[repost from November 15, 2004 @ 15:52]
When one says “There is no God” it is an antithetical premise to “There is a God”. This antithetical, while negative in statement, is not ‘nothing’; it is not merely an absence of belief. When we find those who both submit the antithetical statement and surround it with actions amounting to a “cause” we have many correlations to that central antithetical statement.
That is the long way of saying that atheism as practiced in a proactive, law changing manner is a system of belief. Simple non-belief does not have the power to be a cause. It would be a figurative shrug. And for those who spend lots of time writing articles, promoting legislation, and arguing their side of it…. atheism is a cause.
Therefore, I would answer Austin thus, on his reaction to my statement:
“I could say that religion is the altar of the faith of the heart, and I don’t think I would be far wrong.”
Austin:
I’m sure that such a definition expresses important things about what religion is for Ilona. She would indeed, however, be far wrong to think that this would suffice as a description of religion in general. It’s probably not a true statement about all religions that have ever existed and it’s probably not the core attribute of all those religions for which it is true. “
That’s right, Austin. You can say this, because you have not submitted a definition of religion, either. All religion of any type is somehow an expression of a person’s beliefs as they relate to the faith of their heart…. even in it’s negative sense. I do have my personal definitions of my convictions and these fit in the context of “theist”,”Christian”, but that doesn’t negate the more general set, “religion”. What I have said is sufficiently broad to be included in a dictionary definition of religion, which also recognizes the more restricted uses of the word.
Under definition #4, Atheism, as a number of its adherents practice it, does qualify. It has long been recognized that religious fervor is not only in relationship to a deity. The unifying factor is deeply held belief: religion, in whatever its form.
Before I get into the details, it is important to note that there is much ado made about atheism being -for sundry reasons (only one belief, not having the usual structure, having a negative rather than a positive assertion, etc.)- just some idiosyncratic personal conviction. But who on the American scene for the last twenty years, at least, buys that?
For many it is a cause, and one that has the devotion of a religion.
Onward, Sideways
Vash, for the atheist cause, submitted some statements in an email.
I’d also point out that atheists, in general, make an extremely unlikely “unified group”.
This is similar to Austin’s protest that atheism is only one statement. But the fact is that both things can be said of those we recognize as having a “religion”. The one binding all those who believe in God is “There is a God”, and even in the subsets there is such a diversification of interests and ideas that we might look at each and say they ‘make an extremely unlikely “unified group” ‘.
“You speak as if all theists have equal time to express what they want. Do you really believe this is true?”
and
But these excisions of religion from the face of society are fair to whom? -Ilona
“People who don’t believe in them…… I found it equally understandable that U.S. atheists don’t much fancy being made to participate in school prayer, or stigmatised if they withdraw.”
In the U.S. the guarantee is for freedom of speech and freedom of religion, not equal time, and not a guarantee that the exercise of those freedoms would hold no social price. And this where Austin also had his sticking point, as well.
When he says:
notice how Ilona claims that the deity mentioned in the national motto is not named: “the particular God is not named.” See the capitalization? This names the deity in question. It’s the deity of Christianity at a bare minimum, possibly inclusive of Judaism and Islam depending on how people wish to read it. It’s not a generic god precisely because of the capitalization.
Moreover, this phrase expresses a particular relationship between this god and the nation — a relationship that some believers will agree to but others won’t. This is important because it causes the state to take sides in theological disagreements. Since when did the state acquire the authority to do this? What’s next, taking sides with Protestants over Catholics? Oh, right, the state already does that by posting the Protestant version of the Ten Commandments rather than the Jewish or Catholic version. Almost forgot…
“But who treats mere theism as if it alone could qualify as a religion?” The atheists do, anytime they insist that mention of God be deleted from the public venue. So no more disingenuous statements from the athiest’s [sic] camp, please.
This relates to what I just wrote above: when someone talks about “God” rather than “god,” we aren’t dealing with mere theism anymore. The Pledge of Allegiance uses the phrase “under God,” which references are particular deity that has a particular relationship with the nation. It doesn’t use the phrase “under some sort of god or goddess, or then again maybe not,” which would probably be the most generic one could manage.
What is Austin protesting here? That there is a cultural understanding in our country that God =YHVH (the God of the Bible)? Because it is that statement that is ingrained in our cultural consciousness. The God of the Bible. Yes, I believe Austin is correct in pointing this out. But then he goes on to argue that we can’t have that historical reference anymore. Why? Because it does not include every religion and philosophy on the matter, equally. And the issue on “Oh, right, the state already does that by posting the Protestant version of the Ten Commandments rather than the Jewish or Catholic version.” is a non-issue. When one says “version” the discrepancy is in how it is translated and not in source. All “versions” of the Ten Commandments derive from one source. Non-issue.
It serves a wide base in the population, and I might add, in the atheist who subscribes to the morality of them. Because barring the initial God-honoring admonitions…. don’t most atheists agree to the ones that concern the affairs of men? Don’t steal, don’t murder, etc?
But the atheists just don’t like that big G here in America…so they serve up lots of proposed legislation to excise it off the face of everything “official”. Public.
And Austin has lots of chutzpah to say “Second, to impose atheism in any way via the government would require having the government at the very least recommend atheism as the preferable option – this would parallel to the government recommending theism as the preferable option. ”
Well, Austin, it adds up to one or the other, doesn’t it? You might want to say that governmental interference for every statement from every official… which in today’s climate does not have a private avenue… is obstructed when deemed “religious” and defacement of historical references for the sake of the atheist feeling is not imposing atheism. But it will become that. Because that is the only thing allowed. Lowest common denominator? Or tyranny of a minority voice?
Looking At Austin’s Particulars
most of the church/state separation cases that have defined the relationship between religion and government have been brought by theists, not atheists, or theists in conjunction with atheists. It’s a lie spread by the Christian Right that atheists are responsible for everything that is going on.
This might be true, as it stands. I am on the side of Church/State separation as it is articulated by the founding fathers of the nation. In no way do I want any religion, even my religion, having power to force people to worship exactly as I do, or anyone else.
That said, I do not believe this covers the censorship of religious expression. I do not believe this outlaws Bible clubs on school premises, or opening government sessions with prayer, or officials expressing their personal tenets of faith. It is the freedom to participate or abstain that I advocate, and that our founding documents of government advocate.
Not all the legislation can be lumped together as being supported by both theists and atheists. I might propose that if such ideas of separation are carried out too successfully to the point where what government actually upholds is the absence of religion, then the way is paved for government holding all the power in the matter, and its demands trumping all others. And anyone one believes that government is simply an objective non-partisan force is naive, or purposely ignorant.
Placing rights of expression -especially religious expression- on the original platform gives balance to the demand of the prevailing government. The voice of ones conscience is preserved.
This is where the atheist and the theist will necessarily divide, though they band together in preservation of separation. Separation will never equal excision for the theist.
And “lies” spread by the horrid “Christian Right”? Well, Austin has an article on the ‘Christian Right’ that I have not yet read or addressed. All things in due time…. but it sure sounds like buzz-word propaganda to me.
The government is not allowed to recommend disbelief in any gods just like it isn’t allowed to recommend belief…….It is utterly absurd to suggest that if the government fails to endorse theism then it is endorsing atheism – that’s like saying that if the government fails to endorse energy conservation then it therefore endorses energy waste. or if it fails to endorse Windows then it must be endorsing Linux.”
Is it? If you have to use one or the other for your purposes, then it is de facto endorsement. I do believe the operating word would be “particular” as to the endorsement. You want government policy to articulate the direction. So if we don’t articulate “energy conservation” then what do we get? If the decision for government computers is not for Windows… it will have to be some operating system of some sort. Or it doesn’t work.
So some things are unspoken, but replacements replace with something. Although I have to say the analogy was weak. You are allowed to choose one or the other of the choices in government under legislation. It is not the same as choosing a particular religion to have expressions relating to the general idea of a God. It does not impose the need to believe, or say one believes, on the atheist. Just the need to be tolerant of the expression.
I have one question here. In the desire to refuse such expression in official documents or offices, does this mean one should go to the Declaration of Independence and excise all the offending remarks about God (Big G God)?
Just asking.
…and how about the Gettysburg address? Reminting coins? Or is this just about shutting down the voice of those who hold religious views? Maybe because mere belittling just isn’t working well enough?
has anyone noticed how many religious conservatives advocate the privatization of public services (hospitals, social services, etc.) but then turn around and get upset when it is suggested that religion remain private and not become public (in the sense of becoming a function of the government)? I’m not saying that this is true of Ilona — I honestly have no idea. It’s simply that it just occurred to me that there are religious conservatives who seem to want to privatize a big chunk of what the government does yet advocate the reverse process for their religion. Curious, isn’t it?
I’d like to explain this for those, who like Austin, have problems with this. This word “private” and privatization may come from the same root word, but they refer to two different things. One means private ownership and the other means keeping something to oneself as in “quiet”. All of us know there is a difference in connotation, I hope. Privatization is for the purpose of something working more efficiently for the particular set of problems. Not so curious, that.
The mere fact that someone abandons religion and adopts some other belief system in its place does not, therefore, mean that they have a religion. That’s nonsense. The mere fact that someone with a non-religious belief system seeks to convince others that this is better than religious belief systems does not, therefore, mean that their belief system must be religious
If one goes back to the definition of ‘religious” or “religion” , it does mean that those who actively advocate a non-religious belief system is religious. Especially if it can successfully block access to other sources of belief system.
Mere theism has no sound base for why we should treat our citizens as having a basic set of rights
I beg to differ. It is the articulation of the authority for man to claim basic rights. That is what is inferred in the word “Creator” in the Declaration of Independence, that some source greater than man himself articulates the rights of all men, which government can then not abrogate.
This is basic theism…. that there is a god/God/gods one is answerable to, above the demands of fellow men.
That this is the Big G God named as “Creator” in our system – well that is just lucky for you, O dissenting American. Nobody said you had to recognize Him, just that you had to recognize the basic rights given to each man by virtue of his existence. We can’t enforce that in other countries with their separate sovereignty, but we can recognize it in ours.
Our government made a choice, an endorsement, if you will.
What is the final point of this…. that I am trying to make a philosophical case of logically induced arguments for categorizing atheism as religion, officially? Obviously, I am not. what I have said is that atheism is acting as a religion in certain contexts, especially when organizing for official controls on religious expression and venues.
An interesting quote:
The fact is that theism was part and parcel of the foundational premises within our present form of government.-Ilona
So was the morality of slavery, but that’s no reason to assume that slavery still has a place in our government. In fact, slavery was important enough to include explicitly in the Constitution. Theism wasn’t.
I find it odd that an atheist would recite this example. I would say it was the very wording of the Declaration of Independence that made slavery impossible to sustain. When applying the theistically-based “WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” to the laws of the land, the concept of slavery would necessarily crumble. Although it needs to be said that it was the British, as lead by religiously motivated and articulating individuals, who made the initial progress in banning slavery.
A nations prevailing beliefs will give rise to their eventual laws and government.
Often, religious disputes give rise to establishment of mens rights, or restrictions. The African-American lead in civil rights for people of color has been rooted in their expression of faith, and sent forth from their church base.
Slavery, of all things, has been decimated by Christian belief that freedom of man is good for all men. After all, it wasn’t under a Greek system that slavery was outlawed. It was under one where the case was argued in the churches and taken into the government.
It is just another reason to not to gag the religious voice in the affairs of the nation. Separation, yes, excision, no.
======
Further reading:
Looking over the Religious Freedom Restoration Act
The ‘Absolutist’ view of the First Amendment
Ann Coulter article on free speech -related in the sense of discussing First Amendment Rights.
I’m going to respond in a comment because my readers would be bored with a post — all of this is ground covered to great extent on multiple pages across my site.
1. You aren’t defining atheism accurately. Read more here:
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/ath/blathd_index.htm
2. As a matter of fact, I have written quite extensively on the nature and definition of religion — more than you will find on most religion sites. You can read more here:
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/religion/blrel_def.htm
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/religion/blrel_beliefs.htm
3. Before insisting on using “a cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion” to try and claim that atheism is a “religion” like Catholicism or Islam, you should read here:
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/religion/blrel_bel_religious.htm
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/125409.htm (particularly at the end, with Sofyst).
4. The fact that many Americans believe that “God=YHVH” isn’t the issue because many don’t and even those who do believe different things about their god. The government doesn’t have the authority to take sides among these various groups and declare that certain statements, ideas, or beliefs about this or that god are true, privileged, or favored. The motto isn’t a historical reference — that’s a disingenuous argument used by lawyers of people who themselves don’t buy it. It’s not historians fighting to protect such phrases, it’s religious believers for whom the phrases are current and real. People don’t fight for it because it’s a historical artifact, they fight for it because they think it expresses something true — but it’s a religious expression that the government can’t endorse.
5. No, not all “versions” of the Ten Commandments derive from the same source — they appear three times in three different ways in the Bible. Moreover, the Protestant version separates them differently from the Catholic and Jewish versions. To pick the Protestant version is to privilege the Protestant understanding of the commandments over all others. The government doesn’t have the authority to do this.
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/cs/blcs_ten_orig.htm
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/cs/blcs_ten_cathprot.htm
6. Government officials don’t have full freedom of expression when they are exercising their official duties. When acting in their capacity as officers of the state, they represent the government not simply themselves. Thus, their statements can and should be restricted to those things that the government is permitted to advocate or encourage.
7. The Declaration of Independence isn’t an official document with any force of law in the current government. As such, what it says can’t be considered a violation of anything in the Constitution.
8. You distinction between “privatize” and “private” is incorrect, but you have the right idea. The word “private” means both “keep to oneself” and “private ownership.” Saying that religion is private means that it belongs in the private sector, not in the public (government) sector. It doesn’t mean that you have to hide it — any more than Nike or Pepsi have to hide.
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/cs/blcs_square.htm
9. Mere theism articulates nothing other than “at least one god of some sort exits.” Period. When you add in things about rights or morals, it’s no longer mere theism – it starts to become a belief system that incorporates theism. Pay attention to the adjective mere — it was used for a reason.
http://atheism.about.com/od/whatistheism/
Glad to hear from you, Austin.
If my memory serves me right, the atheist audience is never bored with religion subjects…. only if they feel they can’t give you a good trouncing;) but I bow to your feeling on the matter.
1) I am not really defining atheism, I am describing how it operates in our society.
2) thanks for the references- it will give me a lead on where you go with some of this, personally.
3) ditto.
4) “The motto isn’t a historical reference — that’s a disingenuous argument used by lawyers of people who themselves don’t buy it”
Well, actually it is…but you are saying that is not all it is. Fair enough. However, I do not agree with you on this:”but it’s a religious expression that the government can’t endorse.”
5). “No, not all “versions” of the Ten Commandments derive from the same source”
Yes, they do. It is a non-issue that you keep driving upon because it seems you don’t understand the subject well enough. My argument stands.
6) I do believe that Officials still have rights to express their personal views. I think this is a matter of how one interprets the law, upon which you seem to believe you are correct . It would take specific instance to discuss properly.
The official government documents I cited contain theistic expressions.
7) Oh please. What was the Constitution based upon? The Declaration of Independence. It is simply the fleshing out of government stipulations and the Bill of rights, being of the Constitution, contains the language that covers right to religion -not right from religion. Religious expression was given guarantee.
8) Your distinction does not stand. The government has plenty to say about the private sector, officially. The Name of God isn’t covered under your restriction. You seem to be making another false analogy and a point so obscure I am not sure how you think to apply it.. We do not have purely drawn line between private and public sector. That is why we have segments of socialism in our system. And why you have problems with ‘privatization’ of ‘governmental’ activities.
9) Oh I am very sure you meant that “mere” adj. for a reason. Just not the one it seems.
I don’t think you keep religion in its dictionary definition box, but use it to extrapolate its consequence in its application.
I do the same.
Hi Ilona,
Not used to being a spokesman for the “atheist cause”, LOL. Austin can certainly fight his own battles, but I’d like to make a couple of clarifications of my point.
You said: “This is similar to Austin’s protest that atheism is only one statement. But the fact is that both things can be said of those we recognize as having a “religion”. The one binding all those who believe in God is “There is a God”, and even in the subsets there is such a diversification of interests and ideas that we might look at each and say they ‘make an extremely unlikely “unified group” ‘.”
Yes, and I would say here that this is why theism is not a religion 😉 Theists are making one statement, from which no other conclusions can be drawn, and not all theists accept your points about Church and State either (again, you’re not a unified group in that sense.) There are atheistic religions – some forms of Buddhism and Satanism spring to mind – even though most religions are theistic…(in fact, I got in trouble over this when writing my dissertation back in the day).
You said: “It serves a wide base in the population, and I might add, in the atheist who subscribes to the morality of them. Because barring the initial God-honoring admonitions…. don’t most atheists agree to the ones that concern the affairs of men? Don’t steal, don’t murder, etc?”
This is dodgy, Ilona. The “initial God-honouring admonitions” are not to be barred. (If they were, you would have the same complaint about atheists trying to remove mentions of God!) The morality or lack of morality is not really the issue. Imagine seeing the commandments prefaced by initial God-denying admonitions.
1. There is no God.
2. You are not to use God to justify your own bad behaviour or that of others.
3. You who believe in God are misguided at best and dishonest at worst, and should correct your thinking.
Would you really be comfortable with the rest of the commandments on the ground that “well, they’re only what any good Christian should believe in, if you ignore the first bit”?
As you know, we don’t have separation of church and state in Scotland, and we had mandatory religious assembly (I had a rant about this on my old blog.) I remember one day after a lecture on “false Gods” a Muslim classmate being very upset, as you would be if you had just heard nearly the entire school say “Amen” to a prayer that you be freed from your twisted beliefs and shown the light of the True God before you end up in hell. There, a theist cunningly managed to offend another theist with no atheist influence at all (sure, I was there, but it wasn’t my idea ;)) This is why I would generally place religious assembly in my list of Bad Ideas.
Incidentally, and on a completely unrelated topic, I have an article I was shown on the Net I’d like your opinion on. I expect you are busy this time of year, but if you have time…I’ll email the link to you.
I’d love to get a hold of Austin in a forum environment >:) -but while he can hold his own, he has opted out for the time being.
====
“”they ‘make an extremely unlikely “unified group” ‘.”
Yes, and I would say here that this is why theism is not a religion ;)”
Well, yeh, but the same is said of Christians, not just ‘theists’.
====
“This is dodgy”
OK. But I think both you and Austin are having trouble with the fact that in these competing and conflicting beliefs it is not homogenization that is called for, but tolerance. Good is good, so whatever part of the commandments, it is recognizably a standard for law and justice in society.
====
“we don’t have separation of church and state in Scotland”
Actually the whole Islam vs. Christianity ( and everyone else) issue is starting to heat up in Europe. You will soon find that while Christian influenced systems might allow more outspoken faith than you’d like, it remains that they are tolerant.
Perhaps a blank slate on religion is not really a blank slate ( which is what I submit)- perhaps Christian forms of freedom and tolerance hold the doors most open for all voices, including atheism.
====
I have been holiday-busy, but that subsides for about a week here- should be plenty fo time to blog
🙂 and if I didn’t answer your email sufficiently, would be glad to continue.
I should add that it is the Reformed Christian influenced systems that are tolerant. The ones rooted in Rome have more problems with that. And it should be noted that we are talking in terms of relativity . All systems are guilty of times of oppressiveness.
Ye olde inhumanity of man vs. man.
Surely you *can* get hold of Austin in a forum environment – is A&A no longer running? Gird your loins and head over there if it is 😉 Or set up your own forum?
“Well, yeh, but the same is said of Christians, not just ‘theists’.”
Allow me to make a slight reproach. If you mean theists, say theists. If you mean Christians, use the term. The unity of atheists vs the unity of theists is quite a different proposition from the unity of atheists vs the unity of Christians…and you’ve got me all confused.
“OK. But I think both you and Austin are having trouble with the fact that in these competing and conflicting beliefs it is not homogenization that is called for, but tolerance. Good is good, so whatever part of the commandments, it is recognizably a standard for law and justice in society.”
You haven’t answered the question, however, which was the necessity (or otherwise) of the God-referencing parts of the Ten Commandments and your feelings on my faked-up “atheist” version 😉 “Recognisably a standard for law and justice in society” doesn’t mean very much. Something may be “recognisably a standard” but you may disagree with every part of it.
The posting of the Ten Commandments etc is a place where my opinion is influenced by my political beliefs, so I’m not sure how far to go with that and I don’t want to bring irrelevance into the conversation. And it’s not much to do with the “atheist cause” 😉
“Actually the whole Islam vs. Christianity ( and everyone else) issue is starting to heat up in Europe. You will soon find that while Christian influenced systems might allow more outspoken faith than you’d like, it remains that they are tolerant. ”
You know where you are with outspoken faith. It’s unspoken assumptions that are scary, and it was those assumptions which caused nearly all the messy situations I’ve seen in the church and state thing.
“if I didn’t answer your email sufficiently, would be glad to continue.”
Actually I miss talking to you in a forum environment. My access to email is rather patchy too (going through a good patch at the moment) but I wasn’t trying to imply you weren’t answering the questions. 😉
theist is answerable to atheist, and my point on the unity question was that whether we speak of theists as a group or of Christians or atheists the same point may be made and was thus useless to actually point out anything. That was my meaning.
Do I believe the God-refererencing parts should be kept in? Yes. That is the source that was used for the basis of Western law. We did not use Hammurabi’s code -although there are undeniable shared agreements . The Ten Commandments have a real relationship to our present day law.
I came across something interesting- check out the blog “What Attitude Problem” to read about a challenge to the Declaration of Independence.
“It’s unspoken assumptions that are scary” Turn that around and think about it. Do we accuse and contain subjects based upon the “unspoken assumptions”? No. Too vague. You can be as scared as you want to be, but to contain and restrict based upon that is what is scary.
We talk about such things in public forums.
If you go back to the forums give me a heads up- I might participate just for you 😉 I have been in Atheist forums- they are all bad language and bad manners usually- I prefer mixed company. I could strap on the old FireForNow Armor and wade in-but haven’t done that for quite awhile.
Actually, I have been back to the forums, but I’m not feelin’ it, and haven’t found anywhere exciting enough to extend an invitation to (anywhere you’re not already banned that is, ha.) If only I wasn’t so bloody tongue-tied IRL I would perhaps get out of the habit of bashing my head off online walls. Nah, it’ll never happen….
A&A is not the stereotypical atheist “bashing-fest”, or wasn’t last time I was there, mind. You may well get a few good arguments.
“theist is answerable to atheist, and my point on the unity question was that whether we speak of theists as a group or of Christians or atheists the same point may be made and was thus useless to actually point out anything. That was my meaning.”
Taken to its conclusion, that surely means it is useless to talk about any grouping unless all the members of the group explicitly state that they identify with all the positions of other members of the group? 😉
The problem is that we have to subdefine to get any real meaning past obvious things (I think we can take it as read that no atheist believes in deities and that Christians do not worship Satan.) Thus bogeyman figures of “atheists” trying to destroy religion are not particularly useful.
“Do I believe the God-refererencing parts should be kept in? Yes. That is the source that was used for the basis of Western law. We did not use Hammurabi’s code -although there are undeniable shared agreements . The Ten Commandments have a real relationship to our present day law.”
Are you not arguing against yourself, then?
The “arguing against yourself” comes in because you appear to be trying to hold two positions – one, that the God-parts of the Ten are really pretty irrelevant, and atheists should tolerate them as an optional add-on which doesn’t have to mean anything to them (this is when seen on public buildings, not in any other context), two, that the God-parts are vital and no substitute to them can be accepted. The God-parts are not part of modern-day law, whatever they may have been at the founding of the US and throughout history, so they can only be there for historical value. Then we have to decide whether the historical value of posting the Ten outweighs the divisive value in a nation with a plurality of faiths (and none).
“”It’s unspoken assumptions that are scary” Turn that around and think about it. Do we accuse and contain subjects based upon the “unspoken assumptions”? No. Too vague. You can be as scared as you want to be, but to contain and restrict based upon that is what is scary.”
Unspoken assumptions can be as simple as “Everyone in this room is Christian”, and depending on what’s going on in that room, it can be a scary assumption indeed 😉
Did I really spell “refererencing”? Sure did-will have to edit that.
“Taken to its conclusion, that surely means it is useless to talk about any grouping ” Not highly useful, no. There are certain corollaries to grouping, and those are the ones to apply. Atheists are not all one group, but those who are activist in the USA are behaving as a group politically. They have certain commonalities.
Just like “Christian Right” is only so useful as an appelation. I think iit has largely lost its usefulness as a real label.
“The “arguing against yourself” comes in because you appear to be trying to hold two positions”.
Not really, but there is the duality of position that religious people who hold to Church/State separation will have to hold. They personally highly value the whole of their religion, but they recognize that they cannot impose that whole. To recognize the value of the standing moral position of our present form and freedom order of government is something else.
The moral position of the law has to be defined and upheld. It is not one of no religion, but one of freedom to practice religion or abstain.
The “God parts” are what give moral force to the freedoms for every man. Atheists do not have this, they must somehow borrow such moral force for the tolerant and compassionate stance that we now value. The “God -parts” are inherent in the origination of our present system. “Divisive values” in this context are relative values that undermine the stability of the system if one is forced to conform to every voice- which adds up to one negative space. That is my argument, that only atheism will be left, as long as the ruse continues that it represents ‘no one’ the best.
Additionally-
It doesn’t have the strength to define a free system. It works only when it is protesting against a theist ‘something’. When that is gone, there has to be an elitist substitution.
Now that is what I find scary- not assumptions.