
classic fascism is more like it….and gay marriage takes away the liberty of christians…like the catholic charities in MA….and gays had the same rights as everyone else…they could marry anyone of the opposite sex…..now since you want special rights for that particular sexual orientation, why not for all? how about pedophilia? hmmm?? oh yeah thats another question you won’t answer….
“Yes, it does. I accept evolution because of all the evidence supporting evolution science. ”
there is no there there….just like the fossil record, it does not support evolution…but then facts don’t matter to the faithful.
“. If you refuse to view the links I posted that have the answers and more to your question then I would refuse to continue to argue with you”
oh I’ve already seen the talking points….notice how unable you are to answer a specific question…no surprise….all you can do is post talking points…..
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 10:50am“They can‘t comprehend that evolution isn’t atheism and atheism isn’t evolution.”
really?
Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.”
Provine, William B. [Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University], “, “Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life”, Abstract of Will Provine’s 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address.
evolution is atheism…I would say get a clue, but I don’t think its possible in your case….
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 11:16am@DEMO
Take Rush-is-right for example. So eager to win an argument(like the real Rush) that he(assuming) COMPLETELY glosses over what I said(again, often like the real Rush), and tries to win the argument with some random quote that PROVES nothing.
@Rush
I see you give me some quote from some dude? WHAT’S THE POINT?! My argument was, there ARE religious people who accept evolution, and you give me a quote and somehow try to make the correlation that because one guy said it, it makes it true?
Have you ever heard of Francis S. Collins? He’s the head of the human genome project…..accepts evolution…..and is a Christian. The Pope, once again surely not an atheist, say evolution is compatible with their beliefs.
Provine argues that because of evolution, free will is non-existent. Well, there are versions of Christianity and other religious beliefs(again, they could either choose to accept evolution, or not) that also say free will is non-existent. If my understanding of Calvinism(surely not an Atheist) is correct, they also don’t believe in free will. I think they believe that God knows who is and who isn’t going to be saved before he creates them, which means no one can be saved who isn’t already going to be saved, ergo free will is non-existent.
Get this through your head Rush. There ARE religious people who accept evolution, and there ARE atheists who deny evolution. They are NOT mutually exclusive.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 11:34am“Take Rush-is-right for example. So eager to win an argument(like the real Rush) that he(assuming) COMPLETELY glosses over what I said(again, often like the real Rush), and tries to win the argument with some random quote that PROVES nothing.:
it proves you are wrong, and you really don’t understand what evolution is obviously
“I see you give me some quote from some dude? WHAT’S THE POINT?! ”
some dude…you mean a world-famous evolutionist…who actually does understand the theory of evolution….my point is that evolution IS atheism….and you don’t understand your own theory you love so much.
didn’t you say this?
“They can‘t comprehend that evolution isn’t atheism and atheism isn’t evolution”
uh huh
Collins is trying to have his cake and eat it too…he would be fired if he came out against evolution…the pope doesn’t believe in evolution either….you need to educate yourself…
The cardinal, Christoph Schönborn, archbishop of Vienna, a theologian who is close to Pope Benedict XVI, staked out his position in an Op-Ed article in The New York Times on Thursday, writing, “Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense – an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection – is not.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/09/science/09cardinal.html?pagewanted=all
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 11:36am“Provine argues that because of evolution, free will is non-existent. Well, there are versions of Christianity and other religious beliefs(again, they could either choose to accept evolution, or not) that also say free will is non-existent.”
really I know of no christian denomination that would argue that free will is nonexistant.
point is that evolution is clearly atheism….one of the premier evolutionists of our time admits it, why can’t you?
as far as ‘christians’ agreeing with evolution….well they either don’t understand the theory of evolution, or they’re not really christian….evolution and christianity are incompatible.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 11:41am“If my understanding of Calvinism(surely not an Atheist) is correct, they also don’t believe in free will. I think they believe that God knows who is and who isn’t going to be saved before he creates them, which means no one can be saved who isn’t already going to be saved, ergo free will is non-existent.”
your understanding is incorrect….from our perspective there is free will….from God’s persepctive free will exists, yet He knows and chooses who are saved…His perspective is really beyond our understanding….He knows the future…does that mean He creates people to damn them…we really don’t have a good answer for that…He does have mercy uipon whom He will have mercy…and hardens whom He hardens….yet we have free will.
as far as who believes what….who cares? is provine correct in his interpretation of evolution or not? and why or why not? I notice you can’t seem to answer that.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 11:47amoh and here’s a few other DUDES who agree with me…
“Darwin developed an evolutionary theory based on chance variation and natural selection imposed by an external environment: a rigidly materialistic (and basically atheistic) version of evolution,” (- Stephen Jay Gould, Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History 33 (W.W. Norton 1977).)
“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.” (Biology: Discovering Life, by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st edition, D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; emphasis in original)
It was Darwin’s greatest accomplishment to show that the complex organization and functionality of living beings can be explained as the result of a natural process—natural selection—without any need to resort to a Creator or other external agent. (Francisco J. Ayala, “Darwin’s greatest discovery: Design without designer,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, Vol. 104:8567–8573 (May 15, 2007).)
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 11:49ama few more DUDES….
Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin
discovered and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and
apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and
no mind’s eye Dawkins, R. (1986). The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe
Without Design. New York: W.W. Norton. (page 5)
First, Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations. The theory
of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the
world solely materialistically. It no longer requires God as creator or designer
(although one is certainly free to believe in God even if one accepts evolution).
Darwin pointed out that creation, as described in the Bible and the origin accounts
of other cultures, was contradicted by almost any aspect of the natural world.
Every aspect of the wonderful design so admired by natural theologians could
be explained by natural selection…(Mayr, E. (2000). Darwin’s influence on modern thought. Scientific American, 283, 70-83, 81.
Similarly, Douglas Futuyma,
Report Post »in his widely used college textbook Evolutionary Biology, writes: By coupling undirected,
purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological
or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous (Futuyma 1998, p. 5).
ModerationIsBest
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 11:58am@Rush
“as far as ‘christians’ agreeing with evolution….well they either don’t understand the theory of evolution, or they’re not really christian….evolution and christianity are incompatible.”
Ah there’s that Christian love I hear so much about. So willing to classify who is or isn’t a “real” or “true” Christian.
“your understanding is incorrect….from our perspective there is free will….from God’s persepctive free will exists, yet He knows and chooses who are saved…His perspective is really beyond our understanding….He knows the future…does that mean He creates people to damn them…we really don’t have a good answer for that…He does have mercy uipon whom He will have mercy…and hardens whom He hardens….yet we have free will.”
Ah there it is again. Claim to know, then claim “his perspective is beyond our understanding.”
“Does that mean he creates people to damn them….we really don’t have a good answer for that.”
According to Calvin’s beliefs, yes. Which is why Thomas Jefferson said, ” I can never join Calvin in addressing his god. He was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was Daemonism. If ever man worshipped a false god, he did.”
Does that mean because Jefferson said it, it is inherently true? No, but much like you, Jefferson seemed free and eager to wield the sword of judgment on who “is or isn’t a Christian.”
I answered your question in my post, yet you seemed
Report Post »Calm Voice of Reason
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 12:17pm@Rush is right: The Theory of Evolution by means of natural selection is a subject pretty close to my heart. I find it simply astonishing and an incredibly elegant contribution to our understanding of the living world. You have raised some common criticisms of the theory. Questions about specific processes that lead to the human eye, for example, are ones that can be easily googled. You will find quite a few answers to these kinds of specific questions and, in accordance with a rigorous scientific method, you should easily find the evidence to support the conclusions as well as a detailed methodology describing how the data was found so that you may yourself repeat the trial. If you have a disagreement with the conclusions made as a result of such experiments, you are expected to apply the same rigorous approach and carefully explain why you believe the given conclusions are in error. In truth, science actively encourages such criticism!
Other concerns you have stated about evolutionary science deal with the persons (and personalities) of those in the scientific community. Well, the world is full of strange people and their ideas. I don’t really believe that the theory of evolution is racist, and I think you are focusing on the past prejudices of people who were clearly wrong. You would have a hard time selling the idea that evolution is racist in this day and age.
(continues…)
Report Post »Calm Voice of Reason
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 12:18pm(continued)
Report Post »Finally, I read the Forbes article that you referenced in your post and I disagree with your conclusion. The author’s clearly demonstrated, as you mention, that the study of evolution has little to do with modern research. Yes, that is very much true. Evolution is a process that requires many, many years to occur. What is being done in the lab is done primarily with the study of DNA and the study of genetics, which while being inherently linked to evolution, may still be practiced without a complete understanding of the fossil record. What is being done in the laboratory is not in any respect related to Darwinian evolution, nor has anyone ever claimed that it was.
rush_is_right
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 12:19pm“Ah there’s that Christian love I hear so much about. So willing to classify who is or isn’t a “real” or “true” Christian.”
uh yeah theres that typical atheist diversion…laughable….it has nothing to do with ‘love’ or ‘hate’…how come everyone who disagrees with atheists is HATEFUL? hmmm?? I mean seriously you are making a fool of yourself…not for the first time.
but to the point, evolution has implications that are incompatible with christianity…if God didn’t create us and we just evolved..then what is the point of God anyway?? hmmm?? duh.
“Ah there it is again. Claim to know, then claim “his perspective is beyond our understanding.””
uh no I don‘t claim to know God’s perspective…reading is fundamental…try english 101…I claim there is free will…and there is…get a clue.
“According to Calvin’s beliefs, yes. ”
really, post your proof…so far all you have done is post your own word..which is rather meaningless.
and even if God knows who is going to hell…it doesn’t mean that He condemns them…if you think calvinism teaches that, you’re delusional…that would mean God is unjust, and there is no free will..where the bible clearly teaches free will…
have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Choose life so that you and your descendants may live…. (Deut. 30:11–19)
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 12:23pm“Questions about specific processes that lead to the human eye, for example, are ones that can be easily googled”
oh yes and we’ll get the just-so story…’ a light sensitive cell evolved…..magically..poof sight’ SHAZAM…when in fact all sight comes from the pax6 gene…which implies design, not evolution.
“describing how the data was found so that you may yourself repeat the trial”
really, so you’re saying scientists have managed to evolve an eye in the lab??? I mean really.
“In truth, science actively encourages such criticism!”
really? is that why crocker and sternberg were hounded, ridiculed and fired?
“I don’t really believe that the theory of evolution is racis”
it really doesn’t matter what you believe or not…what matters is the facts…and the fact is evolution states separate groups evolve in isolation…so some groups have to be more evolved than others…thus Watson’s statement…and you seem unable to deal with the facts of what he said, and why he said it.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 12:25pm“Evolution is a process that requires many, many years to occur.”
you sure about that?
Evolution Occurs in the Blink of an Eye
Report Post »A population of butterflies has evolved in a flash on a South Pacific island to fend off a deadly parasite.
http://www.livescience.com/animals/070712_butterfly_evo.html
rush_is_right
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 12:34pmoh and calm voice of reason…
since you have darwin as your picture…please list the lower races he refers to…
“The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilised races throughout the world.” (Darwin, Charles R. [English naturalist and founder of the modern theory of evolution], “The Life of Charles Darwin”, [1902], Senate: London, 1995, reprint, p.64).
thanks.
Report Post »Calm Voice of Reason
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 1:06pm(continued)
Report Post »I have not read the research of Crocker and Sternberg, but I will find it tonight. Again, we have the problem of personalities vs. science. If it turns out that their research has merit, I am certain their contributions to science will be incorporated into our great body of knowledge. The truth wins in the end, though the people who discover it don’t have any promise of career advancement. We all know what happened to Galileo, somehow his discoveries still made it through the nonsense.
MNCONSERVATIVEVETERAN
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 1:07pmFrom Dictionary.com
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism
a·the·ism [ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion
re·li·gion [ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
From Atheist.org: http://www.atheists.org/Aims_and_Principles
Atheism may be defined as the mental attitude which unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a life-style and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and scientific method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds.
If we are to use these definitions atheism is not a religion and their organization does not lay claim to be a religion.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 1:50pm“the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
”
yeah every religion has a doctrine.
Report Post »Mr._Proud_Conservative
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 1:57pm@MnConservativeVeteran :
Well based on your name I’ll assume you have served, in which case I would like to thank you.
Now onto your point, Religion in a nutshell is “A group of people that can agree on a fundamental belief”. Atheism in a nutshell is “A group of people that don’t believe in a deity or gods”. Therefore we can conclude that Atheism is in fact a religion. The only way to dispute this fact is if you change the definition of one of those words.
Also, I took a look at the site you posted and right here it states what Atheism is http://www.atheists.org/ instead of their aims and principals.
Report Post »Mr._Proud_Conservative
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 2:10pm@MnConservativeVeteran :
I provided the incorrect link in my last post here is the correct one.
Report Post »http://www.atheists.org/atheism
FoxholeAtheist
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 3:32pmThey eye evolved, not “poof, by magic”, but it did evolve over very much time. It is the Xtian book that promotes magic words suddenly “poofing” things into existence.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 4:12pm@Rush
““Ah there it is again. Claim to know, then claim “his perspective is beyond our understanding.””
uh no I don‘t claim to know God’s perspective…reading is fundamental…try english 101…I claim there is free will…and there is…get a clue.”
Wow, I NEVER said you claim to know God’s perspective, in fact I INCLUDED the part where you admitted, “his perspective is beyond on understanding.” You once again completely glossed over what I said.
This is really hilarious that I can come on here, make a claim, and give examples and the response I get is, “oh so you’re saying [insert exact opposite of what I said]” and 3 words later get, “where are your examples for your claim?”
I am done with this. Congrats, you win, whatever. You’re right, evolution is 100% racist and Eve talked to a snake in the garden of eden.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 6:49pmWow, I NEVER said you claim to know God’s perspective, in fact I INCLUDED the part where you admitted, “his perspective is beyond on understanding.” You once again completely glossed over what I said.
you don’t read the idiotic drivel you post do you now?
thanks for playing…I enjoy making you look foolish…you’re not nearly as clever as you think you are…
Report Post »democritusoilder267
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 8:46amAs someone who is neither a Christian nor an atheist I have looked up the history of the Pledge of Allegiance. Did you know from 1954 to today is the only time “God” is used in the Pledge of Allegiance? I would not care if you reference your faith in God during the Pledge. But I stand by history and will use one of the many incarnations without God. Here is an example: “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands; one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance
Report Post »amerbur
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 8:46amThere are clear two forces operating in the world, good and evil, creative or distructive, God or Satan. If it is not a nation under God, it is a nation under Satan. Atheists, you must be so proud at your ability to choose the right path for America.
Report Post »democritusoilder267
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 8:51amWhat if we do not believe in good and evil? How can atheist believe in Satan when they do not believe in a God? This is like saying turning the television off is a channel or bald is a hair style.
Report Post »Duey2000
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 10:30amIf you do not believe in good or evil then you are without morals and are no better off than an animal.
Report Post »From Virginia
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 8:48pm@Duey2000 – I think you do a grave injustice to animals. Athiests who don’t believe in good or evil are sociopaths. Plain and simple.
Report Post »mygreenhandy
Posted on April 14, 2012 at 2:23am@Amerbur,
I’ve never seen such a simplistic, bipolar view of the universe than “it’s God vs. Satan”.
Silly. Did you memorize the Sunday School books or are you still studying them? Did you learn anything in school, or were you the main character in the song “…don’t know much about history…don’t know much about the science books…”
Are you familiar with quarks, muons, black holes, quasars and dark matter? What created those, God or Satan? If black holes suck in everything, including light, does that make them Satanic?
@Democri…
Right on. Thank you for bringing up the TV angle, without which (Jim Jones, Jim Bakker, 700 Club, et al) much of this religious bipolar, Me vs. Them, God vs. Satan, black vs. white (NO GREY???) thinking would not have spread into the ripe minds of those unable or unwilling to use those minds.
Report Post »Uechi
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 8:43amIt is amazing how this filth has been embolden in the last two years. This is most assuredly thanks to Barry. How’s everybody like what is happening to this great land. There is a profound and deep attack on all aspects of religion in this country. The time for turning the other cheek and tolerance is over. You live you life amd I‘ll live mine but don’t tell me or anyone else what we have to do or how to think.
Report Post »SoupSandwich
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 8:40amCan’t they just mumble under nothing? Getting tired of the Godless minority bullies-can’t they all just congregate on the west side of the San Andreas fault and jump up and down out there?
Report Post »UBETHECHANGE
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 8:39amGet a life and some skin atheists!
Report Post »oldguy49
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 8:40ammove to china……they don’t have it there
Report Post »Jenny Lind
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 8:38amBullpucky, it suggests nothing. It states a fact, that the majority of Americans know where our rights come from. This concerted attack is coming and helped along by this administration, and while I know they are marxists, I still have petty strong suspicions about Obama’s religion, must gall him if I‘m right’ how we are standing up and pushing back, but this is just a little to organized, don’t you think?
Report Post »SoNick
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 9:11am@jennylind
Report Post »What are you implying with your “suspicions about Obama’s faith”? That if he was whatever you think he is (atheist or secret muslim, both ridiculous assumptions), it would somehow make uneligible for the presidency? Did you ever read that part of the constitution that talks about “no religious test”? Hint: it’s in article VI, paragraph 3: “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States”. Do you not like the Constitution?
Duey2000
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 10:27amSonick, while it wouldn’t make him ineligible, he wouldn’t have been elected if people thought that he was a muslim or an athiest.
Report Post »RayOne
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 8:38amThis family is free to seek it’s religious freedom, elsewhere.
Report Post »troymac20
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 9:27amAs is everyone in this country.
Report Post »Ron Staiger
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 8:36amThis has already been through the courts- a frivolous suit only worthy of the Ninth Circuit.
Report Post »gracie07
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 8:36amtell this family to suck it up! i am sick of those who can’t tolerate religion and they want to take God out of everything! c’mon. First off these parents know that their kids are not forced to say the pledge. then again, maybe they don’t even like the pledge!
Report Post »Mikie
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 8:42amGracie, you have spoken my mind. All I want to add is that if these people don’t like living in the United States then move to another country. We the majority are no longer going to allow these very few people to call the shots. Go somewhere else. PLEASE!!!
Report Post »imsteph
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 8:34am1John 4:4-6
“You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.”
**Get behind me satan!
Report Post »13th Imam
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 8:34amThe religion of ANTI-Religion should start with the Supreme Court and it’s building. If you are going to smash all religion , why start small.
Report Post »Mandors
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 9:19am@Democri…
Atheism is a religion for 1st Amendment purposes. Courts have ruled this several times. You should try to fix your own ignorance, before attempting to point it out in others.
Report Post »democritusoilder267
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 9:35amThe 1st Amendment means freedom of religion. I cannot help but find the irony in your comment. Yes, people have the right to believe whatever; but that still doesn’t make it a religion anymore then anarchy as a form of government.
Report Post »