Did something happen to the "atheism" thread?

Since this thread is kinda about atheism, and since we've been discussing the First Amendment, and since I'm kinda bored, let me bring up a related point.

The First Amendment has more than one "clause," including (1) a "free speech" clause and a (2) "no state religion" clause. Sometimes the two are seen as conflicting. (Further conflict can enter via the "free exercise of religion" clause, but I'm just going to ignore that for now--to me it's just a sub-category of free speech).

Hence atheists are constantly filing lawsuits alleging that some person or institution which is somehow related to government (perhaps by receiving financial assistance from the government) is violating the "establishment" clause (the "no state relgion" aspect). A prayer on schools grounds, a Christmas decoration, and such, are claimed to be prohibited because they allegedly attempt to "establish a state religion."

One criticism that Michael Ruse, the atheistic philosopher of science who I quoted in the last thread, had against Richard Dawkins, et al, was that his view could be seen as an attempt to establish "atheism" as the state's religion.

His reasoning is along these lines, as I read him: Dawkins claims that religion and science are mutually exclusive. You cannot accept both, per Dawkins (as Ruse reads him). Dawkins also claims, basically, that "science" proves theistic beliefs to be wrong. Yet Dawkins, et al, insist that science be taught in schools.

But if science teaches that all other theistic beliefs are wrong, then, in effect, a state religion is being established by such a policy.

In this regard, Ruse makes as much sense to me as do some of the atheist claims about how "non-atheistic" beliefs being displayed in schools is tantamount to establishing a "state religion."

I think most of the organized Atheist groups just want to keep church and state separate. I think most of their fight is limiting and or eliminating the influence of religion on US government policies.

Sure, Arg, and that's fair enough--and, whether "fair" or not, it is basically a constitutional requirement. But it's not always easy to decide what's what. There is ALSO a constitutional right to the "free exercise of religion." I don't follow politics much, but I think that conflict arose in a recently decided case involving the issue of an employer's obligation to provide medical insurance which paid for abortions.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is also the first section of the Bill of Rights. It is arguably the most important part of the U.S. Constitution, as it guarantees freedoms of religion, speech, writing and publishing, peaceful assembly, and the freedom to raise grievances with the Government. In addition, it requires that a wall of separation be maintained between church and state. It reads:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

You don't give your source. There is nothing in the constitution about a "wall of separation"

To me they seem to throw the issue back to the states so country wise there seems to be less uniformity in our laws

Find a phone and call someone who give's a rat's ass with what you will or won't agree with.

Find a phone and call someone who give's a rat's ass with what you will or won't agree with.