You’re right, Mike, and I apologize to FrugalBabe. I did kind of get carried away here.

When you say that public policy should not be driven by religious ideas, what do you mean? That only atheists should be allowed to vote? Since most religiouns have elaborate ethical systems, any religious person’s political views are going to be informed by their religious beliefs. How could it be otherwise? Even most atheists today owe their ethical systems mostly to our indoctrination in Judeo-Christian ethics.

Most of our laws were originally driven by religious views – the abolitionists and civil rights movement are good examples. Are you saying they should have shut up and stayed home because their political views were shaped by their religious ideals? The whole notion of human rights advanced by the Declaration of Independence was based on a view of humans as creatures of God with rights inalienable by government.

Some thoughts on the specific cases you mentioned:

Stem cell research – In a democracy, we elect people to decide how to spend and how not to spend our tax $. If politicians get elected who oppose spending tax $ on embryonic stem cell reseach, even if the reason for their objection is religious, I’m not sure how that is an abuse of anyone’s religious freedom, as long as they don’t ban the research itself. There are huge pools of money in the private sector and in individual states that will ensure that reseach gets done. Not everything has to be done with federal dollars, and we’d have a lot less social and political conflict (and probably lower taxes, too), if government spent tax $ only on things that had wide approval among the citizenry and couldn’t be funded any other way.

Integrating ID into schools: As I said in an earlier comment, the only way I would want it integrated into the science curriculum would be to show how it is NOT science, and since that’s unlikely, I agree it should be kept out. I will point out, however, that there are a great many things taught in public school as “fact” that cannot be proven scientifically, that are espoused by their proponents basically on faith, and that are taught without adequate exposure to contrary views. They should be kept out too, but I’m not holding my breath.

Basic rights of gay Americans. OK, I’ll take a chance that you’ll actually read this and try to understand what I’m saying, not just jump to a conclusion.

I’m assuming by this phrase you mean government-recognized same-sex marriage, since the other kind is already permitted.

It is not clear to me that the right to have government recognition of our marriage to whomever we wish really IS a basic right. Yes, I’m familiar with the Loving v. Virginia case, but I think the ban on interracial marriage overturned in that case involves a different sort of principle.

The fact is that there there are plenty of people we can’t marry, and still wouldn’t be able to marry even if gay marriage were allowed.

As a woman, it is true that right now I can’t marry another woman. I also can’t marry ANY man, if I already happen to be married to one, unless I divorce the current one. I cannot marry a man, if he already happens to be married to someone else unless he first divorces his spouse.

Why am I not allowed government sanction of simultaneous marriages to multiple spouses? Tradition. There is no rational reason other than that. Are my basic rights being violated? Being something of a libertarian, I think maybe so, but then again, in a democracy, the government recognition of marriage is probably going to reflect the views of the citizenry about what kinds of marriages are best for society, and that’s going to mostly be traditional.

I also can’t marry my brother (if I had one), my son, my father, my uncle, and various other relatives, and if gay marriage were allowed, I still wouldn’t be able to marry the equivalent female relatives. Why not? Tradition. (Yes, there are some public health issues involved, too, but we don’t impose other genetic bars, so why that one?) Does that violate my basic rights?

I think gay people should be granted the privilege to marry by law, but unless it is a basic right to marry ANYONE we want and as many of them as we want, and have all our marriages recognized by the government, then I don’t see how it can be a basic right of gay people to have their marriages recognized by the government until a majority of the voting public thinks it is a good idea.

(I DO think it is everybody’s right to marry whomever they want, just not to have that marriage recognized by the government.)

Jay, I’m not a constitutional lawyer and, from your comment, I’m pretty sure you aren’t one either. Here’s why:

A government’s “show of support” is not necessarily the same thing as an “establishment” of religion, which is what the First Amendment proscribes. And whether any particular “show of support” is an illegal establishment of religion is, with all due respect, not for you to say, or me. Under the Constitution, that is the exclusive province of the U.S. Supreme Court.

I am certainly free to say what I think it OUGHT to be, and as I said, when it comes to displays, neutrality AMONG religions seems more important constitutionally to me than whether secular persons are offended by merely being reminded that there are religions.

If I’m ever nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court, I’ll come back here and post it, so you can let your Senator know to oppose me.

I hardly think the Middle East is an example of tolerance for religious diversity, which is what I advocate. I have religious friends whom I’ve persuaded to be more tolerant of atheists (not really a very hard task these days, actually); it’s only fair I return the favor by advocating more tolerance toward them.

AnnJo – I thought you said you were a lawyer? I expect more of your knowledge of the Constitution than that. Even if nobody ever got “offended” by our government show of support for one, some, or all religions, it’s not legal.

I’m thankful there are people in this country that stand up for the constitution – it’s too bad they have to do that. Take a look at the middle east to see what would happen if they all took your advice to “lighten up.”

Maybe religious people could “lighten up” and quit trying to push their religion on others via the government. They have beautiful churches with nice waterfalls out front, they have nice displays out in front of their house at Christmas, they come knocking on my door from time to time, they send me stuff in the mail, they somehow have access to the internet to make websites, they have universities with good football teams, they have their own TV stations…

You know what, now that I think of it, you’re right – I guess I could spare some tax $$ to help them spread their message.

I agree completely with what Jay says.

Personally, though, I think that teaching about intelligent design (f it were politically feasible) would be one of the best ways of demonstrating the special attributes of science. I hasten to add that it is not because I believe in I.D. – it is indeed an untestable hypothesis. But for that reason it is a wonderful teaching tool to show what science can and can’t do. Science, being the realm of natural laws, cannot either prove or disprove the existence of supernatural beings, who definitionally are outside the realm of nature and not subject to its laws. But the efforts of intelligent design advocates offer many examples of the confusion between the scientifically unknown (those questions which science has not yet answered but conceivably could) and the scientifically unknowable (the realm of the supernatural).

I’m comfortable with the idea that the burden of proof is on the proponent of the existence of God, and that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, which is lacking. The fact that this effectively renders many important questions either unanswerable or potentially depressing(such as, What is the meaning of life?) doesn’t particularly bother me simply as matter of temperament. Therefore I’m an atheist.

But it doesn’t trouble me that many people find the lack of answers to such questions uncomfortable and allocate the burden of proof differently or choose a different standard of proof.

Not everyone has the time, inclination, intellectual training and talent to explore deeply such issues, and taking a default position that “I’ll believe what most people have traditionally believed” is a perfectly logical position to take if you’re short on those things and temperamentally unsuited to existential angst.

Also, some very brilliant people, like C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton and Thomas Aquinas, have been very good advocates for the existence of God, and although they did not persuade me, I respect the intellectual power of those arguments.

I do feel that atheists can afford to be much more tolerant than many are today, and disagree with the positions of the ACLU and AUSCS.

Unlike religious people, we do not believe our immortal souls are at risk for a wrong decision on religious matters. That’s why I can’t get behind the efforts to strip the public square of all references to God, just because it might be intellectually disagreeable to me.

As long as those references are generic enough to offend only atheists (or agnostics), my position is, so what?

Freedom from being offended by other people’s foolishness is not a constitutionally protected right. Truth be told, I’m much more offended by the vast economic ignorance taught in our public schools, and even by the chronic public misuse of apostrophes or the oxymoron “free gift,” than I am with “under God” in the Pledge, and as far as I’m concerned, I have an equal right to be protected from all those things, namely, none.

The only people who should have standing to challenge a religious display under the First Amendment are those who can show that, theologically, the display forces them either to give up civil rights (like voting or common use of public property, for example) or violate the commandments of their faith, putting their souls at risk. No atheist or agnostic can ever make that claim since we have no theology. So, fellow atheists, lighten up! We can afford to humor believers, and we should.

Oh no, the “just a theory” thing drives me nuts! Like fb said, a “theory” in scientific terms is different than what lay people use the word for, which actually translates to “hypothesis.”

So, yes, scientifically speaking – evolution is a “theory” (which has evidence that can be studied using the scientific method) and Intelligent Design is an “untestable hypothesis” (which cannot be studied using the scientific method and cannot be taught as science).

I certainly understand what you mean about wanting scientific proof before believing things. I feel similarly about evolution being taught in schools – it’s only a theory, but is taught as fact.

Cheers, Wilma